Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669

Blocked and reverted by various editors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless it has been oversighted, I can't see where Bananaeaters posted anything to Kroeger579 (or vice versa). Not like it matters, though, Bananaeaters was clearly a vandalism-only account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't oversighted, it was posted to the userpage instead of the talkpage. Since there were no previous edits on the page, it was deleted to restore the status quo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Okies this is really simple... I'm fed up of telling

Note since filing the report, Mariahicky made a further unsourced change here and upon being informed that he/she had been reported to administrator, he/she even tried to blank the ANI. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And since my last post here he/she has received a further warning from another user. [19] -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Were there sources for the genres before the editor started changing them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Its a regular pattern e.g. adding Hip-Hop to Mariah Carey articles, randomly adding R&B to articles etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that article, it doesn't look like any of the genres are sourced, at least not in the infobox. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In which case, if they're articles I personally edit a lot or put work into I usually blank the genre field in the infobox. I am aware that other users (especially in the Mariah Carey field) tend to put the genres from her article page (R&B, Pop). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Equally that doesn't justify his/her attempt to blank the ANi report. By all means if Mariahicky wished to make a point they were invited to the discussion and hence was welcome to come and comment here... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has been around since the fall of 2009, and has also been warned numerous times. This can't be a newbie mistake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Give a final warning, if still continues, indef it. The account is pure disruptive. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out this edit, which I'm fairly sure is a legal threat. I'm also wondering if we should revdel it out for exposing personal info. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified the other person of this discussion, or in fact even discussed their edits with them? Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I just left them a note about it. Anyway, I wanted to bring it up here to see what others thought of it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Block as a clear legal threat. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the RFPP request was denied. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Denied by me. The editor simply "threatens" to make a "formal legal request". It isn't inappropriate to state that you intend to make a formal request if you perceive that libel has taken place and won't cease. The editor has received a sufficient warning on his talk page; that's what the {{

talk

) 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In any case, somebody needs to explain to this user about our

I was just recently reminded that one of my early edits was on an AfD I read about on somebody's blog, and I had no idea that my !vote was not a fully legitimate vote and no conception of the community rules that make

WP:CANVAS a good idea. IMO he is busting our rules because he doesn't know them, so an explanation is a good idea. betsythedevine (talk

) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48 hours as a sockmaster, after two more accounts were created by the company for the purpose of legal blustering. See

talk

) 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE? betsythedevine (talk

) 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are to prevent damage to wikipedia, and preventing damage is more important than whether a newbie feels "bit". He can use the downtime to study the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BB, that makes sense. I'm still learning too -- so thanks for not biting me. betsythedevine (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This is all being worked out elsewhere--at User talk:Mbz1 and EW Whether the content should be used at all is an editorial decision. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed what I considered a clear example of plagiarism from the Washington Post in this article, removed it, and explained why.

To be absolutely clear about this, the Post has this phrase in an article: "...pointed to the Mossad shark and other Arab conspiracy theories as an example of..." [20], and our article has exactly the same wording. This is unattributed, and thus a copyright violation. The whole thing could have been dealt with by a simple paraphrasing, but Mbz1 seems not to understand policy, and why this is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe take this to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_February_1? That would have the further advantage that Mbz1 could also post comments there... betsythedevine (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Related issue reported here [21] --

talk

) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless the article is blanked, probably best to take it to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Nobody reviews those listing pages until a week after they're opened. :) But we can also carry it over to User talk:Mbz1. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to carry it over anywhere. I've evaluated, and the provenance of the quote is blatantly obvious, since the contributor who placed the text ( User:Mbz1) initially did so in quotation marks and cited to The Washington Post ([22]). Here is the point when that properly attributed quote was turned into plagiarism, by another contributor who I guess did not realize that the whole sentence was copied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So why not just restore the quotation marks then? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I just got here. :) She chose instead to restore the plagiarized version and deny that The Washington Post was the source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Why use second-hand quotations at all? Do we really want a quote from the Washington Post used as a source for a quote from the WSJ? This is messy, and unnecessary when the original can be found without too much difficulty. The use of the Post quote in the first place looks like laziness, or a misunderstanding of how to source things properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hold up The user has stated (s)he is banned from ANI? is this some sort of miscommunication or what? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  As a condition of lifting the latest indef block, yes, ANI is off-limits. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of that, obviously. It seems a peculiar thing to do. Is she not even permitted to reply when she is referred to? If that is the case, then should we not take this elsewhere? I have no wish to deprive her of the right to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's already elsewhere. As you requested, I am explaining the issue to her at her talk page. There are also notes at the talk page of the article and at the EW listing, to which she can respond. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume there is some baggage I am missing here but it seems person should at least have the right to respond when the {{subst:ANI-notice}} hits their page unless they are under a block. Stopping some one from posting Frivolous complaints or agitating situations they're uninvolved in is one thing but preventing them from defending themselves? Crosses the line of reasonable editing restrictions in my book. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I say I agree with ResidentAnthropologist. Though I'm still not exactly happy with Mbz1's response (she owes more than one editor an apology for name-calling), it does seem somewhat unjust not to have let her respond here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Megadittos. I'm disturbed to hear that there are users who can be talked about at ANI, but who aren't allowed to participate. That's a decision that needs rollback. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It was done because they were making lots of frivolous complaints here and constantly stirring the pot. Their block log may shed some light on the prolonged nature of issues with this user, this was a "last chance, and I mean it this time, not like the other fifteeen last chances you got" compromise that they agreed to abide by.

talk

) 04:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Info Mbz1 was blocked and then banned over a single post she added on AN/I in the thread that was started not by her, and over a single SPI request. Somebody claimed she filed a frivolous AE request, but it was not a frivolous request because the user the request was concerning about was topic- banned less than a month later. Broccolo (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure what can be done about unregistered users making vandalism. Check this guy out and let me know where I can find more info about this. I got a little lost in the admin/warn/block pages when I was trying to figure out what to do. Thanks! Udeezy (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Revert, block, ignore covers it nicely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's helpful. So I've got the revert part down. How would one block an unregistered user (all I've seen has to do with registered users who have been warned, etc.)? And then I assume that ignore is just literally ignoring them, not an actual thing that needs to be done? Udeezy (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You would report them at

WP:AIV, where an admin would either block for a while or say "not currently vandalizing, come back later".--SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thanks for the input folks. I think I've been misunderstood here - I'm not actually going to be blocking for incivility as you have all understood it, but for 'personal attacks' or 'disruption through incivility', something which I've not done in the past. However, it's interesting to see the responses that people gave, and the community's opinion of the issue. Clearly, something needs to be done to stop the newbies being scared away without acting like the 'civility police'. If anyone has any private thoughts, I'd welcome an email discussion on the subject of 'what to do'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of recent events, I'm going to start blocking for incivility - something I don't normally do. This will be a contentious decision, I know, but my mind is made up. What lengths do other admins currently use for this sort of thing? Is a 12 hour block the standard? Is there a 'gradual scale', as with 3RR blocks - 24,48,1 week etc? Thoughts welcome. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Usually about a half hour, then a right thinking admin makes the unblock.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally it depends on the degree to which you dislike your victim. Some admins start with 10-second blocks and work up from there. In fact it isn't even necessary that your victims are actually incivil, just that you claim they are.

Fatuorum

20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if you're looking to block or otherwise sanction someone for questioning authority, remember that revenge is a dish best served cold. Also, IRC is your friend. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've only seen one or two people ever get blocked for incivility, but I've seen many have their blocks extended or indef'ed, and then have talk page access revoked because of incivility. ... Is it possible to revoke talk page access without blocking them? There've been a few users I've seen that that'd help ("Oh, I was never warned about that... More than 4 times... On more than five occasions... By three people..."). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about big incivility - long rants attacking a user personally, disruption-style stuff, even repeatedly using edit summaries such as "reverting: your edit, while well meant, was fucking awful and you're a shit editor". Not blocking for this tiny stuff people complain about - that's best handled by a cup of tea. The concept of block of less than 12 hours is rather worrying, to be honest. I'd never make one of those. Malleus, in good faith - and because I honestly want your opinion on this - can I ask you what sort of incivility would be appropriate for, say, a 12 hour block? Direct it at me if it'll make you feel better :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither Malleus nor an admin, but

I already have a Reichstag model and a Spiderman action figure: I guess (this is directed at noone) that "bitch-ass smegma-brained cock-sucking father-fucking cunt-faced needle-dicked shit-breath'd piss-blooded cum-saliva'd meekrab" would be worth at least 48 hours if it were actually directed at someone. Ian.thomson (talk

) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

With the above comments in mind, how do you folks go about dealing with editor who are consistently rude and abusive, and assume bad faith, even to new editors? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on whether or not they're an administrator. If they're not then block; if they are, then start making excuses for their behaviour.

Fatuorum

20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My plan in such situations is to issue three warnings (elaborate, detailed, and personal, not the automated {{uw-whatever}} message), a short block, a longer block, and a report (and it hardly ever reaches the "short block" part). That is, of course, if you are not personally involved in the matter... in which case you might want to report it first and let other admins deal with it. But that's just me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 20:53 (UTC)

Thanks! Serious answers anyone else? I know about the problems we have with incivility blocks, different rules for admins/editors, and the problems we have with incivility, and I'm hoping to come up with a solution. I'm listening to everyone about this - even banned users - because I want something that will work for everyone. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As is readily apparent from the snarky replies here, there has been significant resistance to blocking for incivility, per se. If I were you, I would stick to blocking only for clear and specific violations of WP:No personal attacks. Anything else is a can of worms best left unopened. — Satori Son 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that.

Fatuorum

21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can come up with a way of blocking Jimbo, Arbs, and Admins that will actually stick - well done you. As it is, it is the immunity these people have from being blocked for incivility that makes it so unproductive (to put it kindly) to contemplate blocking anyone else for incivility. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping to do. One rule for all of us, although either a very simple or very complex one. Either way, I think the final solution should not rely on blocks as an incentive. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were a single NPA event, I'd probably block for 24 hours. Since you seem to be talking about persistent incivility in the face of previous warnings, I'd guess 72 hours would be a reasonable place to start. (I haven't looked to see if I can figure out who you mean, I'm just answering from personal experience.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a 24-hour block for a single occurrence of anything essentially punitive? Arakunem^Talk 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree. A block for "Look, jerkface, learn to spell" would be punitive. A block for "Look, [Carlin], you can take your [Carlin]ing opinions and shove them up your [Carlin], you piece of [Carlin]", would be preventive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What would it be preventing?

Fatuorum

21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The block should be more about context and less about the strength of the words used. In your example above, I can envision a scenario where "Look, jerkface, learn to spell" would warrant a block, while Carlin practicing his list would not. It has to be about the effect the incivility (perceived or otherwise) is having on the location where it was placed. If it is about how offended a specific admin is, then we have a problem. Arakunem^Talk 22:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be at
  WP:AN (if anywhere at all) ? Where is the "incident"? Where is the urgent admin action? Why are we clogging up this cess-pit of a board even further? From an arb as well - disapointing. Pedro :  Chat 
  20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone (scroll up) said the board needed more drama. In any case, shall we move to AN? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, always short on drama on ANI.... I'd have thought AN was the most obvious place for this. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from a non-admin. I don't think there's any one rule that can work for incivility, and the only consideration should be whether a block is going to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Someone being abusive to a newcomer or a content creator and risking driving them away - yes, block (but not punitively - only to get their attention when talking has failed). If someone is rude to an admin, a block should only be appropriate if it is serious or long-term abuse - admins should be able to take a bit of flak (I work partly in online community moderation, and minor abuse is usually just a short term emotional reaction, and is almost always best countered by civility). And as an aside, I think the now near-legendary 10-second block was one of the worst admin actions I've seen here. I don't know who did it (and I don't want to), and I don't apologize for saying so - whoever did it should be prepared to accept honest feedback. Anyway, my main suggestion here is do not go overboard on the civility thing. The faceless nature of online communication leads people to be less civil than they would be face to face, and it can usually be diffused more effectively by civil engagement than by lashing out with punishment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I got the 10-second block, and the perpetrator is very easily seen in my block log. I doubt you'd be surprised to discover who it was.

Fatuorum

21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So Malleus, you are a bit of an expert on blocks from the victim's point of view. Did you find over time that you have changed your behaviour to avoid being blocked? Or have you just gone on being your gruff old self? My point being that people are who they are, and don't change much. :) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

People are either an asset to the community, or they are not. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, I obviously cannot answer for Malleus, but I need to point this out): Blocks can actually embitter the blockees and change their behavour and editing mood for the worse. There are ways of calming down angry editors who have just lashed out. Blocking only works in rare cases. Judging from what I've read, it can be a very frustrating experience for regular content contributors who don't push any POV, but occasionally use strong words to make their point. I strongly second everything Boing wrote. I think it's more promising to think about ways to encourage and foster collegiality, rather than figure out ways to sanction incivility. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Switch "can embitter" for "do embitter" and we can maybe do a deal.

Fatuorum

21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly haven't deliberately gone to any trouble to "change my behaviour". Perhaps the worst of the civility police invested in a dictionary and a little common sense.

Fatuorum

21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sluzzelin that positive reinforcement works better than negative. It can a big investment in time and effort but some contributors will be worth it. The trouble is trying to determine which ones they are, beforehand. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add to that. One thing I have taken on board is the distinction between NPA and CIV, one that administrators would do well to bear in mind before thinking about civility blocks, which frankly never work and are increasingly less likely to stick. I don't give a monkey's arse if anyone uses a few choice words, it adds colour. But there's a world of difference between saying "fuck off" and "you're a fucking cunt". The first doesn't bother me at all, but the second is unacceptable.

Fatuorum

21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on the difference? Do you think the difference is clear to everyone who might be on the receiving end of either comment? 67.243.57.182 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see who gets blocked first ... pass the popcorn, please.

But seriously, this isn't going to work. We have

The classic admin solution, blame both sides. So much easier, and avoids and of that tedious work.

Fatuorum

21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean blame both sides—I usually find it very easy to figure out who's the one being a real dick. But that doesn't give the other side permission to keep yelling at their stupidity. If someone's being uncivil, why bother responding? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of people here claiming that incivility isn't an issue. To the wider community outside Wikipedia it quite clearly is an issue. Otherwise letters like these wouldn't be being published by the Economist. If you don't click through below is the key quote (emphasis mine).

Every person I know of who has left provided the same reason, which is that Wikipedia’s rules are enforced selectively, especially the rule that members treat each other in a civil manner. One person said he had been accused of being a “nationalist”, a “racist”, a “POV-warrior”, a “troll”, a “conspirator”, a “sockpuppet” and a “meatpuppet”.

It is perfectly possible to engage with people, even people who aren't as knowledgable as you, or even those who are stubborn without being rude, so you can't really complain if you get blocked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right on that last bit, but it's very possible that the people being accused of all those things was in fact the problematic user. Usually problematic users blame everyone else for getting them blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that an impartial observer does have to accept that the person was in fact being incivil, and that it was more than borderline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• If we're serious about dealing with incivility, then we have to start by thinking about which approaches have worked and which haven't. We have accumulated a substantial body of evidence over the past several years demonstrating that "civility blocks" and "civility parole" do nothing to make editors more civil, and in fact are often counterproductive. When people continue proposing blocks as a remedy for incivility, I always wonder whether they're ignorant of that body of evidence; whether they're aware of it but interpret it differently than I; or whether they're just not interested in trying to think more deeply about approaches that might actually work (or at least not be actively harmful). MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The difference can be summarised very simply by comparing "that's a pile of crock" with "you're a pile of crock". I'd be inclined to take NPA very seriously, and to discard CIV to the bin of childishness.
    Fatuorum
    22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • For clarity by civility I mean not making personal attacks - its a good point that there is a difference. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • We can't really throw out
      WP:CIV because it's quite possible to be horribly rude and insulting without actually attacking other editors. We're supposed to be a collaborative project, and driving off other editors by being condescending or rude isn't helping towards that goal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
      23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You have to throw out your beloved CIV. Every substantial content contributor here knows what an insulting and degrading environment it is to work in, but those responsible for making it so are often the administrators themselves, or the other incessant low-level abusers. Those who work the system in other words.
        Fatuorum
        23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I love how it's my "beloved CIV" now. Look, we know you have a grudge against admins as a group. You don't have to bring it up every post. And, as I posted below, I'm not dedicated to keeping CIV as an isolated policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• The problem Chase is that people's definitions of incivility vary (I'm often amazed how much so) and in many circumstances there's no reason to block for that reason alone, given that they are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. So unless two guys are cursing each other out you'd be hard pressed to say it was required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is true but people do have to be able to operate in society as a whole (e.g. at work), so surely we should be able to find a reasonable middle ground. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • A "reasonable middle ground" might to merge wikipedia's CIV and NPA policies, as the distinction between the two just makes the place look like an arbitrarily run infant's school.
      Fatuorum
      23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • See, that's where the problem lies. You know it's a good middle ground, and I know it's a good middle ground... but the reason they're split in the first place is people couldn't agree that keeping them together was a good middle ground. Back when policies and guidelines were still being formed, most folks felt it better to keep specific for each one, rather than larger, all-encompassing rules. I doubt we'd get much traction trying to merge them now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia has a choice. Either it tries to embrace change rather than stifle it, or it dies. Right now it's dying.
          Fatuorum
          00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't agree, so sorry. I think it's improving, and will continue to do so. There is a lot less dramaz nowadays, for sure, and the quality of the encyclopedia itself is constantly improving.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
            • One might argue that the reduction in "drama" is an indication that fewer people care. Certainly I've given up caring about what happens at RfA, for example.
              Fatuorum
              02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Coment. There has been a debate here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah that may be relevant to this discussion, continued on talk page of nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Not relevant, as it stands. Something off-wiki - a talk about

WP:CONTRIB about how tricky it is to introduce new users when we're generally pretty confusing and incivil - provoked me into starting this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk

) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Incivility blocks? Fuck off. Incivility is too much in the eye of the beholder to have individual admins make the call, and that's always what leads to the trouble. As long as we can't figure out some kind of community-based mechanism for enforcing civility, we're not going to be able to tackle it. Obviously this means something less than Arbcom and more than
  WP:RFC/U. One simple approach would be to change policy to explicitly permit punitive civility and NPA blocks, but only if they are pre-endorsed by the community at ANI (or possibly somewhere else if volume becomes an issue). Rd232 ^talk
  01:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Punitive blocks are expressly deprecated, per
    WP:Block. It follows that preventative blocks should be predicated upon repeated behaviour, with the gamut of warnings being followed. Having said that, "obvious and gross" violations should be met with preventative blocks, but not without the opportunity of the perpetrator stepping back, and cooling down. I agree that in an environment in which some "rough and tumble" may be acceptable, naked abuse just isn't, and, as stated above, the line is different for different editors. Accordingly, I don't see this going anywhere fruitful in the absence of an RFC. Rodhullandemu
    01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "Punitive blocks are expressly deprecated, per WP:Block." - cough. Why do you think I suggested changing policy? (BTW when it comes to that phrase people tend to confuse punishment, which serves a policy purpose, with revenge, which does not.) As for an RFC, how about the current
      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution? Rd232 ^talk
      02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that my psychic powers are up to full speed when the temperature here is below zero, I have neither eaten nor slept properly for several weeks, and really, I'd rather be somewhere else. Otherwise, thanks for the link, but it doesn't address the issues raised here. Rodhullandemu 04:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Civility blocks; never. Doesn't help. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Incivility complaints are often, though not always, a distraction from what really matters the most: article content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There are no rules in wikipedia. It's the wild west of the internet. In the future this time will look antiquated.--scuro (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Our future is ahead of us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • [responding to Bugs's original comment] Hear hear. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Chaseme, I don't have much problem with the general concept of civility blocks for repeated/egregious offenders, but given your arbitrator's hat I think it's best that you left such blocks to regular admins except possibly in very clear-cut circumstances. Not for any tedious ideological separation-of-powers reasons, but because such disputes tend to find their way to arbcom and it's better to have fewer arbitrators have to recuse. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  hear, hear. (but you are describing one of the desirable attributes of separation of powers) Can we close this, please? Or can we have an off-topic debate about separation of powers? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider it closed, see my hatnote at the top. Many thanks for all the input. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion might be held at

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk

08:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• It would be nice if there were administrators willing to actually do something to make this a cordial place to edit. Far too many playing games with people and trying to excuse away disruptive users behaviour while their behaviour drives good content contributors away from the encyclopedia. Block often and long.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I go more with disruptive myself - rather than incivility as such. People can be bloody rude without being disruptive and vice versa. It's all a matter of context. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Could use some suggestions on dealing with an IP hopping troll that repeatedly posts to the Wikipedia:Sandbox, claiming in the edit summary "Administrative Edit - Please don't revert", and claiming the sandbox to be closed for technical reasons, and that users should instead experiment on other pages - also using a fake signature on the notice. example (one of many). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): This is definitely a case of

WP:RBI. I would start at a week. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Would a rangeblock work here? I am not completely sure how they work, but it looks possible. Airplaneman ✈ 06:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a fairly large range - but a scan shows no other recent users, so a short-term range block may work to discourage them for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they've gotten bored. If they return under the same range, a short rangeblock sounds good. Airplaneman ✈ 07:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I had already done the short-term range block after my post above; sorry, I should have mentioned that I was implementing it. --- Barek (talk) - 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I can do a couple of rangeblocks there, but not much longer than what Barek originally had, though. –MuZemike 07:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just came across 120.17.248.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the affiliated Tiderols (talk · contribs). Look like we should not allow the latter to just change their user name. Favonian (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And 120.17.232.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Rangeblockers to the rescue! Favonian (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like no additional disruption in almost two hours from the two ranges involved. If it starts again, can investigate range blocks again at that point. Correction: It looks like another admin re-applied the range blocks already about two hours ago. --- Barek (talk) - 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Hey admins,

I blocked

Another user (who I respect), quite rightly called me out for the quick block. So I'm bringing it here- I'm looking for feedback. Obviously, this means I won't wheel-war if someone wants to overturn my block.

I'm not posting ANI-notice to Duke2323; if it's a new editor, they shouldn't have to figure out the machinations involved with ANI, especially as a blocked user. tedder (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following are the same:

Duke2323 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Whyisthis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Gamefun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 18:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- I didn't mean to fish for it, but it certainly resolves any guilt I had about the quick block. tedder (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, Tedder, right up until the "no stranger in these parts" dig. Totally unnecessary, but not unexpected. Stevie Wonder could have seen the sockpuppet thing happening here, but I read this just the other day: [23]"The allegations of sockpuppets or meatpuppets should and can safely be ignored. They are meaningless and unhelpful.". Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious if the possibility exists that these are in fact not sockpuppets but different accounts using the same (school) IP address? I agree, though, that it looks a lot like socks. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the contribs of all 3, which are all 2 or 3 each. 3 new accts, with few edits, make edits to overlapping pages, in several cases identical edits, none that I could see were constructive. It is either a.)1 person with multiple vandal accts or b.)if three separate people on 1 IP, they were obviously working together as meat puppets to troll and vandalize. Either way, does it matter? Either explanation is grounds for blocking, which has been done, case closed. Heiro 01:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Jaoostudios (talk · contribs) Does this edit summary constitute a legal threat [24]? (in addition to the blatant COI and username violations) Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has been notified of this discussion [25] Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that "we removed it for legal reasons" isn't a threat as such. As you say, there is an obvious COI problem though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going with "yes" and have blocked this editor. --John (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Good block. Definitely qualifies as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

IP address 216.161.176.112 (

Blocked. In the future, please report at

WP:AIV. Nakon

20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All parties have had their say, the article has been reviewed. No admin action needed at this time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)