Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive207

Wow! There's a template for everything! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to a thread at User:Grundle2600's talk page (User talk:Grundle2600#Would someone who isn't topic banned please add these things to the Holocaust article? / permlink), I would like to solicit opinions as to whether such threads are appropriate (see also a previous thread, "I found a mistake about a living political person. Would someone who isn't topic banned please fix it?").

While they don't appear to violate the letter of the topic ban (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600: continued problems and User:Grundle2600/Community sanction) they surely seem to violate the spirit. However, I am not a regular in terms of handing down or enforcing community sanctions, so additional input would be appreciated. –xeno^talk 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Therefore, I am allowed to make suggestions, and other editors are allowed to adopt those suggestions, as long as they have their own reasons for doing so. Grundle2600 (talk

) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, in that the wording of

assume good faith guideline. So the banned user suggests an edit, someone does so and is challenged on it, the burden of proof will be on that 2nd editor to prove that they acted in good faith; there would be no assumption first. IMO Grundle, you're going to put other editors into jeopardy by acting on your suggestions, esp if they are not exactly in good standing (cough) to begin with. Advice? Stick to the areas outside of your topic ban, 100%. Tarc (talk

) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I agree with you, because I do not want to put other editors in jeopardy. Thanks for commenting. I will stop making such suggestions on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be "unresolved". Grundle should be able to propose things on his talk page. That's an ideal place for discussion. It doesn't interfere with article work in any way and no one is compelled to read or respond to his suggestions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging unresolved per your request to gather more opinions. –xeno^talk 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose we create a separate talk page to discuss whether or not this issue has been resolved. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who "proxied" an edit for Grundle, I think it depends is an important answer to the initial question. For example, Grundle posted a source which he claimed refuted something in an article, and wanted the article changed. Actually, the source he provided supported what was in the article, so I was able to use his source to provide additional support for the statement he wanted taken out. If Grundle is providing sources which other editors can read and judge critically and decide one way or another, independent of Grundle's wishes, how to incorporate that information that should be fine. If Grundle simply posts his desired changes to his talk pages, and other editors are simply enacting his wishes uncritically, that is a very different thing. Its all about the notion that Grundle's proposed changes should be filtered through more trusted editors. As long as that filtering goes on, I see no reason to disallow changes based on Grundle's suggestions. If there is evidence that edits are being made without such filtering, and are happening automatically without any critical analysis of Grundle's proposals, then that would be a problem. --Jayron32 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, I think that's an excellent example of why this shouldn't be that much of a concern. He's just tossing those things out and it's up to other editors to take it or leave it, and do whatever they want with it. Pardon the crude metaphor, but if people are able to use manure to grow a garden then what's the harm? -- Atama頭 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He can post ideas all day long and no one is compelled to act on them. And he might come up with something useful and neutral, i.e. worthy of inclusion. "Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a topic ban is to separate a user from an area where they are causing problems. This has two main purposes as far as I can tell: to bring calm to the articles, and to help the user to drop an obsessive interest on a given topic. Allowing the user to make suggestions on their talk page violates both parts of this. It obviously doesn't help the user to move on, and it also brings the user and their (usually) problematic content agenda right back to the articles from which they were topic banned, with a fair likelihood that the locus of disputwe will simply be moved to the user's talk page instead. Allowing people to walk round topic bans by making comments on their talk page seems to me to break the spirit of the topic ban pretty comprehensively. Inability to let go and move on is also not a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone does want to start a discussion at

11:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So long as the suggestions remain constructive, I fail to see how the project is damaged. Anyone choosing to act on a suggestion bears the burden of those edits. Grundle is being transparent and, it seems to me, acting within his topic ban. It seems to me if anyone is unhappy with the particular POV that Grundle posts on his user page, then perhaps they should just ignore it. Ronnotel (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. This is an open invitation to people to evade a topic ban, solicit editors to proxy on their behalf, solicit only those editors who are sympathetic to their POV, and in sundry other ways is antithetical to the idea of banning. If someone is topic banned it's because we don't want them getting involved in that topic. It only happens when there have been significant problems. Do we really want to actively encourage people to grandstand on their talk pages in the hope that someone will come along and take up the cudgels on their behalf? I think it's a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The archived VPP proposal was designed exactly to avoid solicitation, and instead to get neutral editors to review suggestions. The motivation for bothering is partly that topic/banned editors can easily email sympathetic editors - and if there's no onwiki outlet for their thoughts, that's more likely to happen. Which is bad for transparency, amongst other things. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the "give clean needles to addicts cause they're just gonna shoot up anyways" approach, which I do not particularly agree with. As noted above, topic bans are handed down because a editor has demonstrated to the community a complete inability to function within that area. Being involved in a topic means a great deal more than simply hitting "submit" on an article, so topic bans should remove someone from the arena completely; no grandstands, no sidelines...not even the nosebleed seats. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how appropriate that metaphor is, but funnily enough, I do agree with Harm reduction. Rd232 ^talk 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, this is why there is a distinction between 'page' and 'topic' bans, and why both have been used to deal with disruptive editing. As the names imply, the former applies to specific pages (or groups of pages), while the latter applies to specific topics. If the community finds that an individual's editing at a particular page is harmful, the damage may be contained by a page ban. (Perhaps an editor frequently files frivolous or vexatious 3RR reports; a page ban from WP:AN/3RR may be in order.) On the other hand, if the community feels that the approach of an editor to a particular topic area is problematic then it may issue a suitable topic ban. We have both tools in our toolbox, to be applied to different situations as deemed necessary.

Encouraging an editor to evade his topic ban through userspace posts and the like often doesn't solve the problem. (It may defuse the 'lone wacko' problem by moving ranting away from useful talk pages, but that isn't generally the trouble where a topic ban placed.) Typically, the topic banned editor is surrounded by a constellation of (typically fringe or minority) supporters, plus a coterie of self-appointed Defenders of the Downtrodden (who are usually much worse wikilawyers than they realize, and who often very effectively entrench the community's support for a ban). Instead of the directly disruptive editing taking place on the article or it's talk page, the disruption becomes a travelling circus that spreads across an assortment of user talk pages and administrative noticeboards. The topic-banned editor figures he has little more to lose, and his entourage is filled with stubborn, self-righteous indignance. It's not a good thing.

A topic ban is a topic ban. If we meant page ban, we would have said page ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am keeping my promise to no longer make such recommendations on my talk page.

That being said, simply because I am curious, I would like to point out that there has not been any official answer to my request of a clarification of

, which says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them."

That bolded part means that topic banned editors are indeed allowed to make suggested changes on their own talk page. I am sticking to my promise to avoid making such suggestions. But I am still curious to hear a clarification of the bolded part from an administrator.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the purpose of that language isn't to specifically allow for what you want to do (make suggested changes) but to inhibit Wikilawyering. I can imagine a situation where an editor wants to make a change to an article, on his own initiative and for a good reason, but isn't allowed to because a banned user just happens to support that same change. Also note that the language only applies to what a non-banned editor does, not what a banned editor does. In other words, it allows someone to add material to an article that falls under your topic ban, but it doesn't allow you to make the request in the first place. -- Atama頭 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this marked resolved again? There appears to be an active discussion with several editors noting that allowing Grundle to make proposals on his talk page is appropriate.

Secondly, the numerous personal attacks and smears in this thread are unfortunate and ironic. It does show that there are many problems here that have nothing at all to do with Grundle, and this kind of abusive and uncivil behavior towards a fellow editor working in good faith is not acceptable.

I haven't seen any policy argument for disallowing an editor from making suggestions on their talk page. And in fact it's a very good way for an editor who has had difficulty to get feedback without interfering with article editing (the purpose of the ban) and it is completely transparent unlike the e-mail campaigns and cabalism that go on here.

Many of those speaking out in opposition to Grundle being allowed to make suggestions on his talk page are editors who disagree strongly with his perspectives. Going after editors because we disagree with them is abhorrent, and no one has provided a good argument for how the project will be disrupted by allowing someone to discuss content and sourcing issues on their talk page. That is exactly what talk pages are for and it is a great way for an editor to get input and feedback on their content building ideas. It should be noted that Grundle has been a good sport about enduring stalking and harassment by a large number of POV pushing stalkers hanging about on his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is precisely why this user is the subject of an active RfC; butting in to toss around accusations of bad faith, insinuations of cabal activity and the like. No one here is "going after editors because we disagree with them", and this boilerplate ChildofMidnight attack like is getting rather pathetic, quite frankly.

As for the matter at hand, IMO I don't think

WP:PROXYING had topic bans in mind when it was written, as it seems to be more focused on editors who have completely lost access to the Wikipedia, and not just a narrow portion of it. A user who is barred from a topic should be barred completely, with no wiki-lawyering around the edges. If the section on proxy editing needs to be adjusted to reflect topic bans, than that is the direction to go here. Tarc (talk

) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A choice comment from the RfC, made by Grundle: "I agree with ChildofMidnight's claim that there are editors who are trying to censor the encyclopedia by removing relevant, well sourced information. Every edit war that I have ever been involved in was of the type where I added relevant, well sourced material, and other people kept erasing it." An absolute classic. Of course there is no conceivable good faith reason why the terrible people should not be censoring Wikipedia to remove relevant and well-sourced material, because having decided that the material is relevant and well-sourced any removal is naturally motivated solely by a desire to censor the content. Oh, sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record as it were, and as some well know, this "other people kept erasing it" complaint has been going on for 7 or 8 months now and is at the core of the problems with Grundle's editing, but in a slightly different way than JzG suggests above (though the cry of "censors!" is also obviously incredibly problematic). It entails one of the more stunningly inaccurate (and stubborn) readings of NPOV I've ever seen, and despite repeated efforts (as in dozens of times) by multiple editors to explain the problem to Grundle he persists in arguing along these lines. This goes back to at least May ("An article gets balanced by adding to it, not by erasing from it. If you think my addition is unbalanced, then please add to it what you think needs to be added. But please don't erase what I wrote"...!!!!!....those are my exclamation points, I needed them!) and has come up repeatedly since then (e.g., "Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff"). As the comment in the RfC suggests, I do not think this attitude of Grundle's has changed at all, and it obviously is pretty much the exact opposite of what writing in an NPOV fashion is about (and forget about the brevity problems if "everyone gets to add what they want").

Given that Grundle has been misreading our most fundamental policy for well over half a year and that any attempts at explaining it seem to bounce right off, it's rather amazing that Grundle is still around. I think we're beyond last chances at this point, but unfortunately most people don't know the sheer amount of time and effort that folks (including me, but a lot of others too) have put in trying to get Grundle on the straight and narrow, all to no avail. Nothing is going to come of this particular incident, but we'll be back here again, and I for one am quite sick of trying to deal with this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a compelling point, and this is precisely why the topic ban should not be wikilawyered. I suspect that Grundle has become adept at manipulating people's good faith, and this thread is just another example of how easy that can be. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder, the

19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bah, humbug. I vote we block Giano on day 1 just because. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You do the block, then I'll contact Viridae via IRC to do the unblock, and then crosspost requests for review to
    WP:RFAR. Jehochman ^Brrr
    15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't Bishzilla do the unblocks for Giano? I know Viridae handles unblock requests via WR, I didn't know he was working for Giano as well now. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• What? Have I have been usurped at both? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I know, we should have a
  rouge admin strike over demarcation. Guy (Help!
  ) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why do we need a dramaout? Am I the only Wikipedian who has a life? (Although I'd like a job too. I can contribute more content when I'm employed.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I for one have my popcorn ready. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I hate popcorn.
  ⇨
  13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Let's MFD the stupid thing the moment it goes live. Nobody who supports it would dare to speak up. ;) Durova³⁹⁴ 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Except the drama lovers who will rush to protect it and create huge ANI debates over it... unless, of course, I block them all with talkpage privileges disallowed! Sorted!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The irritating thing about about this program is its presumption that everything outside of article space is wasted time. People can focus on content without preening about it and without putting down their peers who resolve vandalism, etc. It's more than a little hypocritical. Durova³⁹⁴ 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I only do it to be trendy, cause all my t-shirts went out of style, and I haven't got much left... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Heehee. :) Durova³⁹⁴ 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is voluntary, for those that need it, and as an alternative there is also Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaonly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While this would most likely target administrators in general, this is a message to all Wikipedia editors in general.

I do not edit Wikipedia but I felt that it was about time that somebody reinforced the appreciation literally millions of people around the world owe all of you for your hard work here. I know that many are drawn away from Wikipedia because of those who add false information onto Wikipedia, vandalize pages, or otherwise do things to this website against morals and the media has come down hard on Wikipedia more than once for many reasons over the years such example as the recent claim of someone dying in Hawaii and there are several reasons why Wikipedia is often subject to critism and sometimes even controversy.

I just wanted to let you all know that no matter what the media wishes to say about Wikipedia, there is a reason the website is one of the top six most visited places on the world wide web - it is essentially a free encyclopedia for people, made by people. You all work for a good cause and many of us who use Wikipedia regularly for research and other things, never really take the time to extend our appreciation for the hard work you all put in. I am aware that plenty of you dedicate several hours of your time each day to help this well-intended project that many of us have so long taken for granted.

Basically, I just wanted to personally express me appreciation for Wikipedia, and remind you all that work so hard that there are people out there who will support Wikipedia until the very end and are always grateful for all that you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharp Light (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --Jayron32 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, in fact thank you for making me smile, not often a post on here does that--Jac16888^Talk 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What "...very end"? What do you know? WHY WERE WE NOT TOLD!!! - Heh, heh! Thanks, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It's not often something friendly and nice is posted here. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

With regards to

16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually use a scale when blocking IPs regardless of their ownership: 31 hours, 1 or 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year. Some steps may be skipped on my discretion. As to why we don't just out-and-out block them: perhaps we are hoping that a constructive contributor may be born during the times they are unblocked. –xeno^talk 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, escalate with each step and use a finer trigger for each block. If an IP with a long block log has just come off a 6 month block and all the new edits are vandalism, I'd have no hesitation in blocking for one year. The guidance is vague to allow admins to use their common sense. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be any more guidance, and "overblocking" is universally more destructive than "underblocking". If a disruptive user or probematic IP goes unblocked after a vandalism or two, then someone will get them eventually. However, if an IP which could be the source of good edits is blocked unneccessarily, we lose potentially good editors. In every case, if there is any doubt, admins should always err on the side of "not blocking". --Jayron32 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a student, I feel that having school blocks (for vandal IP) would more helpful than not. Most kids either A)Play computer games, B)Use social networking, C)Research, or D)Vandalize wikipedia in school (pre-college that is) rather than contributing. As wikipedia is frowned upon by many academic teachers, I feel the potential benefits are insignificant, especially when a IP is known for persistent vandalism. Heck, in my AP class yesterday while we were supposed to be looking up the Belgian massacre in the Library I know for a fact that 3 classmates vandalized wikipedia and none in my AP class added/fixed anything. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The article about Jim Leavitt is currently edit protected. However, when the protection went into place, a poorly worded sentence regarding a very recent incident was locked into the article. Since it is sure to be a high traffic article, I hope we can edit the sentence to make sense and reflect the current situation. I have a proposed wording change on the Talk page. Angryapathy (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on

) 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording of {{uw-legal}} is off. It goes

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you.

This actually says, amazingly, and I've read it three times now, that considering legal or other "off-wiki" action against other editors or against Wikipedia itself is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility.

Seen in the light of Wikipedia editors' recurring BLP violations, and the specific scenario described in

WP:DOLT

, we are essentially telling people, "our editors can write defamatory nonsense about you, ruining your life, but you are not allowed to consider any action whatsoever against us".

We need to make clear what we mean: We don't allow people to use our talk pages to make threats against other editors or Wikipedia, and we don't allow them to edit Wikipedia while contemplating or being engaged in legal action. But we should not be so presumptuous as to prohibit people from thinking about legal action against ourselves, and in those cases where complainants are genuinely wronged, we should extend a hand to them rather than telling them, in essence, that "complaining is forbidden". --JN466 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edited: [1] --JN466 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it just my impression or does it a bit long for checkusering to be performed? The queues aren't that long (a dozen requests or so). Is it just a vacation thing?

01:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably part of it. I haven't done any checks since before Christmas due to vacation, myself.

a/c

) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Block not expiring when it should - urgent

Resolved

I recently blocked BilCat (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation. While I initially set the block to 12 hours, I reduced it to 3 hours shortly afterwards on the grounds that Bill is an editor in good standing. While the block should now have expired, Bill is finding that he is still blocked and receives a message stating that he's been autoblocked. When I try to manually lift the block I get a message saying that the block has expired. Does anyone know what's going wrong here, and if so can they please (urgently) rectify it. Please note that Ajh1492 (talk · contribs), who I also blocked for 12 hours but reduced to 3 for the same edit war may also be affected. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, you need to look through the list of active blocks to find the autoblock. What I do is list the last 500 blocks and then do Ctl-F to search the list for the name of the blocked user. You can then lift the autoblock as all should be well..... Which si exactly what I did. The block log is at
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocks for the underlying ip are for a maximum of 24 hours, so any sanction reduction to less than that period needs to effect the autoblock. The easiest way would be to perform an unblock of the account, which brings up the "remove autoblock" option, unblock the ip also, and then reblock the account for the new tariff which creates a fresh autoblock. As long as there are explanations given in the summary then the block log makes clear all the reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not an admin, but a few days ago I was aware of an ArbCom case regarding climate change and article probation. I was going to comment on it, but I can no longer find the two cases in the

) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See here and here where MBIsanz closed both applications as rejected at around 2300 on January 5th. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change where a discussion was recently held resulting in community sanctions being levelled on articles related to climate change. --TS 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a single IP user, but I need to report this: A brazilian user IP 201.0.202.118, who is vandalizing

) 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As per what was said here, I used the {{

As I commented intimated at the archived thread, this is a solution in search of a problem (or a solution to a problem that occurs very rarely). The template gives admins an idiot-proof code segment to copy and paste, so they won't get the parameter wrong. Those that do should be trouted =) –xeno^talk 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say that in the archived thread. What you said was that it shouldn't such a big deal to bring to this noticeboard, and that I should just request it through {{

edit protected

}} imo. Has this ever actually been a problem, though? The unblock template even gives us a idiot-proof copy and pastable code segment... –xenotalk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to read between the lines =) –xeno^talk 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to alter the coding to allow for errors, rather than alter the coding to make the user aware of their errors. Further, it is beneficial to the blockee to know why they are blocked, and there won't always be someone around to spot a misuse of the template.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish this to be archived until others comment on the issue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for this, but I do thank you for the suggestion Daedalus. It's never really bothered me. I'd say post another section on the talk page just suggesting the code change. Maybe you'll get more comments from people who actually pay particular attention to templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do Administrators have any right to edit through a protection template as

) 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was all right ... in fact, I was just getting ready to go back to add a source I missed. Besides, if the information is reliably sourced, what's the problem?

96

02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no right to do that and as an administrator you should realize that. What special right do you think you can ignore the discussion that other people have contributed and wasted their time typing when you come along and don't bother even commenting.

Off2riorob (talk

) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You should revert your addition and go to the talkpage like everybody else and outline your desired addition and add the edit request template and see what other involved editors have to say about it, your rising above process like that takes away all reason for anyone to bother.

Off2riorob (talk

) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

During this discussion User Blue Boy went back to the article ignoring my comments and made another edit through the protection template. Is this correct or is it a joke?

Off2riorob (talk

) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueboy96, admins aren't supereditors; the sysop bit doesn't give you any more editorial rights than mere mortals. If you're making uncontroversial changes, it should be easy to gain consensus on the talk page. If you're making controversial changes, you have no business doing that on a protected article. I'm pretty confident this is written on a policy page somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it:

WP:PREFER. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As far as I was aware, if an article is fully protected, admins shouldn't be making content edits through protection. Edits should be limited to obvious and trivial fixes and fulfilling talk page requests that appear to have consensus. --Onorem♠Dil 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought that it was noncontroversial to merely expand that he was fired ... just rolled back and heading to the talk page.

96

02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is appreciated.

Off2riorob (talk

) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Already resolved...and I'm fine if this is the last comment since drama sucks...but I think another question worth asking is why was editing through full protection even an option? I asked the protecting admin, who appears to be offline now...but don't see in the history what brought the protection on. Am I missing something in oversighted or deleted revisions or something? --Onorem♠Dil 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more the case that the software only has three settings: everyone edit, autoconfirmed edit, or admins edit. That's how it was designed. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the maps on Wikipedia are useless, because the location they are showing, shows no other reference points, so they are meaningless for determining where the location is, it might as well just be an isolated point or dot with nothing else around it, which is what these maps are. They may look nice, but most people want a map to find out where something is, in relation to something else, like where they might be located, and where the map location is in relation to where they are located. For example the map of Coto De Caza, has no reference points at all. To find out where it is, you'd have to cross reference it with a second map, and if you have to do that, why would you even waste time with the wikipedia map?
Then the author says, if you want to make a comment, go to his "talk page". Except the words "talk page" aren't a link, and you can't find the "talk page" unless you want to spend an hour looking for the needle in the haystack. I know this because I looked for it and couldn't find it and didn't have 15 minutes to spend, trying to find the link to "make a comment" on this useless "map". Its not a map, its just a picture.

Thank you, Barbara Mau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.65.219 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The creator of the map is User:Shereth; once you are at his user page (where it says, "You may pester him with questions or requests for assistance on his talk page", which I assume is what you refer to), just click on the 'talk' tab at the top of the page to access his talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Except it says 'discussion', not talk, and I guess people sometimes can't make the connection. --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The tab of Shereth's talk page? It is labelled 'talk' when I look at it (all talk page tabs are labelled 'talk' for me). Perhaps it is a quirk in the software somewhere? But thanks for pointing that out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For me as an anon all talk page tabs (whether articles' or users') are all labelled clearly "discussion", not "talk". Maybe you're using a particular skin or a particular localization? 80.135.18.144 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a side-effect of Friendly. It changes discussion to talk.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I turn my userpage on? Where are the selections so that I can choose one? MoodFreak (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Go to

help desk, please open a section there if you need any further help. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho!

20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can one or several administrators please deal with this? There is a ridiculously large backlog that has been there for about the past week. Thank you! Insorak ♫ talk 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin take action on this please? This MFD has been open since December 21st, 2009. It appears to be a no consensus keep to me, but I would feel more comfortable if an admin had a look. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I got it, but with a different result than you came up with. The article has now been deleted. However....would one of you "big kid" admins please un-screw my formatting and make sure I've done all the necessaries? This is my first admin closure of an XfD (yeah, I know) and I'm apparently crap with hatnotes and the like. I'm going over the instructions on closing one, but....Look, I'm just a little insecure about these things, hm?  :) (Seriously, though--someone double-check me, please. This really is my first closure.) GJC 05:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's why I asked for an admin to have a look as I am not good yet with determining consensus.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I approached the situation with a little MORE caution simply because I started from your conclusion--the "delete" votes seemed to have a bit more policy behind them, and one of the main "KEEP"s was the user himself. But it was good to consider that someone else had read consensus differently--I think you did fine, actually. GJC 06:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, good close. Just for future reference, my only advice would be not to bother saying "always open for deletion review"--every deletion is technically open to DRV, but the system works best when it's rare, so the default assumption should be that an XFD close is final. Just some friendly advice, though--carry on closing.

Chick Bowen

06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, another editor came along and fixed it.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know if 128.174.251.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is really a bot and if so whose? It's been blocked twice today. I've asked Cobi as it may well be his. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, that has to be Cobi's, or some terrible co-incidence. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin should check the latest edits of this user, who is on tagging spree on all the articles, I edit, and all the artices he think belong to my caste! Amusing for me, but surely not for wikipedia. Kindly have a look. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean his image taggings, those that I've checked seem all soundly argued and legitimate. Sorry, nothing we can do to avoid this kind of legitimate scrutiny; those images need cleanup. (However, I have advised him to avoid multiple automated notifications to uploaders, as per a recent discussion we had elsewhere showing that this may have a somewhat aggravating effect.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed in the past few months that every time you click on a coordinate, you get the nearest street address?

) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to require intervention from users with the

WP:VPT, I think. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor

─╢ 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even know that that existed.

talk

) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem; it's quite an interesting page, I keep it on my watchlist :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken to

10:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the guidelines for editors creating user pages for other editors, eg

) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is the

WP:UP#OWN makes it clear that creating user pages for other users is not advisable, unless done so with their permission or to add a sock tag or similar. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho!

20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion also. I'll ask the editor, who I am sure is acting in good faith, to stop. Thanks.

talk

) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I typically delete this per G6 or G2 whichever seems more appropriate.  Done in the present case. –xeno^talk 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think creating user pages for new users is a bad idea all around, the red user page is one of the markers that recentChanges patrollers look for for changes that need a closer look. Since the user's response to Dougweller made it seem like they were planning to continue doing this, I left them a further request to please stop. –xeno^talk 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is only appropriate if the editor as requested help from another editor to create their userpage. That's a totally different matter. --
  talk
  ) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested we've tightened up our guidance at

talk

) 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion at

) 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Refactored the header to make it more clear what this RfC is about (pretty impossible to tell from the current description posted here). Nathan ^T 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer was indef blocked by User:Jehochman for "Disruptive editing: Wikihounding". Jehochman asked that admins considering unblocking speak to them first or obtain "a consensus based upon a substantial discussion (e.g. 24 or 48 hours) at WP:AN". Neutralhomer requested unblocking, but this request was denied by Blueboy96.

Although Jehochman stated that they had been "giving one last chance" to Neutralhomer before blocking them, Jehochman subsequently unblocked Neutralhomer. I have requested that Jehochman discuss their decision on AN just as they had requested of other admins, but they do not appear to wish to discuss the issue.

Neutralhomer has been indef blocked three times and has a long history of blocks and admonishments for harassment, sockpuppetry, and other violations of policy, with similar blocks as User:Orangemonster2k1. As the most recent target of Neutralhomer's harassment, I do not think it is appropriate to accept the promises of a user who has already failed to live up to similar promises. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am free to refactor my own blocks without asking permission. This thread is useless conflict-making. As an unblock condition, Neutralhomer has agreed to stop commenting on Delicious carbuncle. Sadly, DC has refused my request to let Neutralhomer go in peace. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My concern is not for myself, nor is my motivation some kind of "revenge" on Neutralhomer. There is a very clear pattern here. It is only reasonable to expect that we will see it played out again and again unless Neutralhomer either retires or is blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Admins are typically permitted to revert their own actions on their own remit... Has there been problematic behaviour since the unblock? –xeno^talk 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I often disagree with JeHochman, and I have nothing to civil to say about Bluboys admin practices (which are ridiculous, note i'm still not sorry BLueboy). I do however agree with the lifted block. Perhaps DC should drop the

talk

) 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I'm not questioning the ability of admins to undo their own blocks, just the wisdom of this particular unblocking. Given that Jehochman asked for other admins to seek consensus for unblocking and that another admin declined to unblock, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a discussion of this decision. There is no need to look for problematic behaviour following the most recent unblock, since Neutralhomer's block log indicates that this is not the first time they have agreed to abide by such conditions. Just look over the blocklog and the history of complaints at AN and ANI. I am aware that some admins feel protective of Neutralhomer, but even their staunchest advocates must admit that it is only a matter of time until they are blocked again. And then likely unblocked in short order because "they promise not to do it again". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say this, Delicious carbuncle, but sometimes you just have to put the

let it go, for now at least. HJMitchell You rang?

19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Delicious Carbuncle's request below to comment on the unblock request, I see absolutely no problem with Jehochman's unblock. He undid his own block, based on terms he set. I see no problem with that at all. An admin can't wheel-war with himself! --Jayron32 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban request: User: Delicious carbuncle

We need a redirect from

) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.

Tan | 39

18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

and

) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You might enjoy...

a quote I came across as a usenet sig:

the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it.

— Oliver Wendell Holmes

For fools substitute your

) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An aside: apparently, and incredibly, the English Wikipedia does not have an article on communicating vessels. There are reasonably good articles on German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias (and several more, if you follow the interwiki links), with very pretty pictures (and a rather nice counterexample picture on the Dutch wiki). The Italian Wikipedia has even an article on Stevin's Law, which apparently nobody on English wikipedia has ever heard about. And then they say that Wikipedia is full, and all basic topics are actually covered -- eh? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: the Italian Wikipedia even has an article on the Hydrostatic Paradox! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See this link for the original context of the quotation.

Chick Bowen

02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Or this. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But of course Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself linked to the Illuminati, is widely known in popular culture. Coincidence? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy, Tom, keep it dark, they're not supposed to know. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

En Wiki now has an article on communicating vessels. :-) Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Hydrostaticcruft. Also: fails

Pokemon, or Family Guy. GJC

09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

juice plus

This is quite old but was on the ANI talk page. Feel free to archive straight away... -

talk

07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

urgent need for admin help at juice plus talk page

editor rhode island red has accussed a BLP Dr isadore rosenfeld of misrepresenting his relationship with NSA the makers of Juice Plus, he is trying to make a case that as a paid keynote speaker once at a convention, speaking on the subject of the dangers of patients getting medical info and advice on the internet, not about the product Juice Plus that he is lying when saying on air at foxnews twice that he has no financial relationship w/ juice plus. RIR is trying to infer a coi despite the very well respected dr saying differently. I think there is great danger in allowing a rouge editor to defame some w. a blp, aka the office space suit currently underway. His reason for doing this is to attempt to control content allowed in the article so that nothing remotely "pro" juice plus make its way in the article that he has controled for 5 years keeping it very biased and negative against the product despite many sources that disagree with his opinions and slant on the science. he wont allow any view point but con to stay in the article. His overzzealous obession with this article and anyone who disagrees with him recently had him thinking it was within his rights to post an editors name, spouses name, fax nummber, home number and home address on wiki, thus admin allison had to blank it, yet HE got no admonishment or even a hand slap. he is seriously bordering on cyber stalking of JuliaHavey and should be stopped from that, as well has being allowed to bias/negative an article against wikifoundation principles.65.82.134.3 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is not the place to put this. -

talk

21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've marked it "resolved" and "stale" – it's a bit too late for anyone to do anything now! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been already dealt with over OTRS, so it's okay to mark resolved - Alison ^❤ 09:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I request my topic ban be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Please consider:

• None of the points I made in my defense were addressed by the admins, including the fact that I self-reverted the edit in question prior to being reported in violation of 1RR

• My edits have been constructive and I think a fair reading of them would show that they have improved the article and moved it closer to
  WP:NPOV

• This cozy exchange on the the 2Over0's talk page (and a similar one on BizMo's) is problematic:

Things are starting to back up at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Needs some uninvolved admin intervention (that's you!) rather than the usual suspects bickering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started but would like some second opinions. --BozMo talk 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The above gives the appearance of administrative meat-puppetry. We have an involved former admin, recruiting intervention from two sympathetic admins (and in fact the admins who administered the ban) requesting they do what he ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley] is no longer able to. This is unethical and unfair.

• This accusation in the comments sections by WMC is untrue

WMC (again) I think this is fairly simple. J had broken the 1RR parole on this article very clearly by the time of this report. After* this report he has continued reverting [69].

The edit in question was not a revert. We had reached consensus that contentious labels should be avoided. My edit simply removed one that we'd missed when we went through the article to eliminate them.

• I volunteer to take a 1 week break from editing if my request is granted.

Thank you JPatterson (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looking over your contributions history, and the discussion at the Requests for Enforcement page, it does not appear you were sanctioned for a single edit as you appear to claim above. I see discussion of a history of
  tendentious editing at the article in question, and your request for review therefore does not seem to substantively address the concerns noted. I am neither-here-nor-there regarding any sanctions over this issue per se, but if we are going to discuss your sanctions, don't you think you need to address the issues you were sanctioned over and not merely over the last edit you happened to make before you were sanctioned? --Jayron32
  03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The request for enforcement was for violation of the 1RR rule. If I was banned for another reason, a new action should have been opened so I could have an opportunity to respond to those charges. The tendentious editing comment refered to other editors, not me. My only edit of this section was an attempt at compromise. (The other revert was in a different section). I didn't even think it was a revert because I didn't undo, I tried to synthesize the two competing versions (by other editors).I have edited on both sides of this issue. My primary focus has been in trying to get other editors to agree that we should be chronicling and not judging the controversy. (e.g. here JPatterson (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC with below) Actually, I don't see where exactly it says violation of the 1RR rule was the only issue being discussed. In the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section there seems to be problems with regards to tendentious editing at the intro to the article in general and not just a single revert by yourself, which serves as the locus of the dispute. Two admins, BozMo and 2/0 both agreed that there was a general problem as uninvolved admins and enacted the sanctions. Besides William M. Connoly's request to BozMo and 2/0, what evidence do you have that those two were materially involved in the article in question? Do you have diffs that show they have involvement in the dispute, or have expressed an opinion about which side they are favoring? That someone involved asks another admin to review a situation does not automatically make the second admin involved. I'd like to see more evidence of involvement by BosMo and 2/0, especially as defined by

WP:INVOLVED, before I can decide heads or tails of this. I am not dismissing your claim, I just want to see evidence why these two were inappropriate in enacting such sanctions... --Jayron32

04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The notice that was posted on my talk page say it was for violating 1RR. The sanction page says it was violating the terms of "Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation", which near as I can tell is the same thing. probation = 1RR. I am an inexperienced WP user and do not have the skills to provide the evidence you ask for. I question the propriety of an involved, and highly controversial ex-admin recruiting other admins to act (what do you think he meant be "this means you"?) on his behalf. JPatterson (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is at

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident only - your contributions to other climate change articles and other areas of the encyclopedia continue to be welcome. A quick glance at my talkpage and recent contributions indicate that I have been heavily involved in trying to restore a more normal editing environment in this topic area. There were several open requests, and I had not commented there for four days, which I assume is why WMC requested that I take a look. - 2/0 (cont.

) 03:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a hotly contested article. Tempers have flared. If you'll read my talk entries you will find that (for the most part) I have tried hard to keep a cool head and keep the discussions moving towards consensus. Note too that this ban was instigated by one strongly partisan editor who made three requests for bans in one day, all against editors he perceived to be hostile to the changes he desires. Not one specific problematic edit of mine has been raised, either here or on the request for action page. Just nebulous charges by Connelley of misbehaving prior to his recruitment effort. JPatterson (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, what evidence do you have that BozMo and 2/0 were

WP:AGF idea that he sought them out because he believed they would make a neutral, dispassionate review of the situation and act accordingly. What evidence is there that these admins misacted besides the request from WMC to review the situation? --Jayron32

04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above. Don't you think, given the controversy surrounding this editor, that the process would be better served if he would let it run it's natural course. He didn't insitute the request for action, why is he getting involved at all?JPatterson (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You state above that you are inexperienced? Come now... You've been editing since January 2007, long enough to learn how to read the history tab on an article. Are they active editors at the article? Have they expressed an opinion as to which side of the debate they fall on? I am entirely unfamiliar with the dispute myself, I just want to know what makes the conclusions of BozMo and 2/0 invalid? --Jayron32 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edit three articles with a three year break in between. I am not an experienced editor by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps I am misusing the term involved. I don't know how to tell if someone has edited in the entire global warming space or if there is a pattern of cahoots here. It just seems unfair when someone who is clearly involved recruits in this manner. One doubts he went looking for a neutral ear.JPatterson (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't judged the bredth of your editing, I just checked when your account had been registred. Regardless, it looks like we're just going around in circles here. I'm going to disengage at this point. I really have no idea about the merits of your complaint about the way that the sanctions that were enacted. Perhaps another admin who cares more about the climate change articles could review and decide if these sanctions were enacted appropriately. The catch-22 here is that truly uninvolved admins lack the background to make a full assessment of the dispute, and any admin who knows enough about the dispute to make a judgement is likely too involved to do so. Sorry I could not have been more help here, but this is clearly going nowhere from my end, so good luck and lets see what other admins have to say on this. --Jayron32 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your timeJPatterson (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

JP needs to slow down. He is waaay out of line in breaking the Climate Change probabtion, and it is far more than just 1RR - that is just the most blatant violation. JP is familiar enough with wiki to wikilawyer, though not very well, but unfamiliar enough not to clearly understand what a revert is (maybe. I'm sure you can see the obvious problem with The edit in question was not a revert... My edit simply removed one...). He isn't blocked, just banned from a couple of articles. If he edits productively elsewhere and drops the lawyering, I'll be happy to support a review of his ban in a week.

But he does need to stop the lawyering. I contacted 2/0 in an entirely neutral manner that didn't even mention JP by name [2]. Describing it as "This cozy exchange", or as "meat-puppetry" is entirely inappropriate.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If as you imply, any change counts as a revert then I'm guilty as charged. But then so are a large number of active editors on that page. Yet the only ones who seem to get sanctioned are those not actively pushing the tempest in a teapot meme. If article probation supersedes

WP:BRD, it should say so somewhere. If any change, no matter how small and no matter if consensus has been reached is a revert, it should say that somewhere as well. JPatterson (talk

) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's hard to recognise that Jpat's description of events above is supposed to describe the same process I was watching. He's lucky only to be banned for such a short period, if it were up to me that would be an indefinite ban from all climate change topics. We just don't need mission posters in this area right now. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat34721 appears to be forum shopping. I'll ask him to knock it off. --TS 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Briefly: the last thing climate articles need right now is people with an axe to grind. Jpat34721 is doing a fairly good job of portraying himself as someone with an axe to grind. Therefore I think the topic ban is reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I should note that it's not actually a topic ban; he is merely banned from a single article and its talk page. In the light of the ongoing problems with this editor, should this now be extended to a general topic ban from climate articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a rather tired and involved editor I've not been paying too much attention to Jpat34721|JPatterson edit warring, and have no complaint about sanctions being imposed. Jpat needs to accept that 1R is a maximum, not an entitlement. However, I would note that Jpat34721|JPatterson has made a number of helpful contributions to the talk page, and on that basis a review of the sanction in a week's time would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed this too closely but I do think the topic ban, though within the reasonable discretion of the community to enact and of an administrator to judge as having consensus, was perhaps a little harsh and hasty. The new article probation is being enforced rather more sternly than the Obama article probation on which it is based. We'll see where that goes. As a process matter, I think that appeals should be made directly on the enforcement page rather than choosing a general-purpose administrator meta-page. If we need more eyes on it, a courtesy notice here, at AN/I, and/or the general sanctions page would be helpful, but not forking the discussion to multiple pages. Even more ambitious, if there is a volunteer clerk in the house it might make sense to develop a system for logging active and closed requests, actions, and appeals. Kind of a miniature, tiny, community-organized version of Arbcom's RfE pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say I am surprised by the axe grinding allegations. I dare say I am one of the few editors of that page who can point to edits I've made on both sides of the argument. Again, no one in this entire process has posted a single diff to back up the allegations of one-sided editing. I have argued for balance and have tried numerous approaches to reach consensus. Perhaps I have run afoul of a rule I do not fully understand. I am still trying to figure out when "a change" becomes "a revert" (assuming you don't "undo"). Fine, fools rush in and ignorance is no excuse (although it would be nice if the rules were posted somewhere). But as to the content of the changes themselves, please point to one that shows this egregious axe grinding. For the record, my position re AGW is that I don't know. The uncertainties are too high to have confidence in either position. With respect to this controversy, I don't think it says anything about the science one way or another but does raise legitimate concerns about the process. What I do know is that when I pointed my highschooler to this article after a brief conversation on "Climategate", I was embarrassed at what he found. It is a topic I'm familiar with and I decided to try and help to nudge the article towards NPOV. Since the article as I found it was blatantly in the "tempest in a teapot" camp, moving it toward balance meant run ins with highly partisan editors on the side of the status quo, including some who have commented here. But I think any fair reading of my edits and my talk page participation would lead any impartial observer to conclude that my contribution has been constructive and have in fact improved the articleJPatterson (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope this si the right forum..

It became clear while pleading my case above for a review of my ban, that I had a fundamental flaw in my understanding of what constitutes a revert. With the help of

which led me further astray.

I would suggest:

• The warning template on the article edit page have a link to the operative definition of a revert
• the definitions given in
  WP:Revert
  be the same
• WP:1RR contain a link to the above definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• The warning be expanded to include 3RR
• That we clarify the policy w.r.t Probation, WP:Bold, and WP:BRD

This might help to avoid contention in the future. JPatterson (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this constitute an attack? Or should we continue to monitor until contributions eventually lead to AIV or AN/I as I suspect they will. Disruption is surely impending in the name of

18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please inform the user of this thread.

Tan | 39

19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. SGGH ^ping! 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for deletion at MfD. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone blocked the rather obvious sockpuppet? Guy (Help!) 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, though I did air initial sock suspicions when I removed it from UAA. Looking at Talk:Nazism might reveal some meatpuppetry. SGGH ^ping! 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thread moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Animated_gif_bug?.  Skomorokh  17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The user described here is now continuing his disruptive editing as ChessMasta and IP, see the discussion here. --84.162.249.158 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are anonymous IPs talking on Talk:Bartłomiej Macieja about checkuser results on ChessMasta? Was there even a request for a checkuser? And I see no notification to the accused ChessMasta concerning either checkuser or this AN. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no talk about checkuser results, but only statements on the obviously identical disruptive behaviour. --84.162.176.108 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed the user about this notice. --84.162.176.108 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and a very friendly notice it was [3].

talk

) 21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has right to delete vandalism on its talk page, especially when they are personal attacks made on purpose seeking revenge, creating provocative atmosphere, making false statements,he is telling me i will be banned, SEEWOLF is the one who ought to be banned from all wikis as he caused all these problems. The bottom line is, Macieja 6-2 match is proven right, as I was right in my edits, if I get banned, so what, I can easily create other account, it does not bother me at all being banned but what for, for doing what is right?

You can see that Seewolf is user 84, he ALWAYS LOGS ON UNDER DIFFERENT GERMAN IP, he is user from Germany, unfortunately an administrator there, never leaves his real name. Here's what he said on Macieja: "The game is not notable enough among thousands of games played by Macieja. --84.162.212.225 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)" The game is not notable enough among thousands of games played by Macieja. --84.162.212.225 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)" Clearly, this states this individual's english skills are pathetic, more info is available on Macieja's talk page. Because of him that page is indefinitely blocked.

I could have logged on under any IP I chose to, but I did not, when things became bad, seewolf logged on using his many german IP's. Its sad he is administrator there, I have to repeat this few times, because such people are not productive, only cause friction!

Here's what seewolf did on wilhelm steinitz page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Steinitz&diff=337461738&oldid=337440928 he reverted everything, all the info was correct, but where is his prove it's nonsense? He did not even leave any note. He is angry his Macieja edit did not stand ground, so now he is looking for revenge. Administrator Regents Park http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart%C5%82omiej_Macieja&diff=337386114&oldid=337124629 approved my edit, except moved link to footnote format, i approved it,this is what seewolf did not like. Im requesting administrators to ignore this individual, not to allow him to bother me, he ought not to progress on wikipedia, as he made similar mistakes in the past, such actions do not contribute to wikipedia's growth, here are his other reverts, again never stating why he reverted good edits, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.242.211

this clearly shows he is after me, im not going to revert those articles, im happy with macieja decision, that's what it was all about, now he wants to get into more edit wars, if he wants incorrect articles, fine, if you allow him to do so, great, let him write, revert anything!

Here on his talk page: is evidence he reverted things "fake" for many years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seewolf also first paragraph is in german, proving my additional statements!

—Preceding

) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New sockpuppet investigations clerks needed

Hi folks. We have a need for some new clerks at

, one of the clerks who has been there the longest, is not an administrator.

A few things to keep in mind if you think you might like to help us keep the sock menace down: (a) we generally don't take trainees with a recent block log or history of disruptive editing, (b) we would prefer trainees who can be regularly active and (c) we often use the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi on Freenode, which can be accessed using

if you're interested.

On behalf of the SPI clerk team, NW (Talk) 03:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably would help out, but I have no understanding of IRC and my last experiment ended pretty appallingly... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I woudn't mind helping, but I have no interest in using IRC.

talk

) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IRC isn't really a requirement for clerks or patrolling admins (which are separate - patrolling the cases requires confident judgment wrt sockpuppets, but not clerk training), but it makes the training process much easier. Particularly for administrators interested in patrolling (which we also need very much), we can make other arrangements if IRC isn't an option. Nathan ^T 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moved from
  WP:ANI and restoring archived material. Guy (Help!
  ) 09:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Archive search for McCready
• Arbcom punts issue back to community

---

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively

Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk

) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [4]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here [5] and here [6]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to

) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [7] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [8] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and

Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [9]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [10]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [11] and Virtual Steve [12] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [13]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk

) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at [14] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [15]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless

WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!

) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key,

wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[16], including with an IP[17][18] (see checkuser results

).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[19]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of

competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08

) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[20] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

• FloNight [21] [22]
• MastCell [23]
• David Ruben [24]
• FeloniousMonk [25]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [26])
• Jim62sch [27]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [28])
• Friday [29]
• Jefffire [30]
• Arthur Rubin [31]

None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[32], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all

wikignoming

, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)

Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. --

talk

) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Summary

I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again

The bot for this page archived [33] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [34]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [35] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarification: should we let the ban stand (and come back for review after X period of time a/o when Y conditions are met), lift it with the condition that it can be re-imposed if needed, or something else. User has been notified [36]. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (

WP:TIGERS

are best kept in their cages on this one.

The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)

Richard Dawkins (8)

Ubiquitin (8)

Osteochondritis dissecans (7)

Talk:Water fluoridation (7)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)

Missy Higgins (6)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)

Fiat money (5)

PubMed (5)

Lee Myung-bak (5)

Karl Kruszelnicki (5)

User talk:Collectonian (5)

Silicosis (4)

Antireligion 4)

Meningitis (4)

New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

There are also plenty of examples of my collegiate editing on my talkpage. Will you please do me the courtesy of reading them. I have tried assiduously from the time of the ban to avoid wikidrama and now it is old enemies who want to create it. My recent record shows I just want to get on editing.

Now will you try to address the question. Even supposing the ban was validly placed (and that is disputed) it is false to argue that normal sanctions cannot be applied if I step out of line. You will also notice, will you not, that the POV pusher who has come out of retirement again and who is behind this from the start, has failed once again to come up with the goods on acupressure. He objects to scientific material being placed in areas where he edits (I can give a list of these off wiki because we wouldn't want to identify him would we?) Finally, will you investigate canvassing by him? A simple yes or no will suffice. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan ^T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)

Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read

silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk

) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

11 users have now commented. Only Middle8 appears to have read the full history and users can make their own judgment on his views and motive for doing so. One user has declined because links weren't provided. Since the links were on my talkpage and I requested people to look at them, and indeed they have been provided above by other users, users can again make their own judgment. Others have alluded to the possibility that the ban doesn't exist. Others have commented on their past views but have not reviewed my edits since the ban. One user has commented at greater length on my edits since the ban but has not responded to my further questions. In summary there is no consensus to support Middle8's views. So, unless others want to support Middle8's vendetta (and please address the original question with a more purposeful focus if you do), I intend to resume normal editing. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is false - I also read the full history and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The ban exists, this is not in doubt. I have said that I would not support lifting of the ban. Others agree, and this does not seem to be restricted to those who are on the opposite side from you in respect of fringe and pseudoscience content. ArbCom has said it will leave the ban status to the community, so you need to persuade people. The best way of doing that would be a sustained period of unproblematic editing on other topics. Your edit history shows that when you are not editing the articles in question you are largely inactive, so it is natural that some of us will be sceptical about lifting the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously I disagree Guy on many points. Your opinion that my edits since the "ban" do not amount to much is not shared by all the people who have commented on my talkpage. And please spare me the bullying and threats. I'm at one with Middle8 on this score.

Here are the numbers:

1. Guy who is adamant that the "ban" stays until Guy judges I have done enough editing

2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy

3.. Sandstein – withdrew from discussion on grounds I didn’t provide links (since it’s all on my talkpage which I’ve referred to multiple times … has obviously not made himself aware of the issue

4. Elen of the Roads – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,

6. SlimVirgin – an if statement does not support Middle8 and Guy

7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

10. Brangifer says supported in past when he used a different wikiname, doesn’t comment on now - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

11. The Hand That Feeds - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

Am I missing something Guy or is the "community" represented here by 12 people and myself versus you and Middle8 not as concerned as you are with this vendetta? I will now resume normal editing. You have had a chance to be constructive but you are even more stubborn than Middle8 and on opinion which is not shared by others, you have not responded to my questions. You do not represent the community on this issue.Kevin McCready (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are showing, once again, your combative nature, excessive tendency to personalise and factionalise disputes, and fierce determination to edit these articles. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Mccready, you will not go back to the topics you are banned from, otherwise I will block you. Understood? The community ban is still in place until such time as it is formally revoked. There is no consensus for doing so here and indeed a plethora of solid arguments have been put forward for keeping it in place. Moreschi (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kevin, that's a pretty deceptive summary. The point is that we are all against you editing in the area of your topic ban. --
  talk
  ) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Now blocked for 100 hours for ignoring the topic ban by editing at chiropractic education. Moreschi (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Predictable, I guess. I hold by my original thought that what we need to see is evidence of the ability to engage in civil debate with people he disagrees with. As I read it, the main problem was that he kept flying off the handle every time someone disagreed with him. I can see why, fringe-pushers are incredibly vexatious and persistent, but losing your temper has never fixed that yet and is unlikely to start any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban First off, for anyone who hasn't seen it, I did an in-depth evaluation of the topic ban approximately a year ago (Jan. 2009). Mccready wanted a review of the "indefinite topic ban (banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed) with a general probation on pseudoscience of one full year" that I enacted, following ANI discussions, 01:00, May 7, 2008. (This requested review was preceded by a December 2008 ANI discussion and December 2008 AN topic ban review, both which were only semi-productive but certainly provided indication of any support to reduce or eliminate any of Mccready's editing restrictions.) My Jan. 2009 review concluded:

The recent community consensus is clear: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand.

This was evidently unsatisfactory, and further discussion turned south as Mccready became more argumentative.

A month later (Feb.-Mar. 2009), admin

Kevin/Rdm2376, followed by dubious & combative WP:AN posts, burned bridges

and block drama.

All of these ban reviews have had common responses from Mccready indicating he has not yet and likely never will consider the opinions upholding any topic ban to be of merit (indeed, he apparently believes this "wasn't a 'community ban'"). Comments by Mccready directed at admins that have upheld editing restrictions often fall along the lines of "[a particular admin has shown a] refusal to engage in a logical discussion" presumably because s/he hasn't come to the conclusions desired by Mccready [37]. This has been a pattern of repeated forum shopping and tedious wikilawyering, with multiple instances of aggressive and uncooperative behavior spanning a couple years.

Moreschi's block is perfectly appropriate given that recent edits clearly violated the still-in-effect topic ban; a warning, seen or missed as the case may be, was a courtesy not a requirement in this case. At this point, I would recommend a full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed, at least; perhaps up to a full siteban based on a pattern of behavior that indicates an unwillingness to work within community standards.

Note: I believe Mccready should maintain the ability to respond to any comments in this discussion on his talk page while blocked (assuming that privelage is not reasonably revoked for disruption). Furthermore, I ask that Middle 8 voluntarily disengage from any further participation in this topic due to the long, contentious relationship between these two accounts. — Scientizzle 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, will do. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know, I do think that what he needs is to gain some experience in articles where he feels less strongly, just getting along with folks with everyday causal disagreements. I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong, too. From what I've seen, I think it's doubtful that Mccready will accept anything less than a full elimination of all editing restrictions. To be honest, I was leaning towards 'a clean slate' approach until Mccready started with the deceptive "evaluations" of various opinions (that list of 14 above), consistent with prior patterns of behavior, and then the brash topic-banned editing and the resulting unblock request BS...the patterns of behavior that contributed to the topic ban have not demonstrably changed it seems. — Scientizzle 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed". It's sad to see when certain hot-headed people's emotions get the best of them, and they do things which they might regret later. (Can happen to the best of us, if we hold to some positions very stronlgy.) Unfortunate, yes, and not very helpful. But I am not convinced that an indefinite topic ban is called-for in this case. Could be actually counterproductive. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef pseudoscience topic ban. I haven't seen enough evidence that such a ban will prevent problems in the pseudoscience area. However, I also oppose lifting of his current restrictions. Perhaps if s/he can show that s/he can contribute to wikipedia in a positive manner, without being a
  tendentious editor, with more than just a few edits here and there, then the current restrictions could be lifted. DigitalC (talk
  ) 15:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note

At present it seems unlikely this thread will produce a consensus either to lift Mccready's topic ban or to expand it to more topics. To clarify the ban's current status, I have made a new entry at

WP:RESTRICT can be updated. Since the ban was indefinite, it will continue in effect unless modified here. EdJohnston (talk

) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the reactions from the editor above, I think that what you drafted looks fine:

User	Type	Sanction (quoted verbatim)	Special Enforcement Details	Expiration Date
Mccready	Topic ban	Mccready is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed.	Community sanction imposed at this discussion, which occurred on 7 May, 2008	Indefinite

Did you want to do the honours Ed? Once this is done we can mark this thread as closed and continue on as normal. -

talk

09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT as shown above to document the old restriction, which remains in effect. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Vote his fate here

Per McCready's expressed wish here, (removed here), I am starting the procedure which McCready very clearly wished and as he suggested, using his own words.

Basically one should vote "support" for one or the other. A "support" in one section automatically counts as a vote against the other, so negative votes are unnecessary and would only be confusing. A vote to support him staying here should include what conditions he should edit under, for example a topic ban, other condition(s), or no conditions at all. --

talk

) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

McCready should stay

McCready should go

• Support a site ban. He has good abilities as an editor (and as a skeptic of alternative medicine and chiroquackery I actually share his POV), but his attitude is so bad and contentious that he doesn't belong here. His parting rant gives good evidence of that. --
  talk
  ) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• As an uninvolved editor in any of this conflict, I don't see this vote as being beneficial to anyone. He can still contribute in other areas outside of his topic ban, should he choose to do so once his block expires. He has a month to consider whether or not he wants to pursue the issue of what he feels is an invalid topic ban or move on to other subjects. On the other hand, if a majority of the votes are for him to stay, but not all mention any specific details as to editing restrictions, he may see that as a way to invalidate the topic ban he has been vehemently arguing against. Let the block expire and give him the option to contribute in other areas, and let his actions after the block be a factor in his participation, not a vote he requested when he was in a rather agitated state. HAZardousMATT^toxic 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm increasingly coming across user and IP blocks which aren't recorded around here, and I'm wondering where exactly I have to go to find out about blocks such as 70.38.37.250. This isn't a bug, right? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No bug I can see. Clicking on the link shows me a block from December and then clicking the block log indicates it is the only one. Are you aware of other blocks? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is: when I go to their contribs it says the user is currently blocked, yet the block was enacted on 21 December for two weeks: so it should have expired by 4 January. Woody (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me. Anyway it seems to have gone now, so it looks like it was a 10-day cache lag, showing the IP was blocked when perhaps it wasn't. Now I'm going to block the IP again, and perhaps some of the range, as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Must be a cache issue as it has gone for me as well. I presume that the IP was unblocked but there is no way of telling that until it happens again. If there haven't been any complaints from IPs, I presume it is just lag. Perhaps a post to VPT? Woody (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to create the page titled

, but it was blocked, saying that I should post here.

Thank you, Sg647112c (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, must have been caught in the title blacklist for some reason. Woody (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate by well established community standards for someone who has participated in the banning discussion to then assert the issuance of the ban and close the discussion? --GoRight (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note also that I have replied to the recent evidence provided by Ale_Jrb^talk on the subpage created by TS. --GoRight (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The ban is valid. I can step in as the closer instead, if you'd like. The alternative is a community siteban or discretionary siteban for inappropriate use of Wikipedia. --Tznkai (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the participation. If you want, as a completely uninvolved administrator (I haven't participated at all) I'll personally endorse the closure that was made. Better? -- Atama頭 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks for your help. I reserve the right to revisit this issue at a later time after additional evidence can be gathered. --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You will need to address the reason for the extended ban, which is Pcarbonn's refusal to accept the outcome of the previous arbitration case, his lack of any significant activity in any other area, his failure to demonstrate an ability to accept when consensus goes against him, his proxying for a banned user and his obduracy. That's necessary because we are not going to have arbitration round 2. We had a lengthy arbitration case which found problems with Pcarbonn's behaviour, his response has been consistently to deny that there is any problem with his behaviour. The arbitrators get the last word on that. The easiest way for Pcarbonn to get the ban lifted is to put in a few months' solid work on other topics, work productively with some people with whom he disagrees, and get rid of all the missioncruft on his user page. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding this: It sounds to me like you are saying that Pcarbonn is being banned indefinitely because he felt that he had been unfairly treated. I don't see that as just cause for sanction, to put it mildly. Kevin Baas^talk 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

One more issue

I have asked

) 21:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at his talk page. My view is that since he is no longer allowed to comment on this whole topic area, he should not continue to use his userpage for commenting on it either. I've asked him to remove the content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand how Pcarbonn was banned and ScienceApologist was not. That seems totally like a double-standard to me. It baffled me when it happened and I still haven't been able to discover a rational explanation for it. Kevin Baas^talk 16:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Having said that I would've voted oppose on this vote if for no other reasons than to try to re-balance the scales of justice (since SA seems to have some kind of diplomatic immunity or something), but alas, it seems like the voting was closed in haste. Kevin Baas^talk 16:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you carrying grudges? SA hasn't edited Cold Fusion since March 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Grudge? It's called a grievance. And I will have it for as long as it goes unresolved. That's how grievances work. I know he hasn't edited it but that doesn't remedy the problem. The problem (and my greivance) isn't SA editing or not editing the problem/greviance is the double standard. Nothing has been done to fix it or remedy it in appearance. It's still there. Ergo I still have a problem with it. I ALWAYS will have a problem with double standards and have no intention of even trying to not have a problem with them. So you see there are only two ways to end my grievance: I die, or the double-standard does. Now if SA isn't editing the cold fusion page, what's the harm in giving him the same ban that was given to pcarbonn? Then the double-standard goes away, and along with it my grievance. Kevin Baas^talk 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? He was blocked for 3 months. He was topic banned for what, an additional 6.5 total moths? How much blood do you need? We don't ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a year. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Point goes to KB. --GoRight (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a competition. Please at least try to adhere to your promises? Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No promise has been broken here. Carry on. --GoRight (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question, Hipocrite, should be obvious, by the definition of "double standard". (in the following i don't mean "you" exactly, i'm using "you" to refer to your "we".) As much "blood" as you have spilled of Pcarbonn's - enough to eliminate the double standard. Duh. (More actually, since SA's actions were more egregiuos than Pcarbonn's.) How much blood of Pcarbonn's have you spilled? how long have you blocked him, topic banned him, etc.? How much blood do you need? As regards "we don't ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a year.": actually, that's exactly what you just did. Kevin Baas^talk 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pcarbonn edited the talk page of Cold Fusion as recently as 11 January 2010, and the article itself as recently as 7 January 2010. We do ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a day. There's no double standard here. During his various restrictions, SA was productive (at least one article totally rewritten and massively improved, for example). During his restriction, Pcarbonn was absent. On the ending of his restriction, SA's behavior hardly changed at all. On the ending of his restriction (actually, a few days before as an anonymous IP address), Pcarbonn dramatically changed his behavior - going from totally absent to pushing his fringy PoV on Cold Fusion. Certainly, you see the difference. Pcarbonn was told "You aren't helpful on Cold Fusion. Go do something else on Wikipedia for a year." He chose to do nothing. He learned nothing. SA was told "You aren't helpful on Fringe Science articles. Go do something else on Wikipedia for nine months." He did something else, and returned a better editor. Apples and oranges. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, that's a non-sequitor. Secondly, you don't really expect me to believe that you are indefinitely topic banning Pcarbonn for THIS, do you?!?!? Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's block should have expired and he is asking that someone look into clearing the autoblock that is still preventing him from editing. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See [48]. --GoRight (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Death rumors on Teddy Pendergrass are circulating online at the moment. I can't find a RS and have semi-protected the page for an hour while things shake out. Dppowell (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And almost immediately after I finished that edit, a RS appeared. Dppowell (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may add a second from The AP and NPR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, here's one from the NYT: [49] RIP Teddy. —

talk

) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not really WP:AN topic but since this page has lots of readership from experienced users, it will be a good place to put it. At the earthquake's article, there's been some discussion about what to do with links to charity organizations. Does anyone remember what is a standard practice in such cases - what did we do when there was a tsunami in 2004 and earthquakes in China and Kashmir? --Tone 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also interested in finding out what the standard practice is, in regards to publishing a list of charitable organizations. Many people would like to help via donations, but don't know where and how to go about it. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a great deal of discussion about this following the Southeast Asia tsunami, but I have no idea where that discussion is. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It probably got swamped and destroyed by a tidal-wave... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a bit of a backlog at

17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New essay

Cabal approved

I've noticed more and more people who think that appealing to Jimmy will get them what they desire. To counter this, I've just created the essay

talk

11:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. Needs a shortcut - some reference to Godwin's law would be nice. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

talk

12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, WP:PRETTYPLEASEJIMBO, but it's not really a "short"cut. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• How 'bout UFAIL@WP? GJC 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is this like
  Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem? Guy (Help!
  ) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  No. "Argumentum ad Jimbonem (properly argumentum Jimbini or argumentum Jimboni) is the logical fallacy that "what Jimbo said" is The Truth™." Appeals to Jimbo is about making an attempt to do an end run around consensus by posting your case to Jimmy's talk page. These are different things :-) -

  talk

  12:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I thought that the usual purpose of an Appeal to Jimbo was to establish a foundation for subsequent Argumentum ad Jimbonem (however conjugated). While all but the least experienced editors know by now that Jimbo very rarely directly intervenes in Wikipedia processes, his words and opinions carry great weight in the community; his endorsement (or the appearance of his endorsement) is often used as a trump card in debate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Tsk tsk. "Jimbo" is evidently an n-declension masculine, like "Cicero" or "Scipio". The genitive would be argumentum Jimbonis, if anything. But I suspect "ab Jimbone" would be better anyway. O tempora, o latinitas! Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• A similar problem exists when people run off to Godwin. Of course, if something's legal, it must be within policy. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest
    WP:NOPONY myself.. (whistles innocently) SirFozzie (talk
    ) 13:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Added. -
      talk
      13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've added reference to Godwin's Law, as it seems to be a popular topic for the essay. -
  talk
  13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I like the use of the word 'cabal' in the context of the essay. I can just see the neck-feathers popping up on some of the readers. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I guess if they don't like it they could always appeal to Jimbo... -

  talk

  13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have posted to Jimbos page before, I asked his OPINION on a matter. Notice it was for a opinion not a change of policy...This essay will be widely cited by the 1000 plus to stop discussion there at all. Make sure discussion and demanding change is differentiated with.
  talk
  ) 19:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It wasn't aimed at you, and note that this specifically deals with appeals to Jimbo. Nothing about discussion :-) And I certainly hope this essay is cited frequently! -
    talk
    21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry never meant to say it was, I was just using myself as a example. What I meant is that there is a lot of people watching that page and trying to moderate what they may think Jimbo is ok with. I would just make sure it was clear discussion is cool.
      talk
      ) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do I get points for having been asked my opinion by Jimbo? Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent essay! I was going to suggest
  talk
  ) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Wikipedia Administrators, I am here to advertise my nomination to be on the Bot Approvals Group. Take a look if you have some time. Tim1357 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that an editor has registered the user name Hirohitito (talk · contribs), which appears to be a reference to Hirohito, Japan's emperor during World War II. If anyone registered a close variant of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini they'd probably be blocked for having an offensive user name - is this in the same category? The editor's only contributions so far have been to create a short stub on British war crimes, which when combined with the user name suggests that they're here to POV-push. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've knocked the stub into shape, should be neutral now. I found this when looking to see what linked there. Usernames should be discussed with the user on their talk page and the username noticeboard is

that way. I've notified the user of this thread. Fences&Windows

23:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, it would be horrible to pick the name of an emperor who presided, post-war, for 35 years over a peaceful country. How dare he! --Golbez (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A little sensitive, Herr Goebbels? ☺ - Nunh-huh 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:General Tojo would be probably a better equivalent to those others; Hirohito did not really have a great deal of control over the actions of the Japanese government during the war. And General Tojo was, in fact, declared to be an unacceptable username, although it looks like that account had some other issues as well that led to its block. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The

welcome the following users to the clerk team as trainees:

• AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs)
• Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs)
• DoriSmith (talk · contribs)
• MBK004 (talk · contribs)

The clerk team as well as the committee would also like to congratulate the following clerks who have been confirmed as "full clerks":

• talk · contribs
  )
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs)
• Seddon (talk · contribs)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

This was posted to AIV. I am moving it here without comment. --Jayron32 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

/b/ is planning another attack--Strabismus (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This can be mitigated by reviewing the lines of Special:Log/upload and Commons:Special:Log/upload that contain "new version". MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a

vicious circle. If they got girlfriends they'd quickly have something else to occupy their time. Yet, their essence precludes the possibility of ever getting a girlfriend. Or laid. Anyone feel like springing for a few streetwalkers? Burpelson AFB (talk

) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's it, poke the bear with the stick. That won't cause any problems. --Golbez (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The thread has already made it past Page 15, so there shouldn't be much more to worry about... for now. Besides, is anything /b/ does considered "sneaky"? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's news to any Admin, then I have another one for you: the sun plans on rising tomorrow! Everyone make your plans accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war and insisting on original research by user:BehnamFarid in

) 00:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

BehnamFarid indeed has a highly problematic history of aggressive behaviour in all kinds of conflict situtions, and in the present case he is again obstinately refusing to understand the principles of

WP:OR. Moreover, with this edit, where he uses a reference to an old real-life harassment campaign against me in order to intimidate me from intervening in the situation as an admin, I feel he has seriously crossed a line. I would appreciate if some other admin could have a look into this. Fut.Perf. ☼

08:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

NOTE: This user is blogging comments related to this discussion here. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for some more eyes on the indefinite block just implemented on this editor by Jehochman. I had been following a discussion initiated by the editor on the COI noticeboard about

) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, this editor had recently been subject to a community sanction as a result of edit warring. He then simultaneously launched an appeal against the sanction and a Conflict of Interest complaint against another editor. Despite broad hints, he proceeded to make wild and insupportable accusations, leading several editors to opine that he appeared to have conceived a vendetta against his target. --TS 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"wild and insupportable accusations" - Hmmm, where else might this type of thing be found. Enough said. --GoRight (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole scenario seems to be a direct result of attempts to stifle dissenting opinion on global warming articles ultimately resulting in the indef block of an editor that feels these articles are being controlled by a group of editors. This pattern seems to follow these articles from what I can tell resulting in numerous blocks and bans of editors wishing to include information that does promote not AGW. Even worse is that this opinion has been noted outside of WP and this is just another example that would give them evidence that these articles are indeed being controlled. Arzel (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty much nails it. ATren (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringe points of view are not given equal footing with mainstream, reliably sourced ones. It is an issue that comes up time and time again in politically-charged topic areas. Those that come here with a battlefield mentality, as these users are clearly doing, are going to wind up frustrated and blocked, and deservedly so. Tarc (talk

) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change sceptics are engaging in a long-running battle to elevate the minority view to parity with the overwhelming majority view. To suggest it's being stifles is fatuous, it already has coverage way above its actual traction in the real world. There have been

WP:BLP violations, special pleading, original research, tendentious editing, civil and uncivil POV-pushing and sundry other kinds of battleground behaviour on both sides. Everyone is subject to the same rules but as it happens the sceptics are the ones who keep popping their heads over the parapet, so they are the ones who keep getting shot at. The problem is that the sceptics seem to see it as some kind of religious duty to defend the world against the scientific establishment's view that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. We've seen the same over creationism, that took a very long time to damp down. We've also seen it over homeopathy and various other pseudoscience topics. Guy (Help!

) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nahh, it's a good block. . . and the only times I've seen it noted outside of wiki, is by people one person; with the wherewithal to publish unsubstantiated opinion after unsuccessfully trying to push their POV here. Not that it'll do much good- but I'll come out of lurking mode for a bit to support this block. Some people are not here to build an encyclopedia -they're just here to further real-world disputes. -R. Baley (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this block is completely unwarranted. There is absolutely nothing actionable on those three diffs. Unless there is some further evidence coming from the blocking admin, he should be unblocked immediately. ATren (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The accusations that this is part of some anti-anti-GW stifling is absurd. The block is for conduct, not a political view. These arguments seem very much like

soapboxing and are counter-productive. I can understand asking for the blocking administrator to clarify matters, but getting into conspiracy theories is likely to get you ignored. Personally, I wouldn't have made the block, though I do believe that the COI accusations were done as retaliation and JP should have withdrawn sooner. In his defense, myself and others had asked him for specific diffs to show disruption from WMC and he was attempting to do so when he was blocked. The reason I haven't unblocked is that Jehochman has implied that JP was violating a topic ban, and I don't know enough of the situation to say that isn't true. -- Atama頭

01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be useful to have the administrator who placed the topic ban comment here. I'll leave them a notification. To me the subsequent activities looked like "pushing the envelope" or testing limits of the topic ban, and disruptive to boot. An aggravating factor is that the account has been here since 2007 and has only substantially edited two highly controversial political articles. From all appearances they are here with an agenda that does not mesh with Wikipedia's agenda. Browse the user's contribution history. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I think we need more than generalities to indefinitely block someone from editing Wikipedia. Browsing the history I personally see very little evidence for anything, since they have only edited for such a short amount of time. In any case, to indefinitely block someone who has made a small amount of edits, because their edits do not show sufficient breadth or value, is not a passable idea in my view. The reason to indefinitely block someone from editing Wikipedia is that the problems with their editing are irreconcilable with a reasonable amount of effort. I become concerned when admins start to say it's enough that someone's failed to show their worth in a short amount of time. Mackan79 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The block requires review. It appears to be for Vandalism (by tag), where the editor was making constructive edits. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that the rationale for the block is because the editor was topic banned from the article in question, but then posted a COI notice about another editor who is a frequent participant in the same article. I think the question that needs to be answered is, "Does a topic ban prohibit the banned editor from engaging in dispute resolution with another editor from the same topic?" I believe that we (no nosism intended, I mean the community) usually allow banned editors, including topic bans, to continue to use the various dispute resolution forums. If so, then this block should be lifted and a note should be left on the climate change probation forum making it clear that bans do not prevent banned editors from pursuing dispute resolution with anyone in the appropriate resolution forums. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Actually your question should be: "Is there a dispute between the editor and the other party?", before asking whether dispute-resolution is reasonable or not. As far as i can see from the COI board, there wasn't, and the editor failed to provide reasonable evidence for his claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I guess we'll have to disagree on that one, but I've already given my opinion in the other board thread, so I won't repeat it here. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Failure to achieve your standard of "reasonable" is not a blockable offense. He believed his claim was valid, he used dispute resolution, he provided more information when requested, and for all this good faith editing, he was rewarded with an indef block. That's completely unsupportable. He's also a new editor, making this particularly

  biting. ATren (talk

  ) 12:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Let me get the ball rolling; I don't think this was a great block, and would support overturning it. It seemed a bit premature and over the top; I'm not sure the user did anything concrete to result in the sort of send off he got. Yeah, he was being a bit vexatious in his pursuit of WMC, but I'm not sure a "GTFO" block was warrented here, especially with the somewhat unpleasant comments left by the blocking admin when the block was administered. I don't think this user had yet passed into the unredeemable bin yet, regardless of the problems they have caused while here. I am in no way excusing the problems they have caused, but this block seems out of proportion to those problems. --Jayron32 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think the article ban was an overreaction in the first place, and now this indefinite block too. I don't think they're improper in the sense of being out of process or against policy, just harsher and with less attempt to warn and counsel the editor than necessary. Even if the block is good, given the editor's subsequent apologies, explanations, and promises to disengage[52] I don't see anything to be gained by continuing the block. The editor is clearly trying to be a good citizen, engaging, and listening, so a block serves no preventive purpose. Nevertheless, to avoid possible mistakes I would suggest waiting for Jehochman to comment, and treat this as lifting a block rather than overturning it as such. Also, a gentle reminder - if this is an article probation issue isn't it best forum-wise that we get in the practice of discussing probation enforcement on the probation enforcement pages rather than here at AN? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• He was being disruptive and wikilawyering about it. He was asked several times to drop the stick but continued to lay about the horse carcass. A block is not really a surprise under those circumstances. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• What Guy said. Also, what Jehochman said. Also, what Guy said above. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I find these comments disappointing. "Wikilawyering" is a Wikipedian term of art -- one of dozens -- that does not exist anywhere else in the world that I'm aware of. It's also a classic fault of new editors, since basically it comes down to wielding policies clumsily. Are we an organization that creates concepts and then bans editors for not quickly picking up on them? Mackan79 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The term is well-enough understood, it means debating the finer points of the letter of policy in order to violate the spirit of it. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not involved in this particular dispute but it seems to me that the offence that's been committed here is the persistent hounding, despite requests to desist, of an editor who has through no fault of his own become something of a hate figure in the right-wing blogosphere. About all that can be said in Jpat's favour is that he acted naively (at best). Is an indef block the best solution to that? I'm unsure, but at the least an interaction ban with WMC would have been justified, as was done with Jettamann (talk · contribs). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this be demonstrated? As noted here, Jpat contested WMC's actions in pursuing the initial article ban against Jpat. If Jpat had any history of pursuing WMC, I am not able to find it. Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are a couple non-obvious things going on. One is that the
  gamma ray burst, an article that never would have become featured without his help. I see that User:Jpat34721 wants to edit melanoma. That's a good sign, and I am willing to fix the block length to 24 hours, on condition that he ceases all hounding of WMC. It was very clear that Jpat34721 disliked his article-ban, and sought out the "leader" of those he perceived in opposition, and went head hunting. That sort of behavior is unacceptable, and should routinely result in a block. Those who haven't been policing this dispute may think this response harsh. Well, get involved and see what it's like before you criticize those willing to do a hard, dirty job that you aren't doing. Jehochman ^Brrr
  12:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • So the article ban is maintained, and a ban on interaction with WMC? I'd support that.
    talk
    ) 12:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's see what people say, especially uninvolved people, and then somebody should log the result. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a reasonable outcome. It is not unreasonable to maintain the existing article ban or to require Jpat to steer clear of WMC. I suggest also requiring him to stay away from the William Connolley article, as was required of Jettamann (talk · contribs) when he was sanctioned under the CC article probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

        Just my $0.02. I note a disturbing trend forming here and elsewhere to build a wall of invincibility around WMC to shield him from criticism. We must all accept the public criticism that is foisted upon us. That is, in part, how this place works. WMC is anything but a wilted lily who needs to hide behind community sanctions. If WMC does something that deserves to be criticized he should dang well have to accept that criticism like everyone else.

        So, in this circumstance and recognizing that COI charges have been considered against WMC many times in the past (by others) and rejected, I should think that an assurance to drop the current COI case and to avoid unnecessary conflict in the future should be sufficient.

        If an interaction ban is to be enacted it would only be appropriate if it went in both directions for the obvious reasons. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would support Jehochman's compromise solution above. Commute the block to "time served", with the note that a short block was likely warrented given the hounding issues. Institute an interaction ban to run concurrent to the current article ban, and lets see how this goes. This latest solution from Jehochman is much better than the GTFO-block we started with here. --Jayron32 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • About five hours ago I reset the block to 9 hours so it would total 24. The fact that the user wants to continue editing other subjects is an encouraging sign. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think you did right there. I don't believe him to be evil or bad, but he was in serious danger of donning the proverbial Spider-Man suit. Hopefully he has now backed away from the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise, Jehochman. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of editors seem to misunderstand

) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen's exactly right. That's why myself and others asked for evidence of disruption to show that WMC shouldn't edit the article (which is a moot point since it has been said that he had voluntarily withdrawn from the article anyway). I support the unblock, I don't think it's completely fair to say that JP didn't put the stick down because his most recent contributions to the COI report were an attempt to provide diffs that were requested of him. In any case, if he moves on to other things, then that's fantastic. -- Atama頭 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Many core topics on en.Wikipedia are way slanted owing not to the COI of editors, but because they edit towards their own sundry interests. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to pursue this at the moment, but I'd like to opine that there remains no basis here for any sanction. First, the issue Jpat raised was not a general one that WMC should not edit in the area because he works in the field. It is, at least as far as I understand, that he is a contributor to a blog that is part of the controversy and, as I understand, that WMC works closely with those who have faced accusations. If true, that is the kind of COI where one could look more closely at his editing, and numerous commenters at the COI noticeboard said as much. One commenter suggested that the link between RealClimate and this controversy is negligible, but the point has not been clarified as far as I can see. Regardless, the issue raised is not just that WMC is a professional in the field. Besides that, with Jpat, it appears that WMC requested sanctions against Jpat and then went to request for a specific administrator to evaluate the sanction request. Some editors have suggested that this is fine. I disagree; I cannot imagine arguing for a sanction against someone and then picking out an administrator to see if they would evaluatethe request. Even if WMC was utterly scrupulous in picking someone whom he did not expect would have any bias, this looks awful, and for that reason alone it is completely unreasonable to suggest that Jpat should not have questioned. Finally, we remain without any difs of any misconduct. I'd like to see where this goes, but it strikes me as another exmaple in a frankly indefensible trend of assuming bad faith, and banning editors without any real effort to work with them. Mackan79 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When people make mistakes in their assumptions, one of the key factors that I use to figure out if they are adapting their argument to the facts or the facts to the argument is if one of the base and key assumptions is proved false, do they change their position, or does the argument adapt. With that in mind, I feel it's my duty to inform you that I was the one who raised the report about this user. Difs of misconduct were presented in the report, though I was chastised by 2/0 for filing bad reports, and in fact, he basically rejected 3 of my other reports. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was eventually able to find the original report. The problem is not just if someone initiates a request however (which is not what I meant to imply), but equally if they are an involved editor taking a position in favor of it. I am not saying it is necessarily wrong either, but merely that it would look quite odd on the other side. An explanation that the admin was the one who usually handled these requests would probably suffice. But to pick someone out of a hat, and make the request in a way that suggests a prior relationship, with no other indication of why that admin was requested, would not inspire any reasonable person's confidence; in fact the more clueful the person, very likely the worse it would look. I consider that a useful metric: what would a reasonable but uninitiated person think, looking at this situation? Mackan79 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So if you were made aware that 2/0 was by far and away the most active admin notifier and closed a vast majority of the four previously closed reports, you'd have no problems with WMC going to him? Good! I'm glad we all agree that anyone who looked into the situation in its totality would have no problems at all. Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. The users contacted were 2/0 and BozMo, and BozMo was the one who then proposed the sanction. When I query BozMo's edits I see his most edited page is

Global Warming, and in running a search of him on the talk page I see him being criticized for a lack of impartiality. Here he suggests regarding the CRU controversy, "I guess so far we have only learned some sceptics are prepared to law break to try to muddy the water which raises questions on lesser moral standards like telling the truth." This is not a criticism of BozMo; no one is impartial on every subject, and few seem to be on this one. But it is to question WMC's impartiality in requesting that BozMo evaluate this request, and if we discourage canvassing, I would think we'd discourage involved editors from requesting specific admins to resolve specific requests. Or at least we'd expect people to complain. I'm glad to say that issue is moot now, in any case. Mackan79 (talk

) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have apologized to the two admins involved for my implication that they acted in bad faith. I stand by that but I am glad to see some sympathy for the position that recruiting admins by those involved in requests for sanctions looks bad. Requests for sanctions raise blood pressures and when you add on top of it the appearance of unfairness, it aggravates the situation and makes graceful acceptance of the sanction much more difficult. I would like to see some policy clarification that discourages this kind of thing. JPatterson (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Often, these editors don't understand the policies, so they'll quickly go enough astray that a block can be supported, but in truth they were blocked only for their PoVs. This has been going on for years. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that because it has been going on for years it should be allow to continue, or that a stop should be put to it? Please clarify. --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't support it, if that's what you mean. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if you don't support it, what specifically does that mean to you in terms of the current block and topic ban of Jpat? What should be done for each because of this perspective, in your opinion? --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought Jehochman helpfully thought about what had happened and cut the block down to a much more fitting 24h. The topic ban should likely be looked at again soon, now that Jpat seems to have a deeper understanding of policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if in future it would be better to redirect discussions on climate change-related sanctions and blocks to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. This might be a useful way of drawing in admins with a fresh eye. --TS 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Several people here have said things roughly equivalent to Regardless, the issue raised is not just that WMC is a professional in the field and no-one has yet pointed out that this is false (given that we are not, at the moment, talking about Bluetooth). It isn't hard to tell this; a visit to my user page will do William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No consensus to alter the indef topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moved from
  WP:ANI and restoring archived material. Guy (Help!
  ) 09:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Archive search for McCready
• Arbcom punts issue back to community

---

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively

Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk

) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [53]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here [54] and here [55]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to

) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [56] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [57] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and

Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [58]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [59]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [60] and Virtual Steve [61] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [62]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk

) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at [63] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [64]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless

WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!

) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key,

wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[65], including with an IP[66][67] (see checkuser results

).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[68]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of

competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08

) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[69] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

• FloNight [70] [71]
• MastCell [72]
• David Ruben [73]
• FeloniousMonk [74]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [75])
• Jim62sch [76]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [77])
• Friday [78]
• Jefffire [79]
• Arthur Rubin [80]

None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[81], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all

wikignoming

, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)

Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. --

talk

) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Summary

I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again

The bot for this page archived [82] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [83]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [84] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarification: should we let the ban stand (and come back for review after X period of time a/o when Y conditions are met), lift it with the condition that it can be re-imposed if needed, or something else. User has been notified [85]. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (

WP:TIGERS

are best kept in their cages on this one.

The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)

Richard Dawkins (8)

Ubiquitin (8)

Osteochondritis dissecans (7)

Talk:Water fluoridation (7)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)

Missy Higgins (6)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)

Fiat money (5)

PubMed (5)

Lee Myung-bak (5)

Karl Kruszelnicki (5)

User talk:Collectonian (5)

Silicosis (4)

Antireligion 4)

Meningitis (4)

New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

There are also plenty of examples of my collegiate editing on my talkpage. Will you please do me the courtesy of reading them. I have tried assiduously from the time of the ban to avoid wikidrama and now it is old enemies who want to create it. My recent record shows I just want to get on editing.

Now will you try to address the question. Even supposing the ban was validly placed (and that is disputed) it is false to argue that normal sanctions cannot be applied if I step out of line. You will also notice, will you not, that the POV pusher who has come out of retirement again and who is behind this from the start, has failed once again to come up with the goods on acupressure. He objects to scientific material being placed in areas where he edits (I can give a list of these off wiki because we wouldn't want to identify him would we?) Finally, will you investigate canvassing by him? A simple yes or no will suffice. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan ^T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)

Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read

silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk

) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

11 users have now commented. Only Middle8 appears to have read the full history and users can make their own judgment on his views and motive for doing so. One user has declined because links weren't provided. Since the links were on my talkpage and I requested people to look at them, and indeed they have been provided above by other users, users can again make their own judgment. Others have alluded to the possibility that the ban doesn't exist. Others have commented on their past views but have not reviewed my edits since the ban. One user has commented at greater length on my edits since the ban but has not responded to my further questions. In summary there is no consensus to support Middle8's views. So, unless others want to support Middle8's vendetta (and please address the original question with a more purposeful focus if you do), I intend to resume normal editing. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is false - I also read the full history and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The ban exists, this is not in doubt. I have said that I would not support lifting of the ban. Others agree, and this does not seem to be restricted to those who are on the opposite side from you in respect of fringe and pseudoscience content. ArbCom has said it will leave the ban status to the community, so you need to persuade people. The best way of doing that would be a sustained period of unproblematic editing on other topics. Your edit history shows that when you are not editing the articles in question you are largely inactive, so it is natural that some of us will be sceptical about lifting the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously I disagree Guy on many points. Your opinion that my edits since the "ban" do not amount to much is not shared by all the people who have commented on my talkpage. And please spare me the bullying and threats. I'm at one with Middle8 on this score.

Here are the numbers:

1. Guy who is adamant that the "ban" stays until Guy judges I have done enough editing

2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy

3.. Sandstein – withdrew from discussion on grounds I didn’t provide links (since it’s all on my talkpage which I’ve referred to multiple times … has obviously not made himself aware of the issue

4. Elen of the Roads – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,

6. SlimVirgin – an if statement does not support Middle8 and Guy

7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

10. Brangifer says supported in past when he used a different wikiname, doesn’t comment on now - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

11. The Hand That Feeds - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

Am I missing something Guy or is the "community" represented here by 12 people and myself versus you and Middle8 not as concerned as you are with this vendetta? I will now resume normal editing. You have had a chance to be constructive but you are even more stubborn than Middle8 and on opinion which is not shared by others, you have not responded to my questions. You do not represent the community on this issue.Kevin McCready (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are showing, once again, your combative nature, excessive tendency to personalise and factionalise disputes, and fierce determination to edit these articles. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Mccready, you will not go back to the topics you are banned from, otherwise I will block you. Understood? The community ban is still in place until such time as it is formally revoked. There is no consensus for doing so here and indeed a plethora of solid arguments have been put forward for keeping it in place. Moreschi (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kevin, that's a pretty deceptive summary. The point is that we are all against you editing in the area of your topic ban. --
  talk
  ) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Now blocked for 100 hours for ignoring the topic ban by editing at chiropractic education. Moreschi (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Predictable, I guess. I hold by my original thought that what we need to see is evidence of the ability to engage in civil debate with people he disagrees with. As I read it, the main problem was that he kept flying off the handle every time someone disagreed with him. I can see why, fringe-pushers are incredibly vexatious and persistent, but losing your temper has never fixed that yet and is unlikely to start any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban First off, for anyone who hasn't seen it, I did an in-depth evaluation of the topic ban approximately a year ago (Jan. 2009). Mccready wanted a review of the "indefinite topic ban (banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed) with a general probation on pseudoscience of one full year" that I enacted, following ANI discussions, 01:00, May 7, 2008. (This requested review was preceded by a December 2008 ANI discussion and December 2008 AN topic ban review, both which were only semi-productive but certainly provided indication of any support to reduce or eliminate any of Mccready's editing restrictions.) My Jan. 2009 review concluded:

The recent community consensus is clear: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand.

This was evidently unsatisfactory, and further discussion turned south as Mccready became more argumentative.

A month later (Feb.-Mar. 2009), admin

Kevin/Rdm2376, followed by dubious & combative WP:AN posts, burned bridges

and block drama.

All of these ban reviews have had common responses from Mccready indicating he has not yet and likely never will consider the opinions upholding any topic ban to be of merit (indeed, he apparently believes this "wasn't a 'community ban'"). Comments by Mccready directed at admins that have upheld editing restrictions often fall along the lines of "[a particular admin has shown a] refusal to engage in a logical discussion" presumably because s/he hasn't come to the conclusions desired by Mccready [86]. This has been a pattern of repeated forum shopping and tedious wikilawyering, with multiple instances of aggressive and uncooperative behavior spanning a couple years.

Moreschi's block is perfectly appropriate given that recent edits clearly violated the still-in-effect topic ban; a warning, seen or missed as the case may be, was a courtesy not a requirement in this case. At this point, I would recommend a full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed, at least; perhaps up to a full siteban based on a pattern of behavior that indicates an unwillingness to work within community standards.

Note: I believe Mccready should maintain the ability to respond to any comments in this discussion on his talk page while blocked (assuming that privelage is not reasonably revoked for disruption). Furthermore, I ask that Middle 8 voluntarily disengage from any further participation in this topic due to the long, contentious relationship between these two accounts. — Scientizzle 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, will do. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know, I do think that what he needs is to gain some experience in articles where he feels less strongly, just getting along with folks with everyday causal disagreements. I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong, too. From what I've seen, I think it's doubtful that Mccready will accept anything less than a full elimination of all editing restrictions. To be honest, I was leaning towards 'a clean slate' approach until Mccready started with the deceptive "evaluations" of various opinions (that list of 14 above), consistent with prior patterns of behavior, and then the brash topic-banned editing and the resulting unblock request BS...the patterns of behavior that contributed to the topic ban have not demonstrably changed it seems. — Scientizzle 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed". It's sad to see when certain hot-headed people's emotions get the best of them, and they do things which they might regret later. (Can happen to the best of us, if we hold to some positions very stronlgy.) Unfortunate, yes, and not very helpful. But I am not convinced that an indefinite topic ban is called-for in this case. Could be actually counterproductive. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef pseudoscience topic ban. I haven't seen enough evidence that such a ban will prevent problems in the pseudoscience area. However, I also oppose lifting of his current restrictions. Perhaps if s/he can show that s/he can contribute to wikipedia in a positive manner, without being a
  tendentious editor, with more than just a few edits here and there, then the current restrictions could be lifted. DigitalC (talk
  ) 15:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note

At present it seems unlikely this thread will produce a consensus either to lift Mccready's topic ban or to expand it to more topics. To clarify the ban's current status, I have made a new entry at

WP:RESTRICT can be updated. Since the ban was indefinite, it will continue in effect unless modified here. EdJohnston (talk

) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the reactions from the editor above, I think that what you drafted looks fine:

User	Type	Sanction (quoted verbatim)	Special Enforcement Details	Expiration Date
Mccready	Topic ban	Mccready is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed.	Community sanction imposed at this discussion, which occurred on 7 May, 2008	Indefinite

Did you want to do the honours Ed? Once this is done we can mark this thread as closed and continue on as normal. -

talk

09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT as shown above to document the old restriction, which remains in effect. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Decide his fate here

Per McCready's expressed wish here, (removed here), I am starting the procedure which McCready very clearly wished and as he suggested, using his own words.

Basically one should vote "support" for one or the other. A "support" in one section automatically counts as a vote against the other, so negative votes are unnecessary and would only be confusing. A vote to support him staying here should include what conditions he should edit under, for example a topic ban, other condition(s), or no conditions at all. --

talk

) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't do votes, so I've rejigged this a bit and retitled it. --TS 13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• McCready should stay,

• Support Broad indefinite bans on broad areas do not work, and are counterproductive. Specific terms for specific areas make more sense, and should not include article talk pages. Collect (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support a site ban. He has good abilities as an editor (and as a skeptic of alternative medicine and chiroquackery I actually share his POV), but his attitude is so bad and contentious that he doesn't belong here. His parting rant gives good evidence of that. --
  talk
  ) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since Tony's refactored it, this discussion can now be closed. We arrived at consensus for a topic ban already, McCready's
  WP:ULTIMATUM does not address the basis of the topic ban in any meaningful way. He may choose to interpret the topic ban as a siteban, that is his problem not ours. There is absolutely no need to reopen this discussion just because he's threatening to throw his toys out of the pram. Guy (Help!
  ) 13:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm okay with that. As I understand it (somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) McReady asked for his topic ban to be lifted (note emphasis). There has been much discussion but no consensus to lift that ban has emerged. There seems to be no serious discussion of a site ban (again note emphasis). One could make an argument that the suggestion of such a ban was extremely unhelpful. --TS 13:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, I was only following McCready's wish. Since he still doesn't believe the topic ban is correct, and has violated it, he seems to be suggesting that the only choices he'll accept are no topic ban or a site ban. Maybe I'm interpreting him incorrectly, but his history here is consistent with that interpretation and I think we should honor this. I'm not going to push the issue and will let you guys decide since you don't seem to mind his continued disruption. --
  talk
  ) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The ban has consensus, if he violates it he can (and should) b blocked, if he wants to appeal it then he can go to the ArbCom ban appeals subcommittee. I don't think anything's going to change here other than his getting blocked for violating the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• As an uninvolved editor in any of this conflict, I don't see this vote as being beneficial to anyone. He can still contribute in other areas outside of his topic ban, should he choose to do so once his block expires. He has a month to consider whether or not he wants to pursue the issue of what he feels is an invalid topic ban or move on to other subjects. On the other hand, if a majority of the votes are for him to stay, but not all mention any specific details as to editing restrictions, he may see that as a way to invalidate the topic ban he has been vehemently arguing against. Let the block expire and give him the option to contribute in other areas, and let his actions after the block be a factor in his participation, not a vote he requested when he was in a rather agitated state. HAZardousMATT^toxic 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• No offense intended, but the fact you are uninvolved may limit your understanding of the history behind his contribution history here. The matter isn't resolved and needs closure. It's not everyday a disruptive editor of this format actually requests to be banned or not. We shouldn't pass up this opportunity to let him know, and I obviously feel we'd be better off without him. I believe most other involved (=know his history here) editors feel the same way. Those who are uninvolved (=usually means they don't know much about this) needn't get involved. --
  talk
  ) 22:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's simply gaming the system. I'm uninvolved, and I have read through the discussion. McReady has exhausted AGF here, and this looks to be a Hail Mary pass by him to get the ban removed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin close the RfA, as Joe Chill has indicated here that they want to withdraw. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Regards SoWhy 13:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI Steve, cases like these are fine for NAC - see User:Enigmaman/SNOW for instruction on closing. –xeno^talk 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks xeno, I wasn't 100% sure, so if in doubt I leave it for others! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(moved from ANI)

---

Looking at the ANI thread on James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am reminded of something I have been meaning to do for some time. {{Blocked subject}} is advice for blocked subjects. If your template-fu is strong I encourage you to tweak or amend as necessary, for example to include whether the user is blocked or not as a parameter and tailor the message accordingly. Also reduce the length as it is somewhat loquacious. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice template Guy. I've made a suggestion on its talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, feel free to make any changes you like. It's very much a first draft. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

) 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For lack of a better word, please stop being a

get your facts right. Jeez! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵

15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: If you want to do something right, you have to do it yourself. That is precisely what I'm doing now, trying to get things right before I switch to another sig. Mind you, ROME wasn't built overnight, ya'know?)

NB, nothing in your talkpage reply indicates that you intend(ed) to do anything about this, so I think Gerard's facts are correct. A reasonable reply would have been, "Oh, sorry, I didn't know about that rule, I'll change my signature now." Clear. Simple. Polite. Unambiguous. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Right... just because I'm not replying in the way you want me to, doesn't mean that I'm not looking into the issue. Agreed? If that is the case, Jimbo should have made it a policy, right? Give the man some time... and by dragging me here is not helping either, wouldn't you agree? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (NB: That was me trash talking with Bugs, your fault was that you think too much without clarifying things with me first. Cripes~!)

• Block him until he agrees to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. (And I don't particularly like the tone of his comment above or the accompanying edit summary...) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• So by blocking me for something so minuscule is going to solve the problem? How brilliant~! And by that, do you mean that I can't even experiment with a new sig before I switch to it~? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: My bad... the "M" is something like a default setting that had been left in the "ON" position, by default on my Firefox browser.)

It's been three days since the issue was brought up on your talk page. When do you think you're going to find some time to work on a new one? Would you consider simply removing the 'blink' from your current signature? You can then take your time figuring out how you'd like your new sig to look. --Onorem♠Dil 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, it is done~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anything else to still be done here then? --Onorem♠Dil 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is, get them to drop the stick and move on! I mean it's just a sig, come'on! And was I wrong for calling that thread starter a DICK? I don't think so... he could have clear things up with me instead of rubbing me the wrong way. Jeez! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But it was a 'M' minor edit summary, so surely inconsequential? I really wish people would be more careful about marking edits as minor.

talk

) 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dave1185 is obviously aware of the issue now. I suggest that if he reuses the non-compliant signature, he be blocked. If he changes it to an acceptable version, we can mark the issue resolved. His recent edit-summaries don't reflect well on him, but I think it would be better to simply ignore them unless such conduct is or becomes a pattern. Abecedare (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I find all "fancy" sigs disruptive. They are hard to read and clutter up the edit box. TT's is just as annoying as Dave1185's to me. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear how you find a slightly colourful signature irritating on a par with an entirely colourful and oversized and animated signature. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It goes on for ages, isn't clear what links where, changes all the time, and clutters up the edit box, making replying harder than it needs to be. That said, although I can be an arse sometimes, I don't think I'd be such an arse as to try to get someone blocked for their vanity. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your edit-summary of "you did ask" – I did not, in fact, ask to be called an arse. I asked a perfectly legitimate question to which you have, in all fairness, made an attempt to supply an answer. However, your answer does not explain how a signature which "goes on for ages" is annoying (mine satisfies the length-limit in

WP:SIG), nor how the fact that a small element of it changes each time used (as some other users' signatures do) qualifies the signature as annoying. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox

─╢ 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So it doesn't bother you that it clutters up the edit box and it's hard to know what links where in it? The lengths of it is uneccessary and simply serves to make your name stick out more than others, and the changing wording is just confusing. Strikes me that you care just as much as Dave for criticism of your vanity sig. DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Per his earlier recommendation for me: Block him until he agrees to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. Note also that I subscribe to
  WP:DENY. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵
  17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Of course I agree to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. I have always agreed to this, and my signature does comply to the standards. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this been discussed dozens of times before and come to the conclusion that editors matter? There's a difference between a custom signature and this custom signature (The voice oɟ mud^{I am your voice!!}). This page explains the rules for them. This discussion is regarding Dave1185's signature. Please start another discussion if you wish to discuss custom signatures in general. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, to discuss Dave's signature: I don't find it any more disruptive than most other custom signatures. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I say,

16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Dave, that is a good idea.

Ask me

) 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some editors of custom sigs don't understand that what they see on their own display often doesn't look the same on other displays (and might even be unhappy with what they saw, after all the careful and fun tweaking some have done), owing to how boldings, sizings and default font groups can and do vary a lot across browsers and OSs. Either way, I do think blinking is far beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing what Gwen Gale has posted here. I recently saw that one of my earlier sigs looked horridly misshapen if Cleartype wasn't turned on in Windows... font parameters can vary rather drastically when you take into account the various browsers, operating systems, and settings that people have on their computers. For example my sig's font doesn't display in Windows XP, but displays in Windows Vista and Windows 7. If it's an older OS like XP, it simply displays a "normal" font of sorts. One needs to make a sort of compromise, taking into account these variables, and the rules laid down in the signature policy... The Thing _{Vandalize me} 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you can avoid the problem (and avoid your sig filling two lines in the edit box) by keeping it simple. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up what I have to say, about why it's meaningful to keep these within some kind of bounds (hence why this thread wasn't "teh dramz"), the first time I saw a custom sig with a graphic, I thought it looked wonderful. The code was short and sweet, the graphic was a clean and cool SVG and it didn't break up text at all. However, one could quickly foresee what would happen if a few hundred editors got stirred up to do likewise. Server load worries wholly aside, the outcome wouldn't have been high end industrial design. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

One particular problem is sigs which are invisible to users of the greenscreen gadget (I use it as without it my eyes get strained). DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the old Bobby Standard still exist? The online recruitment system I built for B&Q about six or seven years ago had to meet that, with various low-vision renderings done via server-side html substitution (screen readers, y'see). I got my bike mechanic mate Bob to test it in screen reader, he's a Jaws user and editor of the local talking newspaper. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Abd is banned fomr becoming involved in new disputes. Does this edit [87] constitute a violation of that ban? Guy (Help!) 08:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it does. I have removed it and notified Abd on his talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that went

talk

) 20:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Abd responds to warning with wall-of-text rebuttals, wikilawyering, fisking. In other news, Vatican admits Pope "is Catholic", naturalists report bearshit in woods. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And why did ATren insert himself in the middle of this mess? Woogee (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if you guys stayed away from Abd. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit late for this, but take it to AE or the request for clarification, or apparently, my talk page. I also am of the opinion that this would be a lot easier to sort out if the same cast of characters didn't show up every time.--Tznkai (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To address several concerns that have been raised from time to time concerning the participation of younger people on Wikipedia, I have posted an essay (and potentially guideline at some point) captioned Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff. My main observation is that from a young person's perspective it could suffer from

TLDR. Leaky Caldron

18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I'm not sure what is expendible. I thought about breaking it into parts, but that would be more complicated than necessary. Suggestions welcome (on the talkpage there is probably best). Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, to a young person all of Wikipedia might seem TLDR. I don't think the essay is doing any harm that way. -- Atama頭 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this essay regards actual young people, and not just "Wikipedia newcomers". –MuZemike 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I wonder if we can have a link to this placed, once implemented, on pages we've identified as IPs of K-12s. Valley2city^‽ 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello good sirs. I'm running into trouble with editing. You see I'm trying to spread the word / create an artical about my new website and social experiment: "H*lp M*ke M* * M*ll**n". However, when I try to create a page it just keeps messing up preexisting pages. Sorry for the inconvenience but could someone steer me in the right direction. Thank You! 66.71.74.127 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this

WP:WEB. –xeno^talk

00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou ill read that. 66.71.74.127 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that

Wikipedia should not be used as a means of promotion. Your edits so far appear to be largely promotional in nature, and Wikipedia is not the right tool to "get the word out" about your website. You're welcome to contribute here, but please don't set up pages to your site to try and attract business. ThemFromSpace

00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• [88] is categorically spam. The chances of the domain helpmakemeamillion.moonfruit.com ever being of any use to the encyclopaedia are slightly less than those of Willy on Wheels gaining a seat on the arbitration committee, I suggest we blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed, looks like they went right back to adding the link. Would agree blacklisting the link, blocking the IP on its next offense, and perhaps we should also take a look at other moonfruit.com links –xeno^talk 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'd that say today's

  talk

  ) 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Lol, what ever are you talking about ? ;> –xeno^talk 23:08, 19 January 2010

  What, me? —

  talk

  ) 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Per a motion at

:

Imposition of discretionary sanctions

The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:

(a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.

(b) Standard discretionary sanctions (

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong

" and all closely related articles.

This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 07:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

How do I draw attention to a philanthropic pursuit?

LaUra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.129.199 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On your personal web site, but there's no place to do that kind of promotion on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to concur with FisherQueen.

reliable sources, it can be written about later. We only write about things that have been written about in other sources. Bradjamesbrown (talk

) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

I just blocked Dr. Ahmed Hashi Farah (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) for making legal threats at User talk:Middayexpress, also note the attempted ownership. The threat was four days ago and they were warned. However, they have been editing since and have not retracted that threat. If, when they come back they clearly retract the threat then unblock them and please don't wait for me to see it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I left a note telling him how to get factual errors fixed in the mean time, based on {{Blocked subject}}. Second call for people with strong template-fu to help make that template more generic and easier to use. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've regained my admin tools, I really need to setup a recall page. I've looked at Lar's recall page, and it seems quite involved but very thorough. I've put myself in the willing to be recalled category, but I'd like to know what a good process and criteria would be. My main concern is keeping vexation litigants away.

Any suggestions? -

09:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For the criteria think of the biggest vexatious cabal you're likely to cross, then add one. You can always settle for less. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't already seen Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria, you can just go there and read through a bunch of 'em and see what proposal you do or don't like, or even what aspects you like of certain ones. A few processes (e.g. Lar's) are used by many, so it's not too much work. At least, that's one of the things I did. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Has any admin on the OTR list (past or present) ever been through the process of recall (successful or not)? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest my recall criteria:

) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a bad set of criteria. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Open to recall" is basically another way of saying "screw you" to the community. The alternative to recall is the basic standard of behaviour expected of the community. If someone points out a misuse of admin tools, pay attention to what they're saying. If someone files an RFC, pay attention to what the community says. These "recall criteria" are, in almost all cases, written in such a way as to be ridiculously restrictive. And they tend to lead to an attitude which amounts to "if you don't like what I'm doing, file a recall petition" (sometimes this is said explicitly). Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My recall criteria is more of a "screw you" to the recall system itself than a "screw you" to the community. I am always responsive to concerns about me.

Ask me

) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of truth in what Guettarda says. Most of the recall criteria I have read amount to little more than "I'll investigate myself if enough people who have never disagreed with me about anything think I should". DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually beginning to wonder about that myself... I've read a few of the criteria and they are very restrictive. Some of them are almost impossible for someone to initiate the recall. I'm going to have to rethink my opinion on recall... -

talk

15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/U, that they are no longer trusted to use their sysop access. As Guettarda and DuncanHill note, recall criteria has been more often used to dodge responsibility than to enhance it. Jehochman ^Brrr
  15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of the community being able to remove admin tools, just haven't seen any admins volunteer for a meaningful way of doing it. Part of the problem is the mindset that tools are given indefinately, whoever thought that up in the first place was an idiot. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't say much before as I didn't want to influence anyone one way or another over the discussion over whether I should recover my admin tools - I thought that might be a bit unfair. But admins (like myself) who contributed a lot of time and effort to Wikipedia and who didn't leave under a cloud have already proven themselves to be trusted and I see no reason why they should be forced to surrender their tools. One day they might come back, even after a few years :-) -

talk

15:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)So you didn't want people to know what your attitude to being an admin was in case it influenced their opinion of whether or not you should be an admin? Hmmm. As for people coming back after a few years, fine, but expectations and standards change, policies also change and someone who has been away a long time might not be familiar with current expectations and policies. But to return to my point, the idea that "an admin is for life" undermines efforts to keep admins accountable to the community they are supposed to serve. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, assume bad faith much? -

talk

20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe your choice of words was poor, that's why I used a question mark. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No more poor a choice than adding a bemused "Hmmm" to the end of the question. -

talk

23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the future of Wikipedia Tbsdy where admins are assumed to be corrupt power mongering children. Remember 2 years ago when decent admins were given some level of credibility?

Ask me

) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My memory might be failing me, but I don't think that was the case back then. WP:AN/I and WP:AN is still littered with the same POV-pushing, rude and intractible editors complaining that they have been poorly treated by a unspecified cabal of editors/admins who are out to get them! :-)

talk

15:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it clearly though, people worked primarily on making an encylopedia, trolls wore little bells on their necks so we could see them coming, reason and logic always prevailed, and drama was just something you watched on TV. Ahhh, the good old days(perhaps it was just a crazy dream?).

Ask me

) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I put your cabal membership card in the mail yesterday. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The community can already remove admin tools. (Just some folks don't recognize it.) Simply start an
  WP:AN and request a community sanction, such as Admin X has shown poor judgment and is forbidden to use sysop access. The community has the power to ban somebody, or topic ban them. Surely we have the power collectively to forbid an individual from acting as a sysop. Jehochman ^Brrr
  15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the AN method would get the response that "we don't have the power to do that here", unfortunately. And the very worst admins do seem to have enough friends to be able to claim "no concensus" for the RfCU method. This isn't aimed at any individual, but our "dispute resolution" methods are cumbersome, over-complicated, and unreliable. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a "recall" idea which has been tickling me for a while: copy-paste your entire RFA to some sort of subpage, and allow people to change their vote and add or remove themselves as "support" or "oppose" whenever they feel like it. If the support percentage ever drops below 60% and stays that way for a couple of weeks, resign. If it ever goes above 60% and stays that way for a couple of weeks, ask for your bit back. Continuous concensus, with little or no scope for gaming. 82.253.245.17 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather like that - easy come, easy go, no big deal. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice, but that's not exactly correct. RFAs really make the editor jump through hoops. That's not a bad thing, but it's certainly not "easy come". -

talk

23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that it would ensure that no admin would ever deal with anything controversial ever again (i.e. the Balkans, Ireland, pseudoscience, climate change, copyright abuse, disputed XfDs) for fear of mobilising enough people to push their RfA below 60% purely for doing what they were elected to do. 86.161.49.220 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would - other editors glad to see the action would express support, and in the spirit of "adminship is no big deal", surely no admin would be too worried about losing the status to stop them doing what they believe to be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In a perfect world that would be true. However, Wikipedia is definitely not that :) 86.161.49.220 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As surely as no editor would ever file a frivolous recall. -

talk

06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to file recalls, frivolous or otherwise. If a user decides that they no longer have confidence in a particular administrator, they simply change their currently voiced "support" to "oppose". Since the expressed opinion is continuously updated, it's a useful tool for bureaucrats to accurately evaluate consensus. 82.253.245.17 (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I come to think of it, not only is there no need for filing recalls, but no need for arbcom involvement, no need for RFCs and even no need for RFAs: the community expresses its opinion, the bureaucrats judge that opinion and act accordingly. If a faction's "block opposes" outweigh the rest of the community, then so be it. If there really isn't consensus, then there really isn't. No fuss, no muss. 82.253.245.17 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can recall a single example of the community coming to the consensus that someone should not be an admin, and arbcom not quickly acting on it.

) 17:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out the idea above: it's more-or-less a continuous RFA, except that adminship can be lost or gained easily as the ground-swell of conscensus changes. So the RFA stress is eliminated, conscensus is permanently (instead of the RFA snapshot) evaluated and respected and adminship goes back to being "no big deal". 82.253.245.17 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If I ever get to the point of doing an RFA, I will use the procedure in User:MBisanz/Recall. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Write whatever criteria you think looks good. Then if it looks like those criteria will be met either change the criteria or remove them entirely. That's standard procedure.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion (which I acknowledge is unpopular) is that recall promises are typically a mechanism for passing RFA, not for getting rid of problem admins. Recall criteria can be (and have been) altered or completely disregarded post-RFA. I am unaware of a single instance of recall that resulted in a desysopping. Skinwalker (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure most are done in good faith. But then you have to come up with criteria to protect yourself from it turning into a tool for harrassment. And that's where the criteria become restrictive. Looking at Lar's criteria, any admin who's not "open to recall" is ineligible. That means that many peole are excluded simply because they don't buy into the idea of recall. Which is fine, if you're open to input via an RFC. But then recall is superfluous. Guettarda (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole concept of recall criteria falls foul of the fact that admins are not elected representatives. They're essentially some freakish combination of volunteer janitor, security guard, and teacher. If necessary, they're let go by the School Board, if they don't meet required standards. The very concept of "recall criteria", a la

20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This just makes me sad. Let's all cede all authority to this "school board" and ignore community responsibilities.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a perfect metaphor, if you get into the guts of Arbcom's role/dispute resolution/community sanctions. But it's a whole lot better than the metaphor implied by recall criteria. Rd232 ^talk 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I can't think of an example of where arbcom has not quickly acted on a community consensus that someone should not be an admin. This is a bit of a non-issue.

) 23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. That plus ArbCom tends to review the evidence rather than reaching for the pitchforks and flaming torches. I thought that
  WP:CDA had been marked as failed / no consensus (probably the only time I have ever come to disagree with Uncle G) but I'm disappointed to see that the undead corpse has been revived at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC. I hope people will take to heart Newyorkbrad's considered objections. I cannot think of anyone more scrupulously and transparently fair than Brad, even including Jimbo. Guy (Help!
  ) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Quite. The community sanction process (certainly AN/ANI) can often be pretty pitchforky; or perhaps one step removed - a poster in the town square where townspeople who happen by vote on someone's innocence or guilt, and appropriate sanction. That it works as well as it does on WP is a miracle; but a similar process systematically applied to the town's police would be an obvious disaster. Rd232 ^talk 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Not a fan of the jury system? :P -

  talk

  06:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  This isn't really a jury system. It's an American Idol/Pop Idol system, which can be gamed. And it certainly doesn't have the order of a courtroom... there's no judge, bailiff or attorneys here. As Rd232 said, it's more akin to letting random passers-by vote on a sheet of paper about a criminal's guilt. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  As The Hand said, it's precisely not a jury system. The most relevant difference is perhaps the jury selection process: jury members are initially selected at random and then various selection tests designed to ensure impartiality are applied. On both counts the community process is strikingly different, and indeed many of its flaws arise from that. If we did have a jury system for the trickier AN/ANI issues - some way of randomly selecting from qualified editors, plus exclusion of any agreed to be "involved" - it might be an improvement. It would risk duplicating Arbcom, but in a very mini, simple version it could possibly work without doing so. Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  That invites the question: If ANI is such a pile of shite that admins don't want themselves subjected to it's mercurial judgments, why the hell do we prosecute ordinary editors here? Jehochman ^Brrr 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, because administrators are natural targets for pissed-off editors. I think the answer to your question is pretty self-evident. Unrelated; thank you for not using the term "begs the question" inappropriately; that drives me nuts.

Tan | 39

16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because ordinary editors don't deserve to be treated as well as admins? DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because a lot of its flaws arise from the self-selection effect, which is obviously much worse for any discussion of problems with authority figures. In a jury trial of a cop, anyone he's ever arrested is going to be excluded, no? Rd232 ^talk 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What goes on here is in the way of discretionary sanctions, which are notionally within the discretion of any uninvolved admin but where there might be a request for other eyes. Admittedly the peanut gallery can come along and start throwing shells, but I don't think that affects the outcome much. 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Jehochman has a point. Administrators are not the only natural targets, and the majority of are harder ones to take down by a few grouchy folks.--Tznkai (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We ought to be much more conservative when talking about people. If an editor or administrator has problematic behavior that cannot be resolved without extensive community discussion, then the correct venue is

WP:RFAR if there is none. If RFC does not work as well as it should, let's fix it, rather than spawning alternative processes. Jehochman ^Brrr

18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My phrasing "works as well as it does" was deliberately not saying that it works well. Rd232 ^talk 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Jehochman's rhetorical question, I think the problem is that for a small number of Admins, WP:AN/I is a no-win environment. They do the heavy lifting, deal with the ugly disputes (e.g., ethnic/nationalistic, pseudoscience, global warming, US politics, etc.) until burnout inevitably comes & they need to hand the bit back. Any recall process only makes this group's useful work harder. For the rest of the Admins, a process closer to what Chillum has on her/his user subpage is more than enough. Talking to the person in a reasonable manner -- or opening a thread on WP:AN/I -- should be sufficient to alert the average Admin to a problem. And if that doesn't work, then the ArbCom can't help but get involved & de-Adminning may need to follow. (And to TBSDY lives's original question, my advice is simple: don't bother with creating a policy. Just do the best you can, & if it all goes to hell, & if WikiBreaks stop relieving the stress, then give back the Admin bit.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

At

) 19:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chick!

talk

) 19:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to start an account with the name NCLI, but I am not allowed to do so because it has bears resemblance to Nc11, an already registered user. Seriously?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.55.60.91 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I point you to the correct venue, I want to note that "NCLI" looks remarkably like an acronym for something such as an organization, group or company. That being said, the page you want is

talk

) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought he was doing something weird with Roman numerals like 0151 or even -151. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This RFC has hit the thirty day mark, if there are any admins left who can considered themselves "uninvolved" it would be good they could do a summary and close it up. Thanks

) 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)