Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive311

Al Gore's Nobel Prize

Resolved

There's plenty of controversy surrounding Gore's Nobel Prize. I've seen it in plenty of news articles. But, for some reason, Wikipedians seem to only be able to add opinion blogs from the web about it, or add them in addition to news sources to get some sort of left/right balance. A blog is a blog, isn't a reliable, credible news source for the sake of a BLP. Can someone deal with this at Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize controversies? I simply don't have the time. KP Botany 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an administrative issue. Try leaving comments on the relative talk pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Admins can't fix content disputes. Please continue talking things out on the talk page, or take steps towards mediation (such as a

WP:BLP/N. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk]

22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And Al Jazeera is definitely a reliable source. Please don't forum shop because you don't like the material. Kyaa the Catlord 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, KP Botany is not shopping for a different forum, but rather has concerns that policy is being violated, perhaps inadvertently, by using blogs as sources. S/he is supported by

WP:RS in this. I disagree with your opinion about Al Jazeera, but had you or anyone used that as a source, I wouldnt revert it, A blog on Al Jazeera would be another story, as would a blog on the New York Times (my favorite paper). Jeffpw

22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then

WP:RSN may be a better place for their concern. Caknuck

23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, KP Botany is ignoring the fact that the blogs aren't the only sources being cited in this case and is reverting away material backed by sources that do meet

WP:RS, including Al Jazeera. I've reverted KP based on that criteria. Kyaa the Catlord

00:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh the wondrous harmony. People, no this is not an administrative issue, but some administrators happen to be quality editors and might be able to help generate a consensus. You don't have to freak out at KP Botany. You could, ya know, also assume good faith?  :) Might make ANI a bit less dramatic and contentious  ;-) --Iamunknown 02:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading my previous comment, I see that it is very unclear. I meant to state my opinion that this is not an ordinary content dispute (which I now realize I didn't even mention...) and is, in fact, relevant to this noticeboard. I'll try to be clearer in the future. Apologies, Iamunknown 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed

Al Gore controversies in RC patrol recently. Maybe the Prize discussions should be suggested to take it over there, where a controversy is within the proper context. (SEWilco

03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">Oh, I'm freaking out! I'm freaking out! I'm freaking out! Oh my God! Help me, I'm freaking out. Oops, once more trying to guess my mood rather than dealing with the issue leads to failure--content, not editor please. I don't have issues with the news sources, and I'm not ignoring them. What I am doing is reverting all simply for lack of time. I had already explained the blogs can't go in the article when they were reinserted along with various news sources--this could have been handled by only putting in the news sources, not the blogs. Readers can decide for themselves which mainstream news source to go by, because we have articles on them, they're known and searchable and they're not blogs. However, someone did step up to bat, another editor who has more time, and is taking care of the issue, doing what should be done, discussing it on the talk page with other editors. I'm not reporting a BLP violation or freaking out (good God, rereading my post makes it absolutely clear that I am ballistically over the top shooting the moon freaking fucking out) just putting a notice the quickest place to get some other editor to deal with it on a regular basis to resolve the editing issue. This has been accomplished. Thanks for the help, everyone.

And, BLP violations are indeed admin issues. What a shame that some admins don't know this. KP Botany 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you alluding to Iamunknown's statement You don't have to freak out at KP Botany.? -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OOOPS!!!!! I apologize, as obviously I misread it. Too much to do, and no time. Thanks for pointing this out to me. KP Botany 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

65.54.154.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made two vandal edits [7] (they're both identical) to the 2003 page, I reverted them both, adding a warning level 3 tag to the talk page. I did a whois to see if it was a shared one.

It resolves to Microsoft, any idea on actions if the vandalism continues?

Edit, I'm reporting the IP to ANI for a temp block, it's getting out of hand.

(Ni!)

01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)I gave them a final warning for more vandalism. If it continues, block as usual and notify the Communications committee. Mr.Z-man 01:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been uh... 6 vandal edits, and I'm not an admin, so I lack the block power.

(Ni!)

01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours and just about to notify the committee. Ryan; Postlethwaite 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just spent several hours straightening out MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist; the requests for Whitelisting certain sites for inclusion on Wikipedia. I went to add a request for whitelisting an official announcement from Dark Horse Comics, that they happened to make on MySpace, and was really messed up by how confused the page was. I didn't, however, have time to fix it then. It had gotten to be a real mess; because of a couple of incorrectly entered sites, it had become *really* unclear where you were supposed to edit things, and people were throwing requests and commentia in willy nilly. It hasn't been archived or anything in half a year.

I have; removed declined requests to their own section; removed expired and withdrawn requests to their own section; extracted all the requests that had been placed in odd places to the proper section; put the requests in date-numbered order; done the same with the discussion section; corrected all the headers so that everything should be tidily in its own place. I have fixed many of them where the header was just 'add this site!' and not, properly, the site requested to be added.

However, I am not an admin; there are 25 whitelist requests that need to be addressed. I believe I have sorted them out so that one studious admin could fix it in 90m or so, but as backlogs go, this is a little mild, and could be cleared out by 2-3 admins with very little pressure work in a day or two.

Also, if anyone is interested in building a bot that would do the archiving this page needs, it seems to me that it might be a fairly simple starter bot. Otherwise, I've just added a note to my calendar for the 1st of the month, and will take hand-archiving this page (and reminding y'all that it exists when the backlog grows!) on. --Thespian 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article sprotected. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was directed to this page from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Someone editing the

List of IPs with warnings and blocks: 216.9.250.108 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.102 -> Multiple vandalism warnings and blocks 216.9.250.63 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.101 -> Multiple vandalism warnings 216.9.250.61 -> Multiple vandalism warnings and blocks 216.9.250.103 -> Multiple vandalism warnings

Ips with no warning but all reverted to known vandalism: 216.9.250.37 216.9.250.36 216.9.250.35 216.9.250.99 216.9.250.110

I do not know if I can provide more information without a lot more research but this should be enough to show there is a problem here with blackberries and we need to curb it.-Kirkoconnell 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a couple weeks. That avoids the collateral damage involved with range blocks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:76.15.39.47 has put the Freemasonry stub template on what looks like over 100 articles, most of which are not stubs (such as Freemasonry and History of Freemasonry. Is there an admin tool to mass-revert, or do they all have to be undone by hand? MSJapan 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Indefblocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone using account

Account indefblocked as blatant vandalism-only account. Please try

WP:AIV for a quicker response. —Wknight94 (talk

) 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Golyanovskii threatened to kill me. I'm sure it isn't allowed. On a related note, he also violated the 3RR. Click here. Charles 05:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone. His obviously copyvio images are about to go as well. --B 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your speed in dealing with this! :-) Charles 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Related note: [8] Is this a sockpuppet? Charles 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, checked and looks unrelated, but still peculiar. Charles 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a harassment-only account. --B 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know how everybody hates it when people scream "admin abuse" but this is a very short, very solid case of exactly that from User:Davidcannon.

Summary: Davidcannon, who is an ex-member of a religious movement that has by some been characterized as a sect, reverts an "anonymous" user's (mine) constructive edits to that movement/sect's article, including several reliable sources added, the fact that the movement has been categorized as a "sect" and a few citations/neutrality tags. The admin then choses to block the user.

Evidence/Chronology:

• 1) I ("anonymously", IP) make a bunch of edits to the article on Plymouth Brethren. Here's a diff showing all my edits: ^[9]. It's important to point out that I provided edit summaries on 3 of 8 occasions: ^[10][11][12]
• 2) User:Davidcannon (admin) reverts my edits, calls it vandalism and says it doesn't match up with what he remembers of the brethren ^[13] (he has confessed here that he used to attend their meetings).
• 3) I revert back, angrily but not rudely. ^[14] I reply to a comment made by Cannon on the talk page, where I complain he labeled my edits "vandalism".^[15]
• 4) David reverts me^[16], blocks me (with an expiry time of 24 hours. Reason given: Deleting information without adequate explanation.) and posts on the talk page ^[17] where he quite mistakenly suggests I deleted "whole chunks of text without justification."

A clearcut case of abuse of admin powers, if you ask me.Is this somehow not anonymous? 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate a response from Davidcannon. On the surface, the block certainly appears suspect. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Concur, an admin should not implement a block on an editor with which he has recent edit warred. At minimum, I suggest that the block be reversed pending explanation from User:Davidcannon. Ronnotel 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it never really got a chance to become edit warring, he reverted me once, I reverted him once and then he blocked me.Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would, but I don't think anyone should be unblocked until the blocking administrator is contacted, unless there's much more evidence of consensus. Let's not

wheel war here. — madman bum and angel

16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. The block wasn't extended to account creations, and the user in question is obviously able to edit under this account. I would ask both parties to refrain from editing the page under dispute until this is resolved. —bbatsell

I agree, unblocking or not doesn't really matter. I also agree we should both keep off the article until this is resolved. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated not-anon's edits on the Plymouth Brethren page, and I would suggest he should consider himself completely unblocked by consensus of admins here and not be under any restrictions not to edit this or that. The block was very clearly unjustified, there can be no serious doubt about that, whether or not David has responded or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Compromised admin account?

Wait a minute. Look at Davidcannon's blocking of anons in that log.[18] There are some really draconian anon blocks there, in fact all his anon blocks since March are draconian. The previous one, 70.184.253.131 on September 24, is for one month for at most two bad edits,[19] (one of them is apparently in good faith). No warning was given, the user talkpage still hasn't even been created. That was a case for creating the talkpage and posting a mild, welcoming "test" template; not a case for blocking for a month out of a clear sky. One week seems otherwise to be David's standard block--including the one for 76.216.98.183, August 30, where I don't see any way of telling whether that IP, most likely a student at the school in question, was vandalising at all. They could just as well have been adding correct information, and again they weren't warned or contacted in any way. And look at it--they only edited for 7 minutes altogether, all the same school article. And so on. These blocks are so strange, to call it by no worse name, that I'm beginning to wonder if this is a compromised admin account. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

I doubt very much the account is compromised, but I agree there are a number of poor blocks there in the logs, might be a good idea to wait for an explanation before we jump on him, there may be a reason behind all of them. I see David hasn't been so active with the tools as of late - maybe he's turned a little more trigger happy than usual or he's forgotten about

WP:BLOCK? Ryan Postlethwaite

16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is - I think it's rather a case of an admin that's out of calibration with the community. I'm looking at his block log going back for the last couple of years and it appears to be ... well, draconian was used above, and that's a good description I think. I've asked him to comment here. - Philippe | Talk 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

83.233.154.50 (talk · contribs) unblocked. MaxSem 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur and I would have done it myself if you had not already done it. I think it's important, though, that we realize this was a good faith mistake on David's part and hardly abuse. --B 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think that it was a "good faith mistake"? Could you please explain what part of suddenly blocking somebody who edits an article (relatively) close to your own person is a "good faith mistake"? Maybe all the other previous blocks, where he got away with it, were good faith too? I would say it's extremely bad faith and even if he does apologize, I think he should definitely not be allowed to remain an admin. Is this somehow not anonymous? 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (I'll use this account for the duration of this problem, but thanks for the unblock)

If it were a compromised account, they'd be trying to do as much damage as physically possible before the hammer dropped on them, if I remember the last time such a thing happened. HalfShadow 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the blocked user here. This was nothing more than a content dispute, the user used edit summaries after he was reverted the first time, and engaged with Davidcannon on the article's talk page. Blocking someone to gain an advantage in a content dispute (with a frivolous and untrue block reason, no less) is the very definition of abuse of blocking privileges. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be a good faith mistake in that David Cannon thought (incorrectly) that the IP user was adding fact vandalism to the article. That's all I meant by it. --B 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fact vandalism"? I think that's pretty much NOT vandalism at all, see the "what vandalism is not" at

WP:VANDAL. // Is this somehow not anonymous? //

19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you are correct. The question is what David Cannon believed - if he incorrectly believed your edits were vandalism, then it's a different situation than if he believed your edits to be legitimate, but blocked you anyway. --B 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see where the "good faith mistake" comes in. "I thought it was OK to throw around my authority when people disagree with me? Oh, it isn't? Well, my bad, I thought it was OK." This person shouldn't be an admin. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Even in a best-case scenario, the admin seems to have exercised some really bad judgment, if not outright abuse. And "fact vandalism" sounds like a euphemism for content dispute. -Chunky Rice 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I would really like to hear User:davidcannon's take on all this. On the surface, his actions violated the admin prime directive - don't abuse the tools. Blocking someone with whom you have edit warred is abuse of the tools unless there is a really compelling reason. Ronnotel 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Davidcannon's response

Now that I've slept on it, I think I did go too far. I admit to an interest in the topic, and have strong personal feelings about it, which clouded my judgement. I apologise for that, and will refrain in future from exercising powers in an article I consider myself involved with. Again, I have seen a lot of anonymous editors that are suspect, and when I see an anon making an edit that I believe is in error, I sometimes take that the wrong way. I believe I was wrong this time, and will be more careful from now on. David Cannon 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I still think there's a second issue here as well - I believe that your blocks may be out of calibration with the rest of the community, sometimes. In my opinion, you're issuing much lengthier blocks than what most of us might. I'd like to encourage you to stop and think about that as well. I applaud you for reconsidering this block in the instance above, and for being open minded about this. - Philippe | Talk 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't wanna be irritating, but what are the odds he would not say he is reconsidering this block when the 10 or so admins that have voiced their concern on this topic ALL said he has been abusive/problematic, and his block has already been undone? To say "I was right" is not really an option. I know I'm violating

WP:AGF here but I'm seriously disappointed in Davidcannon's response. I think the right thing for him to do would be to resign from his adminship immediately. // Is this somehow not anonymous? //

21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this response is disappointing. I would like to suggest that a better venue to continue this conversation is at WP:RfC/Use of admin tools. Any seconds? Ronnotel 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better there, far less chance of "ordinary" editors noticing it. DuncanHill 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

isthisanon: I understand that you are upset and quite rightly so. Davecannon has behaved badly and you are entitled to a sense of outrage but we aren't going to see him dysysoped over one block unless there is clear evidence of an ongoing problem and the admin continues to refuse to listen to advice. What I see is an apology and an acknowledgement of error. You should see this as a victory of sorts. I see many worse things done by admins who subsequently do neither. While I appreciate your feeling that something more can be done, that's not really the way we work round here and Davecannon needs to be given time to show that he has learned from his mistakes. Alternatively, consider it as giving him some more rope but there is no way on earth that arbcom will consider further action unless the behaviour is repeated.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we go down this route, are we sure that there is a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity that has continued despite warnings from outside parties? I'm not, and I don't see the evidence. Davecannon has acted extremely badly in connection with this block but has acknowledged his mistake and apologised. He has been told that his block lengths are out of kilter with the rest of us and has been asked to think about it. What exactly will we be looking for from the RFC? I'd said about the same things plus modification of their behaviour. RFC is premature at this stage, a stern talking to is not. Should Davecannon fail to mend his ways then by all means go for an RFC but there is nothing to be achieved by one right now.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening an RfC makes no judgment one way or the other. I simply feel that a separate page will provide a more effective venue than the extremely busy

WP:AN/I to discuss the matter and reach a conclusion. Ronnotel

21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spartaz here. So far, David Cannon has made one response and it was a positive one. Let's not go on a sysop hunt quite yet - and let's not go from no one complaining directly to "(he should) resign from his adminship immediately". Surely there's some middle ground. As far as his general use of admin tools (i.e., a trend of overly-long blocks), how about just discussing on his talk page? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see things a little differently. I see a clear abuse of admin tools, a history of overly aggressive blocks, and, quite honestly, an 'apology' that sounds more like he's sorry he got caught - this time. Ronnotel 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

{ECx3}RFC is a very blunt weapon that will not achieve anything further then what we already have here. A community consensus that Davecannon fucked up and that he must behave better in future. Plus he has been asked to review his block lengths. Seriously, what else are you expecting to come out of the RFC process except hours and hours of wasted effort. An RFC is pointless anyway as there is only dispute with one party and it takes two affected editors to certify an RFC. Simply put, AN/I is the place to discuss this. We have discussed this and I think we have a consensus - see above. Now its down to Davecannon to behave better otherwise we will be at RFC and he will be dysysopped - but not now. We shouldn't be after vengeance we should be after improvement.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read all your responses.

I have to admit that some of my recent blocks have been heavy-handed. I know I've done this several times, and it won't do any good to plead stress (though that is real), for that's a problem we all have. The bottom line is, I should think twice before I take action, and I promise to do so from now on. Now, for a word of explanation for this latest issue. The topic is one that I have strong feelings about, because I used to belong to that church. Even though I left it 20 years ago, I still have a lot of respect for it, and I still have friends there, and I don't like it when someone speaks about them in a way that seems unfair. Toning down positive information, or tagging it as "POV" etc., rubbed me up the wrong way. I wasn't very objective and allowed it to go to my head. In future, I will refrain from exercising administrative roles when it comes to articles that I have an emotional interest in. I mean that, and I think it should go some way towards allaying everybody's concerns. And by the way, if my responses seem too few and too crisp, please understand that I work very long hours and can only squeeze in a computer break whenever I can. Once again, I'm sorry. David Cannon 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Give the guy another chance. Llajwa 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

David, thanks for this response. Please recognize that using the admin tools in the heat of battle is exactly the kind of action that generates mis-trust for us among all non-admins. I appreciate you taking the time to write down your further reflections. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, by all means drop me a line and I'll be happy to provide a neutral pair eyes to the problem. Ronnotel 01:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that offer, Ronnotel. If I see similar issues with articles I have an interest in, I think I'll pass the matter on to you and go by what you say. And I'll take everybody's advice about the length of blocks, too. I won't use blocks in edit wars again either. I can see why a lot of you see my behaviour as arrogant, and if I'm honest with myself, I think I'd see it that way too if I was on the receiving end of it. David Cannon 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Spartaz and Wknight94 - it seems unnecessarily punitive to start an RFC after he apologized. On a note to Davidcannon: IPs are often dynamic/shared and may change owners frequently or be used by many people at the same time; that is why we don't usually issue long IP blocks right away. Only after multiple previous blocks for the same reason makes it is evident an IP is static do we give extended blocks. Also, warnings, like those at

WP:UTM should usually be given before blocking. Mr.Z-man

01:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Before we go down this route, are we sure that there is a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity that has continued despite warnings from outside parties?" - yes and well, dunno. There is definitely a persistent pattern of abusive admin activity, but I haven't dug through his talk archives to see if he's actually been warned.

Look at his block log! [20] it's so odd that one admin (Bishounen) suggested the account could have been compromised! The "draconian" behaviour is however NOT limited to the past few months - it's been Cannon's modus operandi since he was made an admin! I don't even think I'm exaggerating if I say that at least 90% of the MANY blocks he has handed out have been handled way improperly. There's also evidence he will block people doing the smallest of mistakes to articles he has an interest in (esp. Fiji). The only good thing you can say about his activities is that at least he stopped handing out indefinite blocks for 1-2 bad edits (he started giving them 1 month blocks instead). If this guy gets to stay admin despite the serious abusive pattern he has displayed, I definitely think Wikipedia loses out in the end. Why give him a chance to improve? This guy shouldn't have been made an admin in the first place, that was an obvious mistake. Now is the time to correct that mistake, rather than trying to make a swan out of a goose.// Is this somehow not anonymous? // 08:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that if you say he won't lose his privileges over this he won't - but that only shows there's something severely rotten in the state of Wikipedia. It's an insult to every admin who keeps in line, and it's an insult to every person who fails an RFA. Also it's definitely the kind of things that makes people get disillusioned and leave Wikipedia.// Is this somehow not anonymous? // 08:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just like we shouldn't block users that haven't been warned, we shouldn't desysop admins that haven't been warned (in both cases excluding extremes, like death threats, obvious bad sockpuppets or deleting the main page or so). David Cannon is now aware of the problem, the community is now also aware of the problem, and if this behaviour continues, it seems likely that he will end up for ArbCom and may be desysopped. If, on the other hand, he doesn't continue like this, then there is no need to desysop. Everyone can make mistakes, and everyone deserves a second chance (again, excluding truly malicious actions: I believe his actions here were seriously misguided, but not malicious).

Fram

11:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine, but that's why Wikipedia XXXs, if you don't mind my saying it. The threshold to becoming an admin is really high - but once you're in, you're not likely to get thrown out unless you actually raise hell. Which obviously is an idiotic system, but I guess I should be happy to see the admin's take damn well care of each other! Actually, when a bunch of admin's protested at Cannon's behaviour at first, I thought this would be dealt with in a satisfactory way, and was happily surprised about that. But now it turns out everybody just wanted to hear Davidcannon say "I'm sorry," and then everything is fine? Right. Perfect. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned before

This link is not directly related to this matter, but still [21] This one is however very much related to this [22]. // Is this somehow not anonymous? // 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User unblocked, concerns about other (older) blocks may be added to the

talk

) 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite administrator Alkivar being scrutinised by ArbCom, he has once again engaged in some fair poor behaviour. He blocked G2bambino (talk · contribs) for a week earlier today for uploading some images without sources despite no human warnings for it. Then, without giving the user chance to source them, he deleted them after only a couple of hours. Auburnpilot then unblocked G2bambino as this was an extremely poor block and Alkivar has chosen to wheel war and reblock. Firstly, I would like to gain a quick consensus to unblock G2bambino, and a block on Alkivar could well be in order. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan has fairly well summed up the situation, and I'd just like to add that I very much support unblocking G2bambino. The user was not given a chance to respond adequately to the image issues, and I have since explained the requirements to him/her. G2bambino understands the situation, and should be allowed to continue editing. Alkivar....I don't know. I've added a section to the ArbCom case. - auburnpilot talk 19:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that G2bambino should be unblocked; I'm not sure Alkivar should be blocked, but he should be instructed to leave blocks of G2bambino to other admins for the time being. Sam Blacketer 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock I fully endorse any motion to unblock G2Bambino. Wheel warring is unacceptable and inappropriate. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc.} 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely unblock G2bambino. A 1 week block, without previously discussing it with the editor, appears punitive. I don't agree with a block on Alikivar, however incidents of his recklessness with sysop tools are mounting rapidly. I wonder if he could be persuaded to voluntarily refrain from using the tools until this can be sorted out. Rockpocket 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that Alkivar should be blocked. I do, strongly support an unblock on G2bambino. The user clearly understands what they did now, and, how to do it right in the future. A week was overkill, in my opinion. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to correct/prevent editing problems. Misuse of admin tools should be addressed through ArbCom, or in extreme cases, emergency desysopping by a steward. The Arbitration case against Alkivar will likely open this evening, at which point evidence of concerns can be added to the evidence page.

Thatcher131

20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in to support an unblock. This

good faith user honestly did not know what was wrong with the images he was uploading. No one explained to him the problem, nor was he ever warned that he was about to be blocked — let alone for a week. Support unblocking. I don't support a block of Alkivar, since it's apparent he's not going to wheel war further over this. --Haemo

20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked G2bambino. Sam Blacketer 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The only wheel warring involved was auburnpilot unblocking a user who has repeatedly violated image policy... without waiting for a response from his post to my talk page. If anyone would take the time to read the user's talk page history, you'll see there are numerous warnings for lack of license, lack of source, and lack of fair use rationale. Just today the user uploaded approximately 15 images as PD w/o sources, which triggered bot warnings, and my initial block. If this were G2bambino's first image warning, there would not be a block involved. If this were a second warning, i'd have blocked for 24hrs... this user has several 3rr blocks on his record, numerous image warnings and as such I blocked for 1 week, this is not an unreasonable length, and grounded squarely within policy.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single warning stating that G2bambino was about to be blocked, if there was, he may have stopped, he now understands what he did was wrong (you see he didn't before) and will change how he uploads - see, no need for a block, just some explanation. AP's unblock was because G2bambino accepted what he did was wrong, and 1 week was completely excessive for a good faith user who didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Then you re-blocked!! That is a completely unrequired wheel war, and I'm stunned that someone in your current position would be so stupid to re-block. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Repeatedly violated image policy"? How far back are you going to find this? I think that if you bothered to take the time to research this properly, you'd find that any image I've uploaded in at least the past year now has sufficient tags and/or fair use rationales; other older images I may have done incorrectly before, and didn't later rectify, I simply let be deleted. Today was the first time I'd uploaded 100+ year old images, and thought my two provided copyright-expired tags on each of them was sufficient for such images. I'm obviously no expert with image management, but I'll tell you I'd have learned much more from an explanation than a week-long block. Plus, you're clutching at straws if you're going to bring up previous 3RR blocks; the majority of those (which isn't actually all that many) weren't themselves justified, nor do they have anything to do with this case. --G2bambino 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) After looking through recent blocks, I found that User:Chiangkaishektwnroc was blocked for 1 week for uploading copyrighted material without a human warning. There's a number of bot messages, but I don't see any human attempt to contact the user. I'm not an admin, but I thought this might deserve a look too. The user doesn't have a lot of contribs, so it's harder to tell if it's a genuine good faith editor. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are a list of users I have found in Alkivar's log that have been blocked with no user warnings, only bot copyright notices:

• Chiangkaishektwnroc (talk · contribs)
• Mikeyxbikey (talk · contribs)
• Cranny07 (talk · contribs)
• Mino Algerie (talk · contribs)
• Ilgb06 (talk · contribs) –– Lid^(Talk) 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason those accounts were not responding to the bot messages? Is it merely that bot messages don't provoke a response? Was there something wrong with the "message bar"? Are people more likely to respond to human messages? Anyone want to try and get some answers, assuming the humans behind those accounts haven't moved on by now? Carcharoth 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He has an open arbcom case accepting evidence. If you want something to be done, then take it there. —Cryptic 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the issue of what to do with these blocked accounts maybe should be dealt with sooner. My view is that it is better to explain things to people, even if they don't understand the image policy straight away, rather than lose new contributors. Is there any reason AN/ANI can't review Alkivar's actions while the Arbcom case is in progress? Carcharoth 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To reply to Carcharoth, some editors (myself for one, a friend for another) don't always take a lot of notice of Bot messages, because the bot messages are not always clear - they sometimes seem to assume that the editor in question has a knowledge of Wikipedia-speak that isn't always the case.

I wanted to add a couple of images to an article, but the Fair Use page confused me, so I didn't bother. If I had, and a bot replied, it doesn't make anything any clearer. An admin just coming along and blocking because I screwed up is, in my opinion, even worse than a non-clear bot message, especially if they don't explain why the block/what I did wrong, and would result in a lowering of opinion of Wikipedia/admins. An editor, admin or not, that takes the time to explain what I did wrong, helping me to fix the problem, or at least pointing me in the right direction shows favourably on Wikipedia.

(Note - hypothetical, as I've not had any interaction with Alkivar, not been blocked, and gave up trying to add images) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Twice tonight, that is, two different disputes, two articles, I've come into conflict with

The editor continues to persist in his comments [28] and then this, in which all editors opposing his edits have a 'scary mentality' about things [29]. ThuranX 04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing a non-print source does not fall under

No, the DVD never states 'He was credited by mistake as 'Kid Omega'. It states the director saying that he thinks the character's name is Spike, or Quill. The Director's not even sure of the name, much less, able to address the credits issue, which is Rglong's problem. He wants to rename the character in the cast list to Quill, despite the fact that it's been Kid Omega, per the credits, that the character description compares it to Quill, and so on. There' no citation for 'correcting' the entry, because there's nothing to cite. However, it's good to know that being maybe right means you can call anyone opposing you a nazi and be incredibly uncivil all around. Thanks for the clarification. ThuranX 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Rglong (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for gross incivility, for the diffs cited above, and especially for this comment [30]:

• "I'm sorry, but I can't be civil"
• "you are full of shit"

He's definitely been

I have just blocked 68.75.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for 3 months one month (anon only, account creation off), which is a range that, from all that I can see from simple history checking and personal experience, has solely been utilized by the banned (read indefinite block that no one will ever think of lifting) user Joehazelton (talk · contribs · block log). Just looking at the history of User talk:Gamaliel and prior to the protetion of Peter Roskam shows that nearly every IP edit comes as harassment from Joehazelton. There is nothing we gain by allowing Joehazelton to continue editting, as he repeats the edits that got him banned in the first place, and the only other thing he does is vandalize the userspace. Input on how we can prevent this user from returning, in any way shape or form, is welcome.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally! I assume you are steadily locking down ip ranges, other than that I don't think there is anything to do but wait him out. Even Cplot got bored/got his city blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.79.147 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I'm still hoping for a send-electric-shock-through-keyboard button. —Cryptic 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If this guy is still causing problems this long after his original ban [31] why isn't he mentioned on Wikipedia:Long Term Abuse? There's not even a community ban. William Ortiz 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, that class-b is registered to AT&T Internet Services, and could potentially affect a large number of innocent anons. Arakunem 11:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn has not provided diffs or an explanation. However, this appears to be largely a content dispute and multi-article edit war about the proper naming of the

Nobel Prize in Economics. Cardamon

18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some examples: removing references and inserting false information[50], false info[51][52][53] // Liftarn

Have you tried

WP:RFC/USER? - Jehochman ^Talk

11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe we should just use the name used by the foundation itself and movew on. This didn't make it to

EconomicsGuy

14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I did file one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Camptown, but since there are several editors (or socks of either meat or wool) doing it it it's probably not the perfect way to deal with it. // Liftarn

I would support that as using another name would be a

WP:NCON that says "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." so the full name (or official short form) should be used in articles (and templates) instead of slang versions. // Liftarn

Template messages to regulars

Resolved

 – Take this discussion to an appropriate venue.

I would like admins opinions on whether it is acceptable to use template warnings (eg no personal attacks) for regular editors. DuncanHill 11:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to give them a personalised message rather than the standard boiler plate message - it often inflames the situation if you use standard templates. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Any message that begins "Welcome to Wikipedia." is obviously inappropriate for regular editors. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, "welcome to wikipedia" is just stiring up the situation, especially with an NPA warning, it really is a bad idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable according to a narrow reading of policy *but* the thrust of conversation here over time has been that with long-term editors it is best to *talk* to them first rather dropping messages that start "welcome to wikipedia...." which tends to inflame the situation - but hey you could have either carried this on in the previous section or discussed this with me on my talkpage in response to this edit summary of mine rather than start a new section and leaping straight to requesting admin action. --Fredrick day 11:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an incident. It doesn't belong here. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourth attempt at replying to Ryan - afet edit conflicts. The argument about templates inflaming situations applies equally to new editors. Experienced editors should not resort to personal attacks. I didn't try discussing with Fredrick day because he did not bother responding on his talk page, simply deleting and leaving a patronising edit summary. I shal in future remember never to criticise in any way any action by Fredrick day as he is clearly someone who can never do any wrong, I shall also not bother asking for admins opinions as clearly this is also considered inappropriate. DuncanHill 11:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Until the next series edit wars and/or revisionism battles break out, the consensus [54] on

WP:DTTR was "essay" rather than "policy." However I suspect that most editors agree that with the exception of extremely novice users who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's ever expanding myriad of policies and guidelines, personalized messages almost always work better than standardized warning templates. --Kralizec! (talk

) 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Resolved - take it to an appropriate venue" - so what is an appropriate venue? Or are ordinary users not allowed to know? DuncanHill 12:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFTT would be the most appropriate places. --ais523 12:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC

)

Whoops, I obviously meant

WP:DFTT. --ais523 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC

)

WP:WOTTA... Carcharoth

16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to your original point, no, it's not acceptable to leave a template warning on an established editor's talk page. Templates are for anonymous IPs when you're RC patrolling. If you don't have the time (or can't be bothered) to write a message out to a fellow editor in your own words, then you need to examine your motives for wanting to do it in the first place. If your motive was to help correct a serious grievance, then take some time and write out your thoughts. If your motive was to show everyone your grasp of policy and how strictly you apply it, go edit an article instead. A Train^talk 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to quibble on details when I pretty much agree 100% with what A Train said, however phrases like "not acceptable" sound awfully strong when describing things that are not official Wikipedia policy (and in fact, as per consensus,

WP:DTTR is not even a guideline). --Kralizec! (talk

) 13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think A Train's remarks are brilliant. The "let's try and find the right template for this" thought process is OK for articles, but not when you are trying to leave someone a message. That requires original thought and discussion. However, I also find the "before discussing, let's see if this is an essay or a guideline" thought process to be equally formulaic and wrong-headed. Sometimes it is best to use common sense. Carcharoth 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you all know that I shall not be bothering with this page in future, I feel unwelcome and unwanted, and do not feel that either I or Wikipedia can benefit from it in any way. DuncanHill 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. If you had 13,000 fewer edits, I would leave your offender a {{uw-bite}} warning. However since that would probably get me smacked with the Salmon of Doubt, I would instead encourage you to visit bitee advice and hope that you continue your hard work on the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a good link! Bitee advice - sounds different, at least. Carcharoth 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if another admin were to chime in with an appropriate comment. Otherwise, I see escalating blocks in User:Cleander's future. Thanks. Ronnotel 13:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to possess the gift of prophecy. In fact, I can see escalating blocks not only in User:Cleander's future, but also in his present. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Has returned to do the usual minor but tedious drive-by link spam e.g. [63], plus an unexplained deletion of some text from an unrelated article. A 1 week block was tried to get their attention. Can I suggest a permanent block to be reverted upon sensible contact? Spenny 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Tihorog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked both and a third older account. I also started deleting the images but ran out of time. I'll be back in an hour or so if no one else gets to it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is blanking my talk page conversations with other editors, calling me a "troll" [64] [65], apparently angry about the thread up above regarding the whole Husnock SP charge. This violates

Please Ober, you need to stop this, it's getting disruptive now. Durin does not want your messages on his talk so please leave it alone. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, Betacommand is not an administrator. He was when Husnock was here, though.

/me ducks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem if we're only talking about talk pages. I still feel that getting called a troll in an edit summary violates

WP:NPA, though. The best to everyone, I'm outta here. -OberRanks

16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Given Ryan P closed the above thread and told OberRanks/Husnock to take it up with Durin on his talk page, Betacommand removing the comments on Durin's talk page is very unfair, and I have reverted and asked BC to knock it off. The accusations of "troll" (not trolling) and "dirty sock" (not sockpuppetry - the Husnock account's been inactive for months and months) are also bullshit.

☎

17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead if ignoring the facts why dont you look at the evidence that has been provided, They are the same person, second I removed the trolling on durin's talkpage prior to the thread being archived. Quack quack, Husnock == OberRanks, second Trollling = the act of being a troll == troll, Instead of making comments without doing reseach and being completely wrong about it, please look into it and you will see the obvious. Just because Husnock/OberRank hasnt been around for ~ 5 Months doesnt mean anything. (we found a husnock sock in april).

β^_command

17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Betacommand, they are the same person. I know this. Perhaps you should read everything properly. I have bolded the important part of my above post and made it red to help you. Trolling is deliberate disruption, this is not trolling. Having more than one account is not automatically sockpuppetry, particularly when the first account went inactive months before this one became active. Instead of namecalling, perhaps you should back off and let people who know what they are doing handle this.

☎

17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Neil (or anyone else for that matter) is denying the fact that OberRanks and Husnock are undoubtedly the same editor. Instead Neil appears to be saying that regardless of OberRanks's 'real' identity, we should still follow the normal rules and guidelines detailed in

WP:TALK. --Kralizec! (talk

) 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the above threads, and that I seem to be the only one with any patience left for Husnock/OberRanks/whatever, I have posted to User talk:OberRanks a message telling him to a) leave images alone altogether for a month, b) after that, to be very careful indeed, and c) don't bother denying he's Husnock to avoid the ArbCom sanction he received.

At this point, if he can't manage those two things, I'm all for suggesting community patience has been exhausted, and banning him. If he does manage those two things, I will mentor him. Feedback would be appreciated.

That he denies being Husnock when it is so blatantly obvious would seem to be ignoring remedy #2. A condition of continued participation should be coming clean. --B 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

His response [66] seem to be mostly satisfactory, though his rambling non-denial (not sure what else to call it) on the Husnock issue is a little odd. Ideally, I'd prefer that he admit he's Husnock, but if he can stick to the other terms, this might work for everyone involved. Good job on this, Neil. Chaz ^Beckett 17:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Neil. My admiration for your patience just went up a notch. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As regards the identity thing, I know it's him, we all know it's him, he can deny it if he likes, it doesn't really matter. However, he says he will email me, and I will see what he has to say.

☎

17:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient work on this issue Neil. It's appreciated. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see their praise and raise the pot with a well-earned Attaboy! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig is involved in a NPOV dispute at Homeopathy. Some of his actions led people to create an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whig_2 RfC on him. However (as seen on the talk page), instead of discussing the concerns brought up, he's made unsubstantiated claims that he is in the right, and now accuses people who are against him of deliberately ignoring the evidence. Help please. -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like for an administrator to do? Mercury 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Block him? -Amarkov moo! 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also not object to a nice long block, possibly on community patience grounds if nothing else. It is apparent from the RfC that a) many editors with a variety of different views find him to be disruptive and b) he has no intention of changing his behavior at all or even of trying to constructively participate in the RfC. JoshuaZ 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to object but it would be better to let the RfC goes on. It was just started yesterday. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to take that attitude if not for the fact that multiple editors including myself tried to explain to help him in regard to how to respond or benefit from the RfC and we were essentially ignored. See for example [67] [68] [69]. See also his comments about both his prior RfC and this one here where he explicitly says that he thinks that the editors who are involved in the first RfC are acting under "bad faith". JoshuaZ 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors having acted in similar ways have been found outside the project. It is just a matter of time and my point was just about following the process until he'd get tired or more persistent if he'd choose that way. He is free to not participate at the RfC but he is not free to keep being disruptive after its closure as he should abide by the outcome (opinions of the community). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this edit summary [70] just 3.5 hours ago is downright unimpressive. There's plenty of bad behavior all around in this topic area, but he is obviously creating a disruption. I think a topic ban and civility probation is an appropriate remedy. --B 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate. It would be good to get User:Mercury's reaction to this proposal, as he has been in the thick of it. Raymond Arritt 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a short block will have any effect here, Whig simply does not understand our policies and refuses to engage with other editors in a constructive manner. I and several other editors have tried to coax him into discussions in the RfC, his responses - "I have made my response" and "Am I your monkey?". I agree with B, topic ban and civility probation. Tim Vickers 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (outdent) I've had the opportunity to review everything, and having seen, I'll support a topic ban, and civility parole. Mercury 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, per [71] he doesn't seem to be interested in taking part in this discussion. So the question now becomes how broad a topic ban is necessary. I would suggest pseudoscience and fringe science topics. JoshuaZ 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) What about the same for User:Sm565? Though it looks like civility isn't quite as much a concern in his case. Raymond Arritt 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. A SPA which was blocked twice. Sm565 appears to be no less disruptive than Whig. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that a block for Whig would give him time to cool down. This kind of comment (diff) is completely unacceptable. As a comment, please bear in mind that Sm565's first language is not English, at least some of his comments are genuine misunderstandings. Tim Vickers 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tim - Sm565, while being disruptive, does not display the bad faith that Whig does. Sm has an obnoxious habit of forum shopping and reiterating the same argument over, and over, and over again (ask for diffs, or read his edit history), but he hasn't been calling people names, for example. I'm not uninvolved - I certified the basis for Whig's RFC and have been engaged in a lengthy attempt to get him to enumerate the reasons for his objections to Homeopathy. I would support any sanction against Whig, especially a topic ban, but Sm I think we can deal with without such measures at this time. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cool down" blocks do nothing but cause problems - "cool down" should NEVER be used as a justification for a block because invariably it cools nothing down. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Either there is something to prevent or there isn't. In this case, I believe there is something to prevent, based on the conversation at User talk:Whig. --B 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My refusal to provide a detailed defense to an abusive and improper RfC is not grounds for any kind of ban. Whig 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what you should have said at the RfC. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave a formal response to the RfC. Please read it if you like. Whig 00:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no proper grounds for an RfC. This is an entirely abusive process. Whig 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC on Whig did NOT start yesterday but started on October 10th, 4 days ago. This editor has shown a total disregard for the RFC and any consensus existing against him. This user has clearly said that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him and that he refuses to change any of his behavior per the RFC. Let me post some Diff's. Aside from the vast amount of evidence presented at the RFC, Here is his behavior since the RFC:

here is Whig's official response to the RFC

Here Whig says that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him at the RFC and refuses to change his editing habits

here Whig attempts to bait me into starting an arbitration by adding the POV tag again

here Whig calls the RFC "Garbage"

here Whig calls the RFC "abusive"

here Whig accuses me of "abusing" processes in my request for a comment concerning him

I think that some sort of action is needed in this case. I would not be opposed to a topical ban, or perhaps specific limitations placed on this users editing such as a 6 month 1 revert rule and civility watch, as well as a temporary 2 week ban from the Homeopathy article. I think that this is being VERY lenient towards this user. Although I wouldn't object to a total temporary ban of several weeks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the RfC as being as much on Wikidudeman as upon me. He has brought a meritless RfC, which is not backed by the links he provided. Whig 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure people would, if you gave any reason to contradict our analysis that the RfC is backed by the provided links. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wanderer57's comment. And I do not think it appropriate for me to discuss the RfC further here. Whig 04:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban him. Why are we wasting this much time on this "editor?" OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's beginning to look that way. I had come into this thinking that it could be sorted out and not require major sanctions, but Whig's behavior in this thread has convinced me otherwise. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the banning of someone who has been an editor in good standing for three years without trying something else first. --B 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? --B 05:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Three years? You neglect to mention that of the 42 months he has been on Wiki he has 0 edits for 14 of those months (33%), and less than 25 edits per months for 22 months (52%), and another 2 months of less than 50 edits (4.8%) meaning that he has made numerically significant edits in 5 of the 42 months, or 12% of the time. Really, "editor in good standing" is a misnomer -- he's popped up occassionally, and mostly on talk pages. Really, he's added very little value to WP. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation ... to be honest, I didn't notice or look for the gaps - I just hit oldest to see how far back the contributions went. I'm taking a look at the edit count. Something makes me rather paranoid looking at this. --B 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)