Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →One more issue: who changed the link to non-sequitor to a page about comedy?!?
Line 322: Line 322:
:::::The answer to your question, Hipocrite, should be obvious, by the definition of "double standard". (in the following i don't mean "you" exactly, i'm using "you" to refer to your "we".) As much "blood" as you have spilled of Pcarbonn's - enough to eliminate the double standard. Duh. (More actually, since SA's actions were more egregiuos than Pcarbonn's.) How much blood of Pcarbonn's have you spilled? how long have you blocked him, topic banned him, etc.? How much blood do '''you''' need? As regards "we don't ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a year.": actually, that's exactly what you just ''did''. [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::The answer to your question, Hipocrite, should be obvious, by the definition of "double standard". (in the following i don't mean "you" exactly, i'm using "you" to refer to your "we".) As much "blood" as you have spilled of Pcarbonn's - enough to eliminate the double standard. Duh. (More actually, since SA's actions were more egregiuos than Pcarbonn's.) How much blood of Pcarbonn's have you spilled? how long have you blocked him, topic banned him, etc.? How much blood do '''you''' need? As regards "we don't ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a year.": actually, that's exactly what you just ''did''. [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Pcarbonn edited the talk page of Cold Fusion as recently as 11 January 2010, and the article itself as recently as 7 January 2010. We do ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a day. There's no double standard here. During his various restrictions, SA was productive (at least one article totally rewritten and massively improved, for example). During his restriction, Pcarbonn was absent. On the ending of his restriction, SA's behavior hardly changed at all. On the ending of his restriction (actually, a few days before as an anonymous IP address), Pcarbonn dramatically changed his behavior - going from totally absent to pushing his fringy PoV on Cold Fusion. Certainly, you see the difference. Pcarbonn was told "You aren't helpful on Cold Fusion. Go do something else on Wikipedia for a year." He chose to do nothing. He learned nothing. SA was told "You aren't helpful on Fringe Science articles. Go do something else on Wikipedia for nine months." He did something else, and returned a better editor. Apples and oranges. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Pcarbonn edited the talk page of Cold Fusion as recently as 11 January 2010, and the article itself as recently as 7 January 2010. We do ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a day. There's no double standard here. During his various restrictions, SA was productive (at least one article totally rewritten and massively improved, for example). During his restriction, Pcarbonn was absent. On the ending of his restriction, SA's behavior hardly changed at all. On the ending of his restriction (actually, a few days before as an anonymous IP address), Pcarbonn dramatically changed his behavior - going from totally absent to pushing his fringy PoV on Cold Fusion. Certainly, you see the difference. Pcarbonn was told "You aren't helpful on Cold Fusion. Go do something else on Wikipedia for a year." He chose to do nothing. He learned nothing. SA was told "You aren't helpful on Fringe Science articles. Go do something else on Wikipedia for nine months." He did something else, and returned a better editor. Apples and oranges. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Firstly, that's a [[non-sequitor]]. Secondly, you don't really expect me to believe that you are indefinitely topic banning Pcarbonn for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pcarbonn THIS], do you?!?!? [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Firstly, that's a [[Non_sequitur_(logic)|non-sequitor]]. Secondly, you don't really expect me to believe that you are indefinitely topic banning Pcarbonn for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pcarbonn THIS], do you?!?!? [[User:Kevin_Baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_Baas|talk]]</sup> 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


== You might enjoy... ==
== You might enjoy... ==

Revision as of 19:04, 14 January 2010

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice


    McCready topic ban

    Resolved
     – No consensus to alter the indef topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unresolved
     – Per McCready's own request for a vote, which has been started below. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [1]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban imposed here [2] and here [3]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [4] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [5] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [6]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [7]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [8] and Virtual Steve [9] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [10]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant discussion should be at [11] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [12]. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).
    This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[13], including with an IP[14][15] (see checkuser results).
    I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[16]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.
    sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[17] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

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

    As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[29], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)
    Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick Summary

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

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

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

    The bot for this page archived [30] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [31]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [32] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarification: should we let the ban stand (and come back for review after X period of time a/o when Y conditions are met), lift it with the condition that it can be re-imposed if needed, or something else. User has been notified [33]. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Brilliant,_fabulous). It seems to me that McCready is still obsessive about pseudoscience topics and I am not comfortable with lifting the topic ban as it's close to impossible to keep a lid on those topics already. I've modified my opinion from above because in looking through the archives I find a fair bit of evidence of previous ban evasion and other nonsense (including recently editing in this area without the ban being lifted); that is not a good sign. This may be a case of "give a dog a bad name" but I really do think that these articles are better off without McCready's input. I don't think it's a problem necessarily of whether he can make properly neutral edits to this content, it's what happens when anyone disputes his edits that causes the problem. I think the WP:TIGERS are best kept in their cages on this one.
    The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)
    Richard Dawkins (8)
    Ubiquitin (8)
    Osteochondritis dissecans (7)
    Talk:Water fluoridation (7)
    Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)
    Missy Higgins (6)
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)
    Fiat money (5)
    PubMed (5)
    Lee Myung-bak (5)
    Karl Kruszelnicki (5)
    User talk:Collectonian (5)
    Silicosis (4)
    Antireligion 4)
    Meningitis (4)
    New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

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

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

    And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)
    Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read WP:COI. Members of X profession may edit articles on X topic as long as they're not POV-pushing, and no admin ever found that I was. However, if you're right about there being a "matter of record", I'm sure you can email me the diff(s) off-wiki, right? And if you can't, I'll take your silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Here are the numbers:

    1. Guy who is adamant that the "ban" stays until Guy judges I have done enough editing
    2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy
    3.. Sandstein – withdrew from discussion on grounds I didn’t provide links (since it’s all on my talkpage which I’ve referred to multiple times … has obviously not made himself aware of the issue
    4. Elen of the Roads – has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,
    6. SlimVirgin – an if statement does not support Middle8 and Guy
    7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    10. Brangifer says supported in past when he used a different wikiname, doesn’t comment on now - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    11. The Hand That Feeds - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

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

    • You are showing, once again, your combative nature, excessive tendency to personalise and factionalise disputes, and fierce determination to edit these articles. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Mccready, you will not go back to the topics you are banned from, otherwise I will block you. Understood? The community ban is still in place until such time as it is formally revoked. There is no consensus for doing so here and indeed a plethora of solid arguments have been put forward for keeping it in place. Moreschi (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Predictable, I guess. I hold by my original thought that what we need to see is evidence of the ability to engage in civil debate with people he disagrees with. As I read it, the main problem was that he kept flying off the handle every time someone disagreed with him. I can see why, fringe-pushers are incredibly vexatious and persistent, but losing your temper has never fixed that yet and is unlikely to start any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban

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

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

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

    A month later (Feb.-Mar. 2009), admin User:VirtualSteve came to effectively the same conclusions in a further review initiated by Mccready. Then, Mccready initiated a review in March 2009 on ANI, that supported all the previous reviews. After editing sparsely over the next several months, Mccready returned to editing on indefinitely topic banned pages in October 2009. This set off a subsequent round of review that resulted in reiteration fo the status quo by admin Kevin/Rdm2376, followed by dubious & combative WP:AN posts, burned bridges and block drama.

    All of these ban reviews have had common responses from Mccready indicating he has not yet and likely never will consider the opinions upholding any topic ban to be of merit (indeed, he apparently believes this "wasn't a 'community ban'"). Comments by Mccready directed at admins that have upheld editing restrictions often fall along the lines of "[a particular admin has shown a] refusal to engage in a logical discussion" presumably because s/he hasn't come to the conclusions desired by Mccready [34]. This has been a pattern of repeated forum shopping and tedious wikilawyering, with multiple instances of aggressive and uncooperative behavior spanning a couple years.

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

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

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

    Procedural note

    At present it seems unlikely this thread will produce a consensus either to lift Mccready's topic ban or to expand it to more topics. To clarify the ban's current status, I have made a new entry at WP:RESTRICT, pointing to the original discussion in May, 2008 that was closed by Scientizzle. To be sure that I correctly stated the ban originally imposed, I discussed the matter with Scientizzle at User talk:Scientizzle#WP:AN discussion of a topic ban for an editor. If the present AN thread reaches a new conclusion that is different, then the entry in WP:RESTRICT can be updated. Since the ban was indefinite, it will continue in effect unless modified here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User Type Sanction
    (quoted verbatim)     		Special Enforcement Details Expiration Date
    Mccready Topic ban

    Mccready is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed.

    Community sanction imposed at this discussion, which occurred on 7 May, 2008

    		 Indefinite
    Did you want to do the honours Ed? Once this is done we can mark this thread as closed and continue on as normal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:HandThatFeeds has now marked the whole Mccready thread as resolved. I have made an entry at WP:RESTRICT as shown above to document the old restriction, which remains in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote his fate here

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

    Basically one should vote "support" for one or the other. A "support" in one section automatically counts as a vote against the other, so negative votes are unnecessary and would only be confusing. A vote to support him staying here should include what conditions he should edit under, for example a topic ban, other condition(s), or no conditions at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    McCready should stay

    McCready should go

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

    Comment

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

    Cold fusion

    Resolved
     – community topic ban enacted by overwhelming consensus; subject of sanction can appeal to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned for one year from Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The topic ban has now expired and he is back advocating precisely the same mix of WP:FRINGE and WP:OR as caused the original arbitration case. The idea of topic bans, as I understand it, is to help people move on from a dispute and become more adept at Wikipedia collaboration in areas that are less of a hot button for them. Pcarbonn's editing during the topic ban has been restricted to continuing to argue his case at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. He made not one mainspace edit during the one year topic ban, and not one edit to any article talk page.

    From the RFAR:

    Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy. [35] [36], [37] Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith [38], and edit warring. [39] [40]. For more complete evidence see [41], [42], [43].

    During the arbitration case it became clear that he had formed off-wiki ties with Jed Rothwell, another cold fusion advocate who is topic banned. He also collaborated with Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who it appears proxied for him and Jed Rothwell as noted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. He has also been active in promoting the fringe theory of cold fusion off-wiki, in collboartion with Rothwell. This led to Abd, in turn, being topic-banned from cold fusion.

    See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Pcarbonn admonished:

    Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

    — Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Pcarbonn admonished

    There is no evidence of Pcarbonn's having "directed his efforts elsewhere". As far as I am concerned, this makes him a single purpose or agenda account. His contributions to talk since the ban expired exhibit precisely the same stonewalling, precisely the same advocacy of fringe POV based on novel interpretation of sources. I think uninvolved admins should watch the talk page of cold fusion, and Pcarbonn's contributions, with a view to enacting a further topic ban should this become necessary in order to protect Wikipedia from this long-term campaign by fringe advocates. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, and tend to support a community topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support siteban or topic ban. Either/or, it seems six of one, yadayada. Auntie E. 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As per Aunt Entropy, with perhaps a slight preference for a siteban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this should be relatively uncontroversial; this editor's record over a prolonged period of time suggests to me an interest in using Wikipedia to promote a personal agenda in a way that contravenes this site's content and behavioral policies. There isn't any evidence of interest in contributing to or building the encyclopedia outside of this narrow agenda. This site doesn't seem to be a good fit for what this editor wants to accomplish, and I think it's time everyone moves on. I don't see any functional difference between a topic-ban and site-ban, given that the editor appears to have no interest in contributing to topics beyond cold fusion. MastCell Talk 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since no one has put it into words, lets say that the ban should read:
      • Pcarbonn's former topic ban is returned under the same terms as before, and extended indefinately, with no automatic expiration set.
    • That ought to solve the problem. Comments? Supports? Opposes? --Jayron32 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, obviously. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has it been a year already? Nothing has changed at all. Therefore, extend the restriction to indefinite. Jehochman Brrr 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Since this will indicate whether the editor is interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, or is a single purpose account for advocating a pov I would prefer to add in a "broadly construed" terminology to avoid the problem noted by Guy in his editing while previously restricted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone might want to mention this discussion to Pcarbonn, as that hasn't been done yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the count as 15 to nothing. Is that good enough for a consensus to indef? If yea, can a non-involved admin do the honors? Auntie E. (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me just say that most of the support come from involved editors, and I invite the non-involded admin to carefully review the situation, and in particular my edits since Dec 17, before taking action. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A good deal of it comes from uninvolved people and I've seen nobody support your return to editing that article. Sanctions which fail to affect the behaviour of the sanctioned editor have a tendency to be extended, that seems to be what people above are saying. Unsurprisingly I agree. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing Guy. Of the accounts currently involved in the discussion on Talk:Cold fusion, only Enric Naval has posted both here & there; of the parties involved in the RfAr case, only Jehochman was involved both here & there. I'd also like to point out that when Pcarbonn was topic-banned from this article, she/he practically stopped contributing to Wikipedia (she/he made some edits to her/his monobook.js file), & as Guy pointed out above returned to the Cold fusion article -- without ever venturing into another subject area. in other words, I don't see any evidence that this editor has tried to figure out how to work within the rules of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He says "I find this decision unjust and unfounded, and a harbinger of great danger for Wikipedia, its editors, and its readers." And note his userpage where he listed a number of "suppressed statements" and is crossing them off as he weasels them into the article. Chief among these is the pretence that the DoE 2004 report was much more ambivalent than it actually was, elevating comments from the body of the report above the headline conclusions, which were unchanged from the previous report and firmly against cold fusion. So, no, he has learned precisely nothing, in fact repudiates the outcome of the arbitration case, and is still on precisely the same mission. But he was not entirely absent during the topic ban - he went to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science to argue his case again. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus seems clear, could an uninvolved admin please review and enact. I suggest that any appeal be to the arbitration committee, and that this be logged as an extension under the original arbitration case for transparency. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Enacted, by notifying Pcarbonn. (I don't think my previous "support" opinion bars me from doing this, does it?) I think there is also a consensus that the ban should be somewhat broader than just "Cold fusion" alone, to cover disruption like that in the "Fringe science" Arbcom case, so I'm taking the freedom of proposing the following wording: "all contributions related to "fringe science" topics, including but not limited to Cold Fusion and related pages, their talk pages, as well as related meta-discussions". Is that okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not ok, just because you don't like his POV it doesn't mean he should be slapped with a wide topic ban.  Dr. Loosmark  12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The is a WP:SNOW close. There is no doubt that the community supports this remedy. It doesn't matter who closes. If you don't like the result and cannot accept it, please file an appeal. Do not needlessly lengthen this thread by repeating the same arguments multiple times. Jehochman Brrr 13:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This has already been to arbitration once, to persuade any meaningful number of people that a ban is not warranted you will need to show that Pcarbonn accepts the outcome of the arbitration and has changed his behaviour accordingly. Since he has repeatedly said that he does not accept the outcome, and his behaviour on return is, to my eyes anyway, indistinguishable, this might be a little difficult, but you're very welcome to try. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Naughty: [44]. Soliciting for editors to proxy for him. Not good. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have topic-banned Dual Use too, for 2 months as a start. Whether or not he was going to actually proxy for Pcarbonn or whether or not he already was doing so, his editing seemed virtually indistinguishable from that of P anyway. Same pattern, same disruption. This from a self-described alternate account that won't reveal his prior involvement is just too fishy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd not spotted that - that looks like one of the proscribed uses of alternate accounts to me. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any special advice on whether (or how) to strikeout or revert recent contribs by these banned users? LeadSongDog come howl 20:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can just move any finished threads to the archive, or use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, otherwise ignore and move on. They are not unpersons. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I strikeout only the edits of socks, specially the socks of fully-banned users, and specially if it's the nth time that they are socking in the same article. I usually leave alone the comments of topic-banned editors, I just leave a dry neutral note mentioning that they were topic-banned and a link to the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what was he actually banned for, other than advocating an opinion? I would like to see evidence of actual disruption since the previous topic ban ended. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Pcarbonn. --TS 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was banned for precisely that: advocating an opinion. This project isn't for advocating opinions. Persistently advocating opinions is ipso facto bannable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was also banned for precisely one year. That time is now up. If a NEW BAN is to be imposed it must be for recent activity that rise to the level of the ban being imposed. I have seen no such evidence presented here. --GoRight (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a punishment. Since Pcarbonn hasn't used the period of his ban wisely, and is still abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of advocacy, the consensus is that the ban can be made permanent, for the sake of Wikipedia's coverage of fringe science. --TS 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bald assertions do not evidence make. Put some actual evidence on this page so that it might be properly examined. Until then your claims remain unfounded. If you wish to ban someone you should be expected to actually make a case for it. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The case has been made, in a fashion that's convinced virtually all of the commenters (who include a substantial number of previously uninvolved individuals, I might add). Pcarbonn was determined to be promoting an agenda at variance with this site's policies and standards. He was given a lengthy topic ban in the hopes that he would a) branch out from his narrow agenda, or b) moderate his approach to advancing that agenda. He has evidently done neither. It thus makes sense to formalize an indefinite topic ban. The objections here amount to demands for an ever-increasing quantity of shrubberies. I think you're letting your zeal for legalistic argumentation, which has been remarked upon previously once or twice, get the better of common sense here. MastCell Talk 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on, not so fast if you please

    Extensive essay and responses moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GoRight on Pcarbonn
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    The ban is valid. I can step in as the closer instead, if you'd like. The alternative is a community siteban or discretionary siteban for inappropriate use of Wikipedia. --Tznkai (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the participation. If you want, as a completely uninvolved administrator (I haven't participated at all) I'll personally endorse the closure that was made. Better? -- Atama頭 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough. Thanks for your help. I reserve the right to revisit this issue at a later time after additional evidence can be gathered. --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You will need to address the reason for the extended ban, which is Pcarbonn's refusal to accept the outcome of the previous arbitration case, his lack of any significant activity in any other area, his failure to demonstrate an ability to accept when consensus goes against him, his proxying for a banned user and his obduracy. That's necessary because we are not going to have arbitration round 2. We had a lengthy arbitration case which found problems with Pcarbonn's behaviour, his response has been consistently to deny that there is any problem with his behaviour. The arbitrators get the last word on that. The easiest way for Pcarbonn to get the ban lifted is to put in a few months' solid work on other topics, work productively with some people with whom he disagrees, and get rid of all the missioncruft on his user page. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    One more issue

    I have asked User:Pcarbonn to stop maintaining an attack page that he calls a timeline of the cold fusion dispute wherein he maligns myself and other Wikipedians with a rather biased history of cold fusion that dates from years in the past. I have reason to believe that with this community ban, Pcarbonn may not be checking in at Wikipedia and so may not respond quickly to this request. In the interest of moving things along, can I ask for some administrative attention to this matter? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Why are you carrying grudges? SA hasn't edited Cold Fusion since March 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Grudge? It's called a grievance. And I will have it for as long as it goes unresolved. That's how grievances work. I know he hasn't edited it but that doesn't remedy the problem. The problem (and my greivance) isn't SA editing or not editing the problem/greviance is the double standard. Nothing has been done to fix it or remedy it in appearance. It's still there. Ergo I still have a problem with it. I ALWAYS will have a problem with double standards and have no intention of even trying to not have a problem with them. So you see there are only two ways to end my grievance: I die, or the double-standard does. Now if SA isn't editing the cold fusion page, what's the harm in giving him the same ban that was given to pcarbonn? Then the double-standard goes away, and along with it my grievance. Kevin Baastalk 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding? He was blocked for 3 months. He was topic banned for what, an additional 6.5 total moths? How much blood do you need? We don't ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a year. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Point goes to KB. --GoRight (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a competition. Please at least try to adhere to your promises? Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to your question, Hipocrite, should be obvious, by the definition of "double standard". (in the following i don't mean "you" exactly, i'm using "you" to refer to your "we".) As much "blood" as you have spilled of Pcarbonn's - enough to eliminate the double standard. Duh. (More actually, since SA's actions were more egregiuos than Pcarbonn's.) How much blood of Pcarbonn's have you spilled? how long have you blocked him, topic banned him, etc.? How much blood do you need? As regards "we don't ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a year.": actually, that's exactly what you just did. Kevin Baastalk 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pcarbonn edited the talk page of Cold Fusion as recently as 11 January 2010, and the article itself as recently as 7 January 2010. We do ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a day. There's no double standard here. During his various restrictions, SA was productive (at least one article totally rewritten and massively improved, for example). During his restriction, Pcarbonn was absent. On the ending of his restriction, SA's behavior hardly changed at all. On the ending of his restriction (actually, a few days before as an anonymous IP address), Pcarbonn dramatically changed his behavior - going from totally absent to pushing his fringy PoV on Cold Fusion. Certainly, you see the difference. Pcarbonn was told "You aren't helpful on Cold Fusion. Go do something else on Wikipedia for a year." He chose to do nothing. He learned nothing. SA was told "You aren't helpful on Fringe Science articles. Go do something else on Wikipedia for nine months." He did something else, and returned a better editor. Apples and oranges. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, that's a non-sequitor. Secondly, you don't really expect me to believe that you are indefinitely topic banning Pcarbonn for THIS, do you?!?!? Kevin Baastalk 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You might enjoy...

    a quote I came across as a usenet sig:

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

    — Oliver Wendell Holmes

    For fools substitute your Wikipedia POV-pushers of choice. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worse than that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An aside: apparently, and incredibly, the English Wikipedia does not have an article on communicating vessels. There are reasonably good articles on German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias (and several more, if you follow the interwiki links), with very pretty pictures (and a rather nice counterexample picture on the Dutch wiki). The Italian Wikipedia has even an article on Stevin's Law, which apparently nobody on English wikipedia has ever heard about. And then they say that Wikipedia is full, and all basic topics are actually covered -- eh? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up: the Italian Wikipedia even has an article on the Hydrostatic Paradox! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See this link for the original context of the quotation. Chick Bowen 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or this. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But of course Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself linked to the Illuminati, is widely known in popular culture. Coincidence? Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a conspiracy, Tom, keep it dark, they're not supposed to know. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    En Wiki now has an article on communicating vessels. :-) Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Hydrostaticcruft. Also: fails WP:N, as it contains no references to The Simpsons, Pokemon, or Family Guy. GJC 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    juice plus

    Resolved
     – Very stale! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite old but was on the ANI talk page. Feel free to archive straight away... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    urgent need for admin help at juice plus talk page

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

    The talk page is not the place to put this. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've marked it "resolved" and "stale" – it's a bit too late for anyone to do anything now! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been already dealt with over OTRS, so it's okay to mark resolved - Alison ❤ 09:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jpat34721 Topic Ban

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

    • None of the points I made in my defense were addressed by the admins, including the fact that I self-reverted the edit in question prior to being reported in violation of 1RR
    • My edits have been constructive and I think a fair reading of them would show that they have improved the article and moved it closer to WP:NPOV
    • This cozy exchange on the the 2Over0's talk page (and a similar one on BizMo's) is problematic:

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

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

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

    • This accusation in the comments sections by WMC is untrue
    WMC (again) I think this is fairly simple. J had broken the 1RR parole on this article very clearly by the time of this report. After* this report he has continued reverting [69].
    The edit in question was not a revert. We had reached consensus that contentious labels should be avoided. My edit simply removed one that we'd missed when we went through the article to eliminate them.
    • I volunteer to take a 1 week break from editing if my request is granted.

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

    • Looking over your contributions history, and the discussion at the Requests for Enforcement page, it does not appear you were sanctioned for a single edit as you appear to claim above. I see discussion of a history of tendentious editing at the article in question, and your request for review therefore does not seem to substantively address the concerns noted. I am neither-here-nor-there regarding any sanctions over this issue per se, but if we are going to discuss your sanctions, don't you think you need to address the issues you were sanctioned over and not merely over the last edit you happened to make before you were sanctioned? --Jayron32 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The request for enforcement was for violation of the 1RR rule. If I was banned for another reason, a new action should have been opened so I could have an opportunity to respond to those charges. The tendentious editing comment refered to other editors, not me. My only edit of this section was an attempt at compromise. (The other revert was in a different section). I didn't even think it was a revert because I didn't undo, I tried to synthesize the two competing versions (by other editors).I have edited on both sides of this issue. My primary focus has been in trying to get other editors to agree that we should be chronicling and not judging the controversy. (e.g. here JPatterson (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC with below) Actually, I don't see where exactly it says violation of the 1RR rule was the only issue being discussed. In the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section there seems to be problems with regards to tendentious editing at the intro to the article in general and not just a single revert by yourself, which serves as the locus of the dispute. Two admins, BozMo and 2/0 both agreed that there was a general problem as uninvolved admins and enacted the sanctions. Besides William M. Connoly's request to BozMo and 2/0, what evidence do you have that those two were materially involved in the article in question? Do you have diffs that show they have involvement in the dispute, or have expressed an opinion about which side they are favoring? That someone involved asks another admin to review a situation does not automatically make the second admin involved. I'd like to see more evidence of involvement by BosMo and 2/0, especially as defined by WP:INVOLVED, before I can decide heads or tails of this. I am not dismissing your claim, I just want to see evidence why these two were inappropriate in enacting such sanctions... --Jayron32 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The notice that was posted on my talk page say it was for violating 1RR. The sanction page says it was violating the terms of "Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation", which near as I can tell is the same thing. probation = 1RR. I am an inexperienced WP user and do not have the skills to provide the evidence you ask for. I question the propriety of an involved, and highly controversial ex-admin recruiting other admins to act (what do you think he meant be "this means you"?) on his behalf. JPatterson (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Jpat34721, but I started looking into Jpat34721 (talk · contribs)'s contributions about twelve hours ago (not continuously, obviously), as some of their edits had struck me as problematic in light of the recently-imposed community sanctions. Jayron32 is absolutely correct regarding my reasoning as closing administrator. I also stress that this is a ban from Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident only - your contributions to other climate change articles and other areas of the encyclopedia continue to be welcome. A quick glance at my talkpage and recent contributions indicate that I have been heavily involved in trying to restore a more normal editing environment in this topic area. There were several open requests, and I had not commented there for four days, which I assume is why WMC requested that I take a look. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a hotly contested article. Tempers have flared. If you'll read my talk entries you will find that (for the most part) I have tried hard to keep a cool head and keep the discussions moving towards consensus. Note too that this ban was instigated by one strongly partisan editor who made three requests for bans in one day, all against editors he perceived to be hostile to the changes he desires. Not one specific problematic edit of mine has been raised, either here or on the request for action page. Just nebulous charges by Connelley of misbehaving prior to his recruitment effort. JPatterson (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, what evidence do you have that BozMo and 2/0 were involved admins in the dispute before they enacted the sanctions. Being asked by an involved editor to review a situation does not make them automatically involved. Do you have any evidence that WMC specifically sought them out for a specific result, rather than the WP:AGF idea that he sought them out because he believed they would make a neutral, dispassionate review of the situation and act accordingly. What evidence is there that these admins misacted besides the request from WMC to review the situation? --Jayron32 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. Don't you think, given the controversy surrounding this editor, that the process would be better served if he would let it run it's natural course. He didn't insitute the request for action, why is he getting involved at all?JPatterson (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You state above that you are inexperienced? Come now... You've been editing since January 2007, long enough to learn how to read the history tab on an article. Are they active editors at the article? Have they expressed an opinion as to which side of the debate they fall on? I am entirely unfamiliar with the dispute myself, I just want to know what makes the conclusions of BozMo and 2/0 invalid? --Jayron32 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edit three articles with a three year break in between. I am not an experienced editor by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps I am misusing the term involved. I don't know how to tell if someone has edited in the entire global warming space or if there is a pattern of cahoots here. It just seems unfair when someone who is clearly involved recruits in this manner. One doubts he went looking for a neutral ear.JPatterson (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I hadn't judged the bredth of your editing, I just checked when your account had been registred. Regardless, it looks like we're just going around in circles here. I'm going to disengage at this point. I really have no idea about the merits of your complaint about the way that the sanctions that were enacted. Perhaps another admin who cares more about the climate change articles could review and decide if these sanctions were enacted appropriately. The catch-22 here is that truly uninvolved admins lack the background to make a full assessment of the dispute, and any admin who knows enough about the dispute to make a judgement is likely too involved to do so. Sorry I could not have been more help here, but this is clearly going nowhere from my end, so good luck and lets see what other admins have to say on this. --Jayron32 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your timeJPatterson (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    But he does need to stop the lawyering. I contacted 2/0 in an entirely neutral manner that didn't even mention JP by name [45]. Describing it as "This cozy exchange", or as "meat-puppetry" is entirely inappropriate.

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

    If as you imply, any change counts as a revert then I'm guilty as charged. But then so are a large number of active editors on that page. Yet the only ones who seem to get sanctioned are those not actively pushing the tempest in a teapot meme. If article probation supersedes WP:Bold and WP:BRD, it should say so somewhere. If any change, no matter how small and no matter if consensus has been reached is a revert, it should say that somewhere as well. JPatterson (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to recognise that Jpat's description of events above is supposed to describe the same process I was watching. He's lucky only to be banned for such a short period, if it were up to me that would be an indefinite ban from all climate change topics. We just don't need mission posters in this area right now. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: JPatterson has initiated a discussion regarding William M. Connolley on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard under the heading William M. Connolley re Climategate article. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia is not for this.
    • Briefly: the last thing climate articles need right now is people with an axe to grind. Jpat34721 is doing a fairly good job of portraying himself as someone with an axe to grind. Therefore I think the topic ban is reasonable. MastCell Talk 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that it's not actually a topic ban; he is merely banned from a single article and its talk page. In the light of the ongoing problems with this editor, should this now be extended to a general topic ban from climate articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a rather tired and involved editor I've not been paying too much attention to Jpat34721|JPatterson edit warring, and have no complaint about sanctions being imposed. Jpat needs to accept that 1R is a maximum, not an entitlement. However, I would note that Jpat34721|JPatterson has made a number of helpful contributions to the talk page, and on that basis a review of the sanction in a week's time would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't followed this too closely but I do think the topic ban, though within the reasonable discretion of the community to enact and of an administrator to judge as having consensus, was perhaps a little harsh and hasty. The new article probation is being enforced rather more sternly than the Obama article probation on which it is based. We'll see where that goes. As a process matter, I think that appeals should be made directly on the enforcement page rather than choosing a general-purpose administrator meta-page. If we need more eyes on it, a courtesy notice here, at AN/I, and/or the general sanctions page would be helpful, but not forking the discussion to multiple pages. Even more ambitious, if there is a volunteer clerk in the house it might make sense to develop a system for logging active and closed requests, actions, and appeals. Kind of a miniature, tiny, community-organized version of Arbcom's RfE pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I am surprised by the axe grinding allegations. I dare say I am one of the few editors of that page who can point to edits I've made on both sides of the argument. Again, no one in this entire process has posted a single diff to back up the allegations of one-sided editing. I have argued for balance and have tried numerous approaches to reach consensus. Perhaps I have run afoul of a rule I do not fully understand. I am still trying to figure out when "a change" becomes "a revert" (assuming you don't "undo"). Fine, fools rush in and ignorance is no excuse (although it would be nice if the rules were posted somewhere). But as to the content of the changes themselves, please point to one that shows this egregious axe grinding. For the record, my position re AGW is that I don't know. The uncertainties are too high to have confidence in either position. With respect to this controversy, I don't think it says anything about the science one way or another but does raise legitimate concerns about the process. What I do know is that when I pointed my highschooler to this article after a brief conversation on "Climategate", I was embarrassed at what he found. It is a topic I'm familiar with and I decided to try and help to nudge the article towards NPOV. Since the article as I found it was blatantly in the "tempest in a teapot" camp, moving it toward balance meant run ins with highly partisan editors on the side of the status quo, including some who have commented here. But I think any fair reading of my edits and my talk page participation would lead any impartial observer to conclude that my contribution has been constructive and have in fact improved the articleJPatterson (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    George Reeves Person/BoxingWear again

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

    Why are anonymous IPs talking on Talk:Bartłomiej Macieja about checkuser results on ChessMasta? Was there even a request for a checkuser? And I see no notification to the accused ChessMasta concerning either checkuser or this AN. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no talk about checkuser results, but only statements on the obviously identical disruptive behaviour. --84.162.176.108 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have informed the user about this notice. --84.162.176.108 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and a very friendly notice it was [46]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone has right to delete vandalism on its talk page, especially when they are personal attacks made on purpose seeking revenge, creating provocative atmosphere, making false statements,he is telling me i will be banned, SEEWOLF is the one who ought to be banned from all wikis as he caused all these problems. The bottom line is, Macieja 6-2 match is proven right, as I was right in my edits, if I get banned, so what, I can easily create other account, it does not bother me at all being banned but what for, for doing what is right?

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

    I could have logged on under any IP I chose to, but I did not, when things became bad, seewolf logged on using his many german IP's. Its sad he is administrator there, I have to repeat this few times, because such people are not productive, only cause friction!
    Here's what seewolf did on wilhelm steinitz page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Steinitz&diff=337461738&oldid=337440928 he reverted everything, all the info was correct, but where is his prove it's nonsense? He did not even leave any note. He is angry his Macieja edit did not stand ground, so now he is looking for revenge. Administrator Regents Park http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart%C5%82omiej_Macieja&diff=337386114&oldid=337124629 approved my edit, except moved link to footnote format, i approved it,this is what seewolf did not like. Im requesting administrators to ignore this individual, not to allow him to bother me, he ought not to progress on wikipedia, as he made similar mistakes in the past, such actions do not contribute to wikipedia's growth, here are his other reverts, again never stating why he reverted good edits, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.242.211
    this clearly shows he is after me, im not going to revert those articles, im happy with macieja decision, that's what it was all about, now he wants to get into more edit wars, if he wants incorrect articles, fine, if you allow him to do so, great, let him write, revert anything!
    Here on his talk page: is evidence he reverted things "fake" for many years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seewolf also first paragraph is in german, proving my additional statements!

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dontdeletecontent

    Does this constitute an attack? Or should we continue to monitor until contributions eventually lead to AIV or AN/I as I suspect they will. Disruption is surely impending in the name of The Truth. SGGH ping! 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please inform the user of this thread. Tan | 39 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. SGGH ping! 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    New sockpuppet investigations clerks needed

    Hi folks. We have a need for some new clerks at WP:SPI, the sockpuppet investigations process. At SPI, clerks help the checkusers maintain the page by keeping cases organized, archiving them, tagging confirmed socks, endorsing checkuser requests and occasionally declining them. All final decisions, of course, rest with the checkusers. Both administrators and non-administrators can be trainees and full clerks. For example, Nathan, one of the clerks who has been there the longest, is not an administrator.

    A few things to keep in mind if you think you might like to help us keep the sock menace down: (a) we generally don't take trainees with a recent block log or history of disruptive editing, (b) we would prefer trainees who can be regularly active and (c) we often use the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi on Freenode, which can be accessed using one of these tools or links, for coordination purposes. Please e-mail myself, Nathan, MuZemike or PeterSymonds if you're interested.

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

    I probably would help out, but I have no understanding of IRC and my last experiment ended pretty appallingly... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. I woudn't mind helping, but I have no interest in using IRC. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IRC isn't really a requirement for clerks or patrolling admins (which are separate - patrolling the cases requires confident judgment wrt sockpuppets, but not clerk training), but it makes the training process much easier. Particularly for administrators interested in patrolling (which we also need very much), we can make other arrangements if IRC isn't an option. Nathan T 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning

    Hope this si the right forum..

    It became clear while pleading my case above for a review of my ban, that I had a fundamental flaw in my understanding of what constitutes a revert. With the help of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here I've sorted out the source of my confusion. It appears to me that WP:Revert and WP:3RR are in conflict as to what constitutes a revision, (a smaller change qualifies under 3RR than is implied by WP:Revert). The problem is that currently there is no path that leads an editor of an article under probation to the 3RR definition. The warning one sees when one starts to edit an article on probation speaks only of WP:1RR, which ironically enough, provides no definition of a revert and among other things advises users to "See WP:Bold,revert,discuss cycle", which as I come to find out, is bad advice in this context. When issues arose, I used WP:Revert which I found on my own by poking around and later WP:1RR which led me further astray.

    I would suggest:

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

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

    GoRight

    GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be engaged in a lot of disputes at the moment, and his engagement seems to follow a repeated pattern of pushing minority viewpoints, supporting people sanctioned for various reasons, and endless argumentation long after a consensus has emerged. I can see two things that might come of this:

    • Some community sanction enjoining him form becoming engaged in other people's battles.
    • A trip to WP:RFAR.

    Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Guy (Help!) 09:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The most recent General Sanction. Violation of agreements post-block/discussion and consensus are more easily dealt with that fresh issues. Perhaps deal with the user for violating the sanctions already imposed rather than requesting more, if it's appropriate. I see he is already violating promises he made post blocking? SGGH ping! 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In good faith; seeing if there are any remaining previously uninvolved editors/admins who can see if there is disruption, or if parties of contrasting viewpoints are getting oversensitive over the actions of others? It may be that an RfC might be more appropriate for getting views. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon we're running short of active admins he's not dragged into one dispute or another. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the wikilawyering on display at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/GoRight_on_Pcarbonn is exactly the sort of thing that Viridae's indefinite block 0f 01/04-01/06 was intended to prevent. GoRight was given a last chance, and that's been blown. I think an indefinite block would be the best solution here. GoRight has a history [47] of engaging in battles, tendentious editing, and wikilawyering to the detriment of the project. I have no idea why GoRight chose to involve themselves in the Pcarbonn situation. Editors with histories of blocks or restrictions for disruption should not be tolerated when they muddle community discussions by backing each other up. I feel that I've been wrongly sanctioned, so I'm going to try to disrupt the placement of sanctions against anybody else is a form of WP:POINT. Does any uninvolved administrator or editor object to reinstating Viridae's block? Jehochman Brrr 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I honestly believe that I have only been raising valid issues and points in the actions I have raised since I was unblocked. If my actions were inappropriate I would request a detailed explanation including some diffs of how this is the case. Regarding Viridae's previous block, I would suggest that it be left to Viridae to determine whether I have violated my agreement with him.

    I do object to Jehochman attempting to put words into my mouth in this matter (i.e. I feel that I've been wrongly sanctioned, so I'm going to try to disrupt the placement of sanctions against anybody else which I have never claimed or stated in any way).

    I will also observe the JzG seems to be attempting to ban everyone that has ever disagreed with him. Something that the community might want to take note of. I leave it to you to do what you think is best in that regards. --GoRight (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Any disruptive editor may claim that they are raising valid points. When the community at large does not agree, the editor must change, or risk being excluded. I never quoted you; I summarized your actions, which are more significant than your statements. You are acting in a way that creates the strong appearance that you're out to prevent sanctions on other disruptive editors, especially those who agree with your anti-established-science POV. This is not at all helpful behavior. Jehochman Brrr 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I never quoted you; I summarized your actions, which are more significant than your statements." - No, you actually imputed motive and intent to my actions which is what I object to. I object because they are not even close to my reasons for speaking up for Pcarbonn. I would have thought my reasons were obvious given my history, but just to clarify here let me briefly explain for those who may not be familiar with my history.

    I object to efforts to completely ban minority points of view from Wikipedia as a matter of convenience for the majority. WP:NPOV assumes and relies upon having a minority group around to push back on the majority to keep the NPOV line where it belongs. JzG and his supporters are merely trying to ban the POV that Cold Fusion has some merit based on recent experiments and publications despite the historical mainstream view. Pcarbonn is a visible proponent of that POV and this effort to exclude him is, IMHO, driven based more on his POV than on his specific behaviors. This is why I am asking that the detailed evidence be examined because that is the only way to demonstrate the broad brush which is being applied by JzG.

    I consider attempts such as this to ban entire points of view to be wrong and so I choose to speak out against that wrong. If that is considered disruptive, then I guess I am guilty. --GoRight (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's typical WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is not a tug-of-war between proponents and opponents of a given POV. We expect all editors to strive for NPOV. In particular, if a minority POV editor is unable to recognize due weight, he can become disruptive. It's not the job of majority POV editors to over and over and over again restore proper balance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To recognize that multiple points of view exist and that some enjoy a majority and others are relegated to a minority is not indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, it is indicative of reality. When those points of view are in conflict on a contentious topic it is unrealistic to expect that there will be no friction. There will be. But it is not in the best interests of the project to eliminate that friction by wholesale removing all editors who hold or champion the minority points of view. Doing so risks making Wikipedia a mouthpiece for the majority point of view rather than the neutral point of view. --GoRight (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GoRight had an opinion about the Pcarbonn situation and he expressed it. Since when we are punishing editors for having an opion?  Dr. Loosmark  14:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since they start excessively wikilawyering, and being disruptive. With that said, I have no comment on the merits of any block. Ale_Jrbtalk 14:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not an experiment in unrestricted free speech. I was just expressing my opinion is a tautology that any editor can claim at any time to justify any post. When GoRight posts a long screed of irrelevant material or rules lawyering in an apparent effort to derail imposition of community sanctions, that is not acceptable. Jehochman Brrr 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems problematic. How can one be accused of an "effort to derail imposition of community sanctions"? GoRight is part of the community, is he not? If the idea around sanctions is reaching a community consensus (and it is), then everyone's views must be respected in the process of reaching that consensus. JPatterson (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is here is how to define "irrelevant". Since you and GoRight had an exactly opposite opinion on the Pcarbonn situation I find it a bit bizarre that now you call the points he made "irrelevant material".  Dr. Loosmark  14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ←The current procedural disruption by GoRight seems to be a continuation of his "mock" mentorship of Abd and all the disruption surrounding that. GoRight seems to be gaming the system and wasting a lot of other users' time. MastCell has explained to GoRight why the decision on Pcarbonn represents consensus.[48] If GoRight does not understand what consensus means and why points that have already been discussed at length cannot be endlessly revisited and dissected in a legalistic way, perhaps wikipedia is not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect to my good friend Mathsci, this issue was never "discussed at length" and THAT is the problem. Bannings should be serious matters and they deserve serious debate. --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what MastCell wrote. You are simply wasting time here at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read what he wrote, and replied to his reply. I am wasting no one's time, BTW. Just ignore me if you don't think a more thorough review of JzG's assertions is warranted. The same is true of everyone else calling for my head here. If I attract no additional support with my comments they will simply be archived into oblivion with no harm done. Or is that somehow incorrect? --GoRight (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've seen so far, I am inclined to agree with Guy. Perhaps a community topic ban from any dispute resolution proceedings to which GoRight is not a party, including all discussions about the sanctions of other editors, would help?  Sandstein  16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell's well reasoned and constructive admonition occurred after GoRight's PCarbon defense on which this current request for action is based. GoRight would do well to follow his advice. We would do well to give him the chance to do soJPatterson (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point there is no "community consensus" for a topic ban.  Dr. Loosmark  16:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that is correct. You and GoRight are voicing your own personal opinions, which seem to be against consensus. ArbCom examined in detail Pcarbonn's editing patterns and his advocacy. These have not changed since his return from the one year ban. There is no need endlessly to repeat the arguments given in the old ArbCom case, unless of course the intention is to wear other users out. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, I am voicing my personal opinion, whois opinion are you voicing? Anyway I think you misunderstood my comment, what i meant is that I am totally against a "community topic ban from any dispute resolution proceedings for GoRight" as proposed by Sandstein above. Pcarbonn ban is another matter (for the record I don't support that one either).  Dr. Loosmark  17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom was elected to decide things like this and I would agree that what was decided by them in great detail one year ago has not changed. In that particular case, it does not benefit the articles to have a confirmed advocate like Pcarbonn editing.
    As for GoRight, I think he is gaming the system far too much and wasting too many people's time. If he were to calm down, this would solve many problems and this kind of discussion would not be necessary. However, every few days some new bone of contention arises with the attendant drama spread across several wikipedia pages. I don't think that this can continue since it seems quite counter-productive. Mathsci (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As has [JzG] Pot, kettle, black. JPatterson (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, the first half of CoM's statement adds a great deal (although it could use a bit less assertion and a bit more reasoning, but your mileage may vary) the second on the other hand, is a personal broadside. I'd like a bit more than an instance or two of nosy behavior and stubbornness before a MYOB topic ban. RFC/U may be a better angle.--Tznkai (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As these issues always seem to involve interactions with science topics (cold fusion, global warming etc) would it be simpler to ban GoRight from the general topic area of science articles and issues directly connected with them? It seems to me that a ban on "becoming engaged in other people's battles" is too vaguely defined. I think a ban in the terms that Jehochman has proposed would be unworkable in practice and too easy to game. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless further evidence is forthcoming about how "Viridae's indefinite block 0f 01/04-01/06" is relevant, the most plausible outcome from this discussion would seem to be either dropping the matter or pursuing an WP:RFC/U (if there is a problem pattern). GoRight's lengthy disagreement with the Pcarbonn conclusion seem to have more to do with differences of framing of the issue than anything else; the difference summed up with the remark "this is not Rfar part 2". Neither position is fundamentally unreasonable, but only one has consensus. But it's not obvious why that disagreement should lead to sanction, especially just looking at this single instance. Rd232 talk 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To enumerate the complaints here: GoRight is allegedly gaming the system, wikilawyering, and revisiting issues that already have consensus. GoRight is a verbose guy that tends to rub people the wrong way, which is why this is far from the first community discussion about him. But being annoying or verbose when having good faith discussions about a community ban doesn't seem like a reason to be banned himself unless his behavior is obviously disruptive for no good reason. Can someone provide diffs of the allegedly disruptive behavior? Oren0 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have a chat with a couple of people and see if we can think of ways to avoid it, since I think it would end up as a shit fight. As to this thread, feel free to archive it, you're right it's going nowhere good. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be exactly the type of behaviour I blocked him to prevent last time. (though noone in this mess is lilly white) ViridaeTalk 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free to restore your block. A knot needs to be unraveled one thread at a time. Start with the most disruptive editor and work your way down the list until a proper editing environment is restored. Jehochman Brrr 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, in my defense I had already agreed to drop the issue once it was closed by a neutral voice yesterday (although I have responded to posts on the subpage). This thread today was NOT started by me. --GoRight (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be willing to exclusively edit non-controversial topics for a while? The best thing you could do to help the climate change controversy would be to walk away. If "the other side" then runs amok, that would establish beyond any doubt the need to restrict or ban them, a result you are unlikely to ever achieve through your present course of actions. Jehochman Brrr 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (to Jehochman - and Viridae) I really am not sure that restoring the block is appropriate, since the taint of silence the critics, and then claim unanimous support will remain. I was considering whether imposing WP:AGF on GoRight might be an option - that they are to assume that actions that they disagree with have the consensus required and that after posting their objections they should not pursue the matter. GoRight is not permitted to take the matter to any other venue, may not refer to it in other matters or subsequently (unless their objection is addressed in such a way to invite response by a concerned party). This allows them to post their comments, once, and for the rest of the community to decide if there is any value in the content or that it should be ignored. Thoughts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The locus here (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) appears to be conduct matters concerning the editors of science articles. Would a ban on commenting on that area work? I don't think it's necessary to lose GoRight's voice on content or ban him from editing science articles or participating in content disputes. He only seems to go overboard on conduct matters. --TS 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I appreciate your intent here, but the proposed result would be similar to what JzG wants to achieve on Cold Fusion ... eliminating the friction by eliminating one side of the debate (and no I do not constitute the whole of the other side of the climate change debate). For this reason this would become a self-fulfilling prophecy in some sense with a predictable outcome.

    The community needs to decide if it favors WP:NPOV over convenience on controversial topics (and not just climate change as the Cold Fusion topic illustrates as well). If they favor WP:NPOV then editors such as myself must be allowed to participate and to make full use of the policies and procedures that are available. If they merely favor convenience then I guess you can block me. It's really your collective choice.

    I have begun to divert my attention in a constructive manner by undertaking recent change patrol. I am still learning the ropes and my WP:GNOME credentials are still on order, but I have started already. I do not agree to be silent, but I do agree to at least offset my cost (as you seem to see it) with some constructive benefit paid back to the community. --GoRight (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a favorable development. The way I see it, those who disengage from this conflict around climate change will come out with no sanctions, and those who refuse to disengage from battle will get sanctioned in the arbitration case that is almost inevitable. The smart editors won't be there when the hammer falls. Jehochman Brrr 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd rather go with community sanctions for the reasons LHVU outlined above. ViridaeTalk 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy makes a claim without diffs. GoRight was previously blocked without diffs. This talk looks like a big diff for harassing GoRight to prevent NPOV progress. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And your failure to provide diffs that substantiate the extraordinary claim that GoRight is being targeted in an attempt to undercut fundamental progress is what? At most, one can accuse of Guy of making bald assertions that can in fact, be substantiated or not. What you've presented here is purely speculative.--Tznkai (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This recent intervention by GoRight on User talk:Marknutley indicates that even in the middle of a discussion of his recent conduct GoRight is prepared to adopt very nasty tactics, making a very serious allegation against an uninvolved admin. I think there is an unanswerable case for strong community sanctions here. --TS 08:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Supplement to the above: specific diffs, for the diff-oriented.[49][50] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Boris, I've tried being friendly with GoRight,[51] but he's just not listening. My block finger is getting that itchy feeling. Shall we get evil and vote on the merits of a block, or should we start an WP:RFC/U, or go straight to WP:RFAR? Jehochman Brrr 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My working hypothesis for some time has been that GoRight very much wants an arbcom case on global warming. A better solution in my view would be for the admin corps to "grow a pair," to use the common phrase, and enforce existing policy as reiterated by the general sanctions on climate change that recently were put into place. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about you, but personally I'm getting tired of the endless drama here. It's obvious by now that there's no consensus on what, if anything, should be done here. An RfC/U would just prolong the agony and provide yet more oppotunities for grandstanding by all sides. The latest issues would probably not be caught by the existing climate change probation, so that is not a panacea either. My advice: since the community plainly hasn't been able to resolve this satisfactorily, take it to RFAR, file a narrowly focused case specifically concerning GoRight and let the ArbCom deal with it. In short, please take this somewhere where it will be resolved rather than grinding on as a perpetual and very tiresome drama-fest. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that the soapboxing and ultimate lack of resolution which would emerge from an RfC/U would benefit the community. Similarly, based on GoRight's conduct in the Abd arbitration case, I doubt that an arbitration would be helpful either. Allowing the status quo to stand for the couple of months it will take to use these processes is...suboptimal. (The lone worthwhile effect of that ongoing arbitration process is that it sucked the time and attention of some disruptive editors over to RfAr and away from article space, but I don't think we should rely on that as a general practice.) Both processes are, frankly, time-consuming and highly unpleasant drama magnets — though perhaps the new ArbCom isn't yet as burnt out and will engage in more effective clerking and case management than the last one did.
    As Boris aptly notes, we already have a community-endorsed framework for efficiently and effectively dealing with tendentious, unproductive, and persistently uncollegial conduct on climate change articles. The community has clearly stated its expectations here, and all that is required is suitable admin enforcement. (That said, I am well aware of GoRight's persistent habit of claiming that admins are 'involved' and unable to caution or sanction him or his associates, and I sympathize with admins who might wish to avoid the hassle.) If GoRight wishes to challenge any sanctions imposed under the extant probation, then he is welcome to appeal to ArbCom; there is no need for administrators to, effectively, ask permission of ArbCom to use powers already granted them by the probation. It is worth noting that a previous iteration of a climate change RfAr was pre-empted by the establishment of the climate change probation; I would tend to argue that in the absence of a stated opinion to the contrary, the rejection of that RfAr constitutes a de facto endorsement of the probation by the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of their comments suggested to me that it was rather more explicit than that; I think they actively encouraged us to try and make it work. It's very similar to the outcome imposed by other arbitration cases, after all, and in cases where there is long-standing disagreement outside Wikipedia it's hard to see what other mechanism will effectively manage the battle when it is inevitably brought here. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    André Devecserii and Kubaneger, (related problems).

    I was doing some normal vandal patrol when I came across Kubaneger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As I was doing some reverts and warnings I came across this user page that seems to have been vandalized [52], (for this user André Devecserii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).
    The way I see it, there is a couple of problems:

    1. André Devecserii should have his personal info removed altogether.
    2. Kubaneger seems to only vandalize and maybe should be blocked, looking at the contributions of that user, I doubt he was actually trying to help André Devecserii.
    3. The talk page of that user make is somewhat difficult to use.
    4. Not sure if the template created by that user, (Template:User_en-BN) can be kept so I nominated for deletion on the Templates for discussion project, (I am aware that there are many more colourful templates/user boxes, but based on the user edits I can only guess that the intention was to be disruptive).

    Thanks FFMG (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Kubaneger" is German for "Cuba nigger". This vandalism-only account claims to be a native speaker of Xhosa and Bullshit and has been active on Cuba. How about a username-based indef block? Hans Adler 14:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I will list that account there, but I think something should also be done about André Devecserii as well, he is giving a fair amount of personal info, (I know I could do a requests for oversight, but I am not 100% sure if that falls under the oversight category). FFMG (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kubaneger indef blocked for username violation and vandalism-only account. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a admin, but I'm going to leave André Devecserii a message suggesting he removes his personal infomation without delay. I'm also going to suggest he visits username changes and change his username from his real life name. Oversight may also be in order. Nothing major comes up when I type his name into Google, so theres only just the name, school, age to deal with. I'd also agree with FFMG, and suggest oversight, for the infomation here. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Posted. Basically I told him what concerns we have, and how to recify them. I've also told him I will assist him with oversight when he is ready. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Animated gif bug?

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

    Hidden blocks

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

    No bug I can see. Clicking on the link shows me a block from December and then clicking the block log indicates it is the only one. Are you aware of other blocks? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is: when I go to their contribs it says the user is currently blocked, yet the block was enacted on 21 December for two weeks: so it should have expired by 4 January. Woody (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad it's not just me. Anyway it seems to have gone now, so it looks like it was a 10-day cache lag, showing the IP was blocked when perhaps it wasn't. Now I'm going to block the IP again, and perhaps some of the range, as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Must be a cache issue as it has gone for me as well. I presume that the IP was unblocked but there is no way of telling that until it happens again. If there haven't been any complaints from IPs, I presume it is just lag. Perhaps a post to VPT? Woody (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2010 Haiti earthquake

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

    Block review of User:Jpat34721

    See also: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

    I'd like to ask for some more eyes on the indefinite block just implemented on this editor by Jehochman. I had been following a discussion initiated by the editor on the COI noticeboard about User:William M. Connolley here. The point, which I understand has been raised before, is whether WMC has a COI relating to Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident or related articles that should affect his editing. The discussion was, as far as I can see, unhelpfully heated on all sides. I posted my assessment here, and the discussion sat for about 24 hours before Jpat left two more responses. He was then indefinitely blocked by Jehochman, who left his reasoning on User_talk:Jpat34721. I am concerned in that the three edits listed, here, here and here do not show any egregious or even inappropriate behavior that I can see. As such it is unclear to me why he has been indefinitely blocked; I think in indefinitely blocking an editor the reasons should be clear. The user had once been blocked as a sockpuppet, but was then cleared by checkuser Alison after offering his real name.[53] I am raising it here for review at Jehochman's suggestion. Mackan79 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand it, this editor had recently been subject to a community sanction as a result of edit warring. He then simultaneously launched an appeal against the sanction and a Conflict of Interest complaint against another editor. Despite broad hints, he proceeded to make wild and insupportable accusations, leading several editors to opine that he appeared to have conceived a vendetta against his target. --TS 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "wild and insupportable accusations" - Hmmm, where else might this type of thing be found. Enough said. --GoRight (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole scenario seems to be a direct result of attempts to stifle dissenting opinion on global warming articles ultimately resulting in the indef block of an editor that feels these articles are being controlled by a group of editors. This pattern seems to follow these articles from what I can tell resulting in numerous blocks and bans of editors wishing to include information that does promote not AGW. Even worse is that this opinion has been noted outside of WP and this is just another example that would give them evidence that these articles are indeed being controlled. Arzel (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that pretty much nails it. ATren (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe points of view are not given equal footing with mainstream, reliably sourced ones. It is an issue that comes up time and time again in politically-charged topic areas. Those that come here with a battlefield mentality, as these users are clearly doing, are going to wind up frustrated and blocked, and deservedly so. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Climate change sceptics are engaging in a long-running battle to elevate the minority view to parity with the overwhelming majority view. To suggest it's being stifles is fatuous, it already has coverage way above its actual traction in the real world. There have been WP:BLP violations, special pleading, original research, tendentious editing, civil and uncivil POV-pushing and sundry other kinds of battleground behaviour on both sides. Everyone is subject to the same rules but as it happens the sceptics are the ones who keep popping their heads over the parapet, so they are the ones who keep getting shot at. The problem is that the sceptics seem to see it as some kind of religious duty to defend the world against the scientific establishment's view that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. We've seen the same over creationism, that took a very long time to damp down. We've also seen it over homeopathy and various other pseudoscience topics. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nahh, it's a good block. . . and the only times I've seen it noted outside of wiki, is by people one person; with the wherewithal to publish unsubstantiated opinion after unsuccessfully trying to push their POV here. Not that it'll do much good- but I'll come out of lurking mode for a bit to support this block. Some people are not here to build an encyclopedia -they're just here to further real-world disputes. -R. Baley (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The accusations that this is part of some anti-anti-GW stifling is absurd. The block is for conduct, not a political view. These arguments seem very much like soapboxing and are counter-productive. I can understand asking for the blocking administrator to clarify matters, but getting into conspiracy theories is likely to get you ignored. Personally, I wouldn't have made the block, though I do believe that the COI accusations were done as retaliation and JP should have withdrawn sooner. In his defense, myself and others had asked him for specific diffs to show disruption from WMC and he was attempting to do so when he was blocked. The reason I haven't unblocked is that Jehochman has implied that JP was violating a topic ban, and I don't know enough of the situation to say that isn't true. -- Atama頭 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be useful to have the administrator who placed the topic ban comment here. I'll leave them a notification. To me the subsequent activities looked like "pushing the envelope" or testing limits of the topic ban, and disruptive to boot. An aggravating factor is that the account has been here since 2007 and has only substantially edited two highly controversial political articles. From all appearances they are here with an agenda that does not mesh with Wikipedia's agenda. Browse the user's contribution history. Jehochman Brrr 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I think we need more than generalities to indefinitely block someone from editing Wikipedia. Browsing the history I personally see very little evidence for anything, since they have only edited for such a short amount of time. In any case, to indefinitely block someone who has made a small amount of edits, because their edits do not show sufficient breadth or value, is not a passable idea in my view. The reason to indefinitely block someone from editing Wikipedia is that the problems with their editing are irreconcilable with a reasonable amount of effort. I become concerned when admins start to say it's enough that someone's failed to show their worth in a short amount of time. Mackan79 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I understand that the rationale for the block is because the editor was topic banned from the article in question, but then posted a COI notice about another editor who is a frequent participant in the same article. I think the question that needs to be answered is, "Does a topic ban prohibit the banned editor from engaging in dispute resolution with another editor from the same topic?" I believe that we (no nosism intended, I mean the community) usually allow banned editors, including topic bans, to continue to use the various dispute resolution forums. If so, then this block should be lifted and a note should be left on the climate change probation forum making it clear that bans do not prevent banned editors from pursuing dispute resolution with anyone in the appropriate resolution forums. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually your question should be: "Is there a dispute between the editor and the other party?", before asking whether dispute-resolution is reasonable or not. As far as i can see from the COI board, there wasn't, and the editor failed to provide reasonable evidence for his claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess we'll have to disagree on that one, but I've already given my opinion in the other board thread, so I won't repeat it here. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Failure to achieve your standard of "reasonable" is not a blockable offense. He believed his claim was valid, he used dispute resolution, he provided more information when requested, and for all this good faith editing, he was rewarded with an indef block. That's completely unsupportable. He's also a new editor, making this particularly biting. ATren (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me get the ball rolling; I don't think this was a great block, and would support overturning it. It seemed a bit premature and over the top; I'm not sure the user did anything concrete to result in the sort of send off he got. Yeah, he was being a bit vexatious in his pursuit of WMC, but I'm not sure a "GTFO" block was warrented here, especially with the somewhat unpleasant comments left by the blocking admin when the block was administered. I don't think this user had yet passed into the unredeemable bin yet, regardless of the problems they have caused while here. I am in no way excusing the problems they have caused, but this block seems out of proportion to those problems. --Jayron32 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article ban was an overreaction in the first place, and now this indefinite block too. I don't think they're improper in the sense of being out of process or against policy, just harsher and with less attempt to warn and counsel the editor than necessary. Even if the block is good, given the editor's subsequent apologies, explanations, and promises to disengage[54] I don't see anything to be gained by continuing the block. The editor is clearly trying to be a good citizen, engaging, and listening, so a block serves no preventive purpose. Nevertheless, to avoid possible mistakes I would suggest waiting for Jehochman to comment, and treat this as lifting a block rather than overturning it as such. Also, a gentle reminder - if this is an article probation issue isn't it best forum-wise that we get in the practice of discussing probation enforcement on the probation enforcement pages rather than here at AN? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was being disruptive and wikilawyering about it. He was asked several times to drop the stick but continued to lay about the horse carcass. A block is not really a surprise under those circumstances. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Guy said. Also, what Jehochman said. Also, what Guy said above. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I find these comments disappointing. "Wikilawyering" is a Wikipedian term of art -- one of dozens -- that does not exist anywhere else in the world that I'm aware of. It's also a classic fault of new editors, since basically it comes down to wielding policies clumsily. Are we an organization that creates concepts and then bans editors for not quickly picking up on them? Mackan79 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not involved in this particular dispute but it seems to me that the offence that's been committed here is the persistent hounding, despite requests to desist, of an editor who has through no fault of his own become something of a hate figure in the right-wing blogosphere. About all that can be said in Jpat's favour is that he acted naively (at best). Is an indef block the best solution to that? I'm unsure, but at the least an interaction ban with WMC would have been justified, as was done with Jettamann (talk · contribs). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this be demonstrated? As noted here, Jpat contested WMC's actions in pursuing the initial article ban against Jpat. If Jpat had any history of pursuing WMC, I am not able to find it. Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple non-obvious things going on. One is that the conflict of interest noticeboard is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Dispute resolution is for content disagreements, not for repeating blogosphere troll memes, such as User:William M. Connolley has a conflict of interest with respect to climate change articles because he's a professional climate scientist. This would be like saying Daniel Pearly (a professional astronomer) has a COI when editing gamma ray burst, an article that never would have become featured without his help. I see that User:Jpat34721 wants to edit melanoma. That's a good sign, and I am willing to fix the block length to 24 hours, on condition that he ceases all hounding of WMC. It was very clear that Jpat34721 disliked his article-ban, and sought out the "leader" of those he perceived in opposition, and went head hunting. That sort of behavior is unacceptable, and should routinely result in a block. Those who haven't been policing this dispute may think this response harsh. Well, get involved and see what it's like before you criticize those willing to do a hard, dirty job that you aren't doing. Jehochman Brrr 12:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the article ban is maintained, and a ban on interaction with WMC? I'd support that. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's see what people say, especially uninvolved people, and then somebody should log the result. Jehochman Brrr 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That sounds like a reasonable outcome. It is not unreasonable to maintain the existing article ban or to require Jpat to steer clear of WMC. I suggest also requiring him to stay away from the William Connolley article, as was required of Jettamann (talk · contribs) when he was sanctioned under the CC article probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            Just my $0.02. I note a disturbing trend forming here and elsewhere to build a wall of invincibility around WMC to shield him from criticism. We must all accept the public criticism that is foisted upon us. That is, in part, how this place works. WMC is anything but a wilted lily who needs to hide behind community sanctions. If WMC does something that deserves to be criticized he should dang well have to accept that criticism like everyone else.

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

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

    • I would support Jehochman's compromise solution above. Commute the block to "time served", with the note that a short block was likely warrented given the hounding issues. Institute an interaction ban to run concurrent to the current article ban, and lets see how this goes. This latest solution from Jehochman is much better than the GTFO-block we started with here. --Jayron32 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you did right there. I don't believe him to be evil or bad, but he was in serious danger of donning the proverbial Spider-Man suit. Hopefully he has now backed away from the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of editors seem to misunderstand WP:COI. COI is allowed, en.Wikipedia would grind to a halt if COI weren't allowed, but an editor must be very heedful when editing an article in which they have a COI. Anyone editing in their respective professional field has a COI, which may or may not be a worry, following how they edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Backlog at TFD

    There is a bit of a backlog at WP:TFD. I am more than happy to help up with any clean-up issues if someone can help close a few. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Teddy Pendergrass

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

    And almost immediately after I finished that edit, a RS appeared. Dppowell (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may add a second from The AP and NPR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New essay

    I've noticed more and more people who think that appealing to Jimmy will get them what they desire. To counter this, I've just created the essay Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. I'm thinking that for completeness it needs a "Related articles" section, but not sure what would be best to add to this. Any suggestions? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good stuff. Needs a shortcut - some reference to Godwin's law would be nice. Rd232 talk 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:YOULOSE. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest, WP:PRETTYPLEASEJIMBO, but it's not really a "short"cut. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Page creation blocked

    I attempted to create the page titled List of current United States Senators by Class as a redirect to the table that I just created with that data at Classes_of_United_States_Senators#List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_Class, but it was blocked, saying that I should post here.

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

    Done, must have been caught in the title blacklist for some reason. Woody (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=337846812"