Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.52.134.182 (talk) at 23:19, 21 August 2010 (→Arbcom Amendment?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Hugo Chávez again

    {{archivetop|Closed, unresolved, since admins are too busy bickering over childish matters to concern themselves with personal attacks and disruptive editing. When/if I take this to the multiple other fora needed to address the numerous issues, I presume I won't be accused of forum shopping, since not one independent editor or admin could be bothered to review and comment, while dozens are busy commenting on other matters at this board without even informing themselves of the basic issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)}} As documented at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles, we've still got long-term, ongoing behavioral problems by multiple editors at Hugo Chávez, unresolved by previous dispute resolution, and not likely to be resolved via dispute resolution because of the ever-changing cast of new characters, who don't learn policy or guidelines but fill up the talk page with debate, not typically based on reliable sources. In the last go-round, I supplied a long (and unfinished) set of high quality sources that had been routinely cleansed from the article, with repeat claims of "corporate media bias" on the article talk page.[reply]

    We have edit warring, POV edits, deletion of tags, personal attacks, personalizing disputes on talk, removal of well-cited text, battleground, ownership-- the works. In particular, see personal attacks and others at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles#Disruptive editing at Hugo Chavez.

    I do not believe further dispute resolution is likely to resolve the recurring issues at that article, as the cast of characters defending the POV article constantly changes (with the exception of a few regular, long-term contributors, who have improved somewhat). I am hopeful that independent admins will weigh in and oversee the article and the personalization, and suggest that 1RR be instated to encourage talk page collaboration and help stabilize the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SandyGeorgia has compiled a long list of op-eds in The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, reports from right-wing think tanks, articles and books from U.S. conservative publishers and reports from the U.S. State Department which present views that she believes the article should represent in order for it to be neutral. I have continually asked her to provide peer-reviewed articles and books published by the academic press, but she apparently cannot find anything there that represents these "neutral" views. She has also tagged the article as POV while failing to provide an explanation of what changes should be made. However, I do not see disruptive editing and would like to see examples provided. TFD (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS regarding the representation and due weight to all mainstream views; if you believe The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The LA Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC and many others are "op-eds" and not reliable sources, I suggest you raise the issue at WP:RSN. Meanwhile, the article is being cited to sources with a known partisan bias, while mainstream sources are systematically removed. Also, by all means, please provide an example of where I cite any op-ed piece, and please note that the article POV has been well documented more than once, and is supported by numerous editors-- tags should not be removed while a POV dispute exists. It is curious that you disclaim all mainstream sources as "right wing think tanks" and request "peer reviewed" sources, while Mark Weisbrot (who co-wrote the Oliver Stone "documentary" [1] on Chavez), Center for Economic and Policy Research, Venezuelan gov't sources, self-published sources, and Venezuelanalysis.com are used to cite the article. Of course, the personal attacks and talk page personalization are separate matters, warranting attention; the extreme personal attacks and misrepresentation of my editing is ongoing, as demonstrated in your post above. It is also curious that you ask for examples of disruptive editing, including extreme personal attacks: did you read the numerous samples I linked above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No personal attacks against SandyGeorgia have occurred above in TFD's post, or to my knowledge anywhere before. There have been comments about your editing and disruption, but that is your behaviour, not you as a person. In any case, so what if Weisbrot was one of the writers on that documentary? Many of your sources come from papers and publications which supported the 2002 coup against Chavez. So I dont get it. That documentary (have you actually seen it) is a lot less positive to Chavez than some your sources are negative to him.ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How would you characterize:
    1. "I don't even know why you'd lie about this ... you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years," [2]
    2. "stop being a hypocrite" [3]
    3. "User:SandyGeorgia is making biased and inaccurate edits -- she's been at it for years. The difference is, that Sandy knows how to game the system quite well. She knows that she is being biased ... I have a feeling that eventually she will be topic-banned for causing so much strife there," [4] ?
    How would you characterize the scores of diffs on that page of talk page personalization of issues and WP:BATTLEGROUND? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am against 1RR on this article. I think the current level of protection is fine. ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SandyGeorgia, I have not spoken in favor of any of those sources. The point is there are high quality sources and you chose to ignore them, instead cherry-picking articles. Chavez has been the Venezuelan leader for over 10 years and came to public attention almost 20 years ago. There is no reason to rely on newspapers. Why would we cover any historical event based on newspaper reports? When editing the article about Julius Caesar for example would you push to include a viewpoint about him expressed in the Economist? TFD (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Julius Caeser is long dead, a bit different than Chavez, for whom the sources I provide are quite reliable :) And no, I don't cherrypick sources-- please stop the accusations-- I provide lists of sources on talk to document the article POV and missing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um - virtually all articles on living people rely on "newspapers" as you think to disparingly calling them <g>. Very few articles on living people are "peer reviewed." Now as to relying on newspaper reports - did you not realize that almost all that is written on Lincoln has its origin in "newspaper reports"? (ncluding the famed Cooper Union speech, and so on) That almost all books on the Civil War (US) are basically oriented on newspaper and government reports - which were, I can assure you, not "peer reviewed". Sorry - the "peer reviewed" mantra has not been accepted at WP:RS as a reason to exclude newspapers, and is unlikely ever to be. Collect (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anybody home?

    Or are admins too busy arguing with each other to care about our core policy of NPOV?

    ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removes very clearly justified POV and other tags, again

    while:

    Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) can apparently say whatever he wants about other editors, with no admin attention. God forbid Malleus should ever say another editor lies or is a hypocrite, or Gimme should use an alternate account; I spose Ling.Nut had a point about where our priorities lie.

    1. "I don't even know why you'd lie about this ... you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years," [5]
    2. "stop being a hypocrite" [6]
    3. "User:SandyGeorgia is making biased and inaccurate edits -- she's been at it for years. The difference is, that Sandy knows how to game the system quite well. She knows that she is being biased ... I have a feeling that eventually she will be topic-banned for causing so much strife there," [7] ?

    Well, carry on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    {{archivebottom}}

    General sanctions requested

    Reopening this, as I just saw this after Sandy had closed it in exasperation. I agree with her that something definitely has to be done in this case, and I would recommend that the community authorize some variant of general sanctions for Hugo Chávez and all closely related articles. NW (Talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. As noted above, protection has not recently been used on this article. As not noted yet, only the main Hugo Chávez article suffers from substantive conflict, and nowhere near bad enough to justify a general sanction for that page without trying protection first. (In fact, right now even protection seems unnecessary.) Sandy's request seems to have arisen from temporary frustration (and a lack of time to deal with matters at hand more patiently). Rd232 talk 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my frustration is at AN/I and the trivial disputes that take pages to resolve, with participants apparently not even reading or informing themselves before commenting-- an entirely separate matter. The Chavez article suffers from long-term disruption-- at least four years-- with the additional complication that a new cast of characters appears regularly and prevents progress, with frequent edit wars, failure to read and understand policy or edit summaries or sources, failure to AGF, talk page personalization and ... well, just about one of everything. It is my opinion-- having watched this rinse-lather-repeat cycle for four years-- that the article will not advance unless some sanctions (like 1RR) are implemented. At the rate it's going, it's headed for multiple forums of dispute resolution, which will grind too slowly, leaving the article progress stalled, and wasting everyone's time. Some sort of sanctions are needed to stop the bleeding. Protection and working in sandbox is unlikely to help, because the cast of characters is ever-changing, but the common theme is that old editors defend the POV, and new editors don't learn policy or guidelines, and disrupt the talk page with diatribes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a disconnect between your expectations of others regarding the assumption of good faith, and your own demonstration of its importance. Asserting your belief that participants here and/or elsewhere fail to "read or inform themselves before commenting", demonstrates a disposition in contrast to these very guidelines. I would prefer to assume participants do read and endeavor to provide informed comment. Even when we sometimes disagree. Cheers. My76Strat 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you're weighing in here, I presume you've checked the diffs I've provided to back up statements, and that you've reviewed the "Gimmetoo, again" section of this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite correct in this - I would suggest that "1RR" is not the way to go -- rather "maximum of 3 non-contiguous edits per day" would avoid the problems with definition of revert, etc. I can see no reason why anyone would need more than 3 non-contiguous edits per day (24 hours and 5 minutes to avoid trivial gaming) on any article other than one under construction with other editors. Collect (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very convoluted, and will allow edit wars to continue-- perhaps I'm not understanding your suggestion, but I certainly edit articles more than three times a day when I'm active, and it's not general editing, rather removal of tags and deletion of cited content (reverting by new editors) that is creating issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dislike gameable restrictions like 1RR. I think it would be more useful to make a statement that there has been a long term problem, and that further disruption will not be tolerated. Provide a page, like Wikipedia:General Sanctions/Hugo Chávez where editors can report disruptive editors. We'll warn them first, and then proceed to blocks or topic bans if needed. If single purpose accounts keep appearing, we can easily say "You are repeating the same disruptive pattern of editing as somebody else who got banned. If you continue, you will end up in the same place." Jehochman Talk 12:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could work, but where are we going to get independent admins to police it? The thing about 1RR is that it's more "reportable" and easier to enforce, but general sanctions require some admins to pay attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought that the section immediately below this (WMC block sh*tstorm based on climate change general sanction) would be ample warning not to apply General Sanctions unless absolutely necessary. Indeed you (Jehochman) yourself said that the "backwater page WP:GS/CC/RE has been over-run by disputants. It is quite noisy and well-neigh impossible to guage any sort of consensus there. It's become ochlocracy. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion." Sanctions like this multiply meta-discussion and distract from editing and content-focussed discussion. Bottom line, the Chavez article doesn't require any administrative intervention; though mediation might be helpful. Basically there's an excess of noisy discussion, but there's not really enough edit warring (especially if you leave aside the single NPOV tag issue) to justify any action except possibly temporary protection. (Which is probably why there seems to be only one person calling for action.) Rd232 talk 10:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try 1RR first. Yes it's gameable but it may help. General sanctions are a rather heavyweight thing to apply and should only be used in extremis, for very big things. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of User:William M. Connolley by User:The Wordsmith

    Template:Formerly

    The Wordsmith has blocked William M. Conolley for 48 hours for deliberately violating an editing restriction against modifying other users' comments which The Wordsmith had imposed on him, and, seemingly, for then "thumbing his nose at it". The edit he was blocked for, if I understand this, was this initialled insertion within square brackets in a post by The Wordsmith. I wouldn't myself call that "editing comments made by other editors", since WMC has made it very clear which bit was inserted by him; he hasn't actually changed The Wordsmith's post. (This is one of the main uses of square brackets in academic writing.) The subsequent nose-thumbing takes place on The Wordsmith's talkpage: [8].

    I feel strongly that users are permitted to thumb their noses at admins without being blocked for it — yes, and even to "gloat and draw more attention to it." If we block for that stuff, I think it's we, the blockers, who ultimately hurt our own dignity: not, to again quote The Wordsmith, the "hundreds of users" who "have demonstrated that if we give an inch, they'll take a mile". (I disagree. They won't. If you won't even give an inch, then perhaps they'll try to take a mile. Give respect if you want respect back.) See WMC's talkpage for a lively discussion of the block. Comments? Bishonen | talk 22:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I think the 48 hour block is totally fine. I think that WMC's continued presence has now reached the point of being a net loss to the project and given his continued snarkiness and repeated disruption I would support a much longer block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not on the agenda here. As far as this block is concerned, I do think WMC was being a bit snarky and pointy, and I'm not surprised that he was blocked as a result. That said, I also think a better course of action would have been for The Wordsmith to let it pass in the interests of avoiding drama. Another editor on WMC's talk page was right to comment that the actions on both sides were not optimal. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't work that way... a block review here at AN/I can result in a shortening, no change, or even a lengthening. The last is rare, but not unheard of. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I just finished reading the extensive discussion about this block on the user's talkpage, and I agree with The Wordsmith that the user deliberately demonstrated that he would not abide by the community sanction, as well as baiting him in the process. That said, however, The Wordsmith shouldn't have taken the bait. I believe the short block should remain, but ideally an uninvolved sysop should have been the one to administer it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I don't think this was optimally handled. First imposing an edit restriction, and then self-applying it when it gets violated. Where did I see that before .. wait, maybe I should ask User:Abd, I think he ran once into a block by one certain User:William M. Connolley, because he was violating the ban implied by ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial question would be; was this a community sanction, or one imposed unilaterally by the Wordsmith. If the latter, was Wordsmith empowered to do this? If not, then one could hardly blame WMC for taking exception to it. Although as such a seasoned contributor he should've realised that there were better ways of challenging it. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From reading the discussion on the user's talk page, Wordsmith seemed to imply that it was a community sanction. If this was imposed by Wordsmith alone, then the block should be overturned, but I don't believe this is the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the restriction was imposed under the climate change article probation, which grants uninvolved admins such as The Wordsmith the right to impose such restrictions. The restriction was imposed following a request for probation enforcement that can be read here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WMC, he has just gone off, he knows he was snarky and he is probably chilln out somewhere laughing about it. But the people that support him start, this is wrong and that is wrong and now this thread, and he hasn't even asked to be unblocked, at least allow him the opportunity to speak for himself. The truth is about WMC is that I am afraid, he is a busted flush as far as wikipedia goes and his continued presence is disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per IRC chat Wordsmith has advised he's currently at work and will be able to respond to this in approximately 2 hours. --WGFinley (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit Conflict) - I don't have a problem with the block itself but Wordsmith should not have done it. Since WMC edited Wordsmith's comment and challenged him on his own (Wordsmith's) talkpage, Wordsmith should've requested neutral admin evaluation of the edits and intervention if the other admin thought it warranted. This avoids arguments about retaliation, conflict of interest etc. Exxolon (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ran across this block not long after it was made, and I've been thinking about it ever since. On reflection I support it. I support it from a moral standpoint, partially because from this thread it seems clear that we need admins who have the guts to wade into that minefield and get their hands dirty, and frankly I don't have the guts to do that. (I think I once commented on a climate change RFC and that was as far as I was willing to involve myself.) But aside from that, WMC responded to a sanction not to edit others' comments by editing the very message itself, which is more than thumbing your nose, it's an immediate violation of the sanction. I don't see why he shouldn't be blocked. -- Atama頭 23:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tsk tsk - please see WP:POINT, as to why that is less than funny. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless WMC apologises for his conduct, then I don't think he should be unblocked. There are several ways to legitimately gain clarification of a restriction, or for that matter have it overturned, but deliberately breaking it, surprisingly enough, isn't one of them. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a proper block. An admin is not a police man nor a judge. The role of judge AND jury is that of the Community itself. The Community only can put forth restrictions, restrictions imposed by an admin alone are not valid. This restriction does seem to have come forth from a consensus though I did not read how wide a consensus and how neutral it was. So the question is- was the block by consensus? I see nowhere that Wordsmith asked for any opinions from other informed/interested parties or from non-interested neutral parties (as I understand those are harder to come by) or preferably brought this before AN/I to make sure we were all on the right page. Is the expectation that Wordsmith should have come before AN/I first considered a burden on his right or undue bureaucracy? IMHO- no. AN/I thread could have been quite simple and short and a community block instituted. My opinion in no reflects any endorsement or acceptance of what WMC did or if the block should be removed. The block probably should not be removed unless there is more evidence that it was done in a grudge manner. But Wordsmith should be educated on proper Janitorial behavior and service FOR the Community. (And I second Kim's admonishment of JIJ, in fact whatever happens to WMC shoud then happen to him/her)Camelbinky (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully Bishonen will be first to note my block appeal. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extend block to indefinite. Per this, do not unblock until WMC indicates he accepts the sanction placed on him as legitimate, or indicates he intends to challenge it's illegitimacy in the right way, rather than how he just did. And if he gives no such indication, he can remain indeffed until his long term status is decided by the arbitration case, and give everyone a rest. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A close is premature even given the way consensus is shaping up. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also Respect mah authoritah: block by The Wordsmith is an inappropriately non neutral section heading, Bishonen knows better. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, she's nothing to fear from Jimbo anymore on that score. I was about to raise it myself as a side-bar, but I couldn't see anything remotely worthwile emerging from the ensuing discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse per explanation below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another example of how trying to reform WMC leads to disruptive drama at ANI. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block and support it being imposed by Wordsmith because no one else would have done it, and that is what WMC was counting on. His behavior was deliberate as he clearly stated he was violating the restriction on purpose to prove a point. Minor4th 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block I agree with Wikidemon's point that Wordsmith was not the admin who should have blocked William M. Connolley. Technically, there's a case to be made that William M. Connolley should not have been blocked in this case since, technically, he might not have been changing someone's comments in violation of the restriction. But William M. Connolley repeatedly goes right up to the line, which seems very likely a way of trying to goad admins (so I support keeping the block in place). This kind of ridiculous junior-high-school (or grade school) behavior is more bother than we need here. WMC is by now a net drain on the project. And this is what he's doing in the shadow of a looming ArbCom decision which I think everybody expects will come down on him like a ton of bricks. At this point, I'd support a community ban. He will continue to take up hours of editors' time on one melodrama after another until he gets one. It's time he was dealt with efficiently. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I am not aware of the back story. It sounds as if the community is just tired of him. Be that as it may, process is important. There has to be a more direct reason for long blocks or bans than that a minor technical violation (or alternately, a technical non-violation). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Is there some way of marking comments so editors know if editors commenting are involved, uninvolved or have past history with WMC? I think this needs to be disclosed for fairness to the editor. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from the Wordsmith

    Thank you all for your patience in waiting for me to respond. It seems that some of you are operating without all the necessary information on the background of this case. So, i'll attempt to fill you in on how everything happened:

    • The topic area of climate change is under General Sanctions (sort of like a community-run version of Arbcom discretionary sanctions). The way that works is that when an editor comes to the enforcement board with a request, anyone who cares to do so can discuss it. Theh, when all the facts are known, whether or not to impose a sanction is decided by a consensus of uninvolved administrators.
    • It was not me who placed the sanction on WMC, it was a decision made by myself, Lar, Franamax, LessHeard VanU, BozMo, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Jehochman (that's 7 admins, for those of you keeping score at home, more than we usually get on the sanctions board). We were empowered by the community to do so. I merely supported the sanction, logged it, and notified WMC of the result.
    • The thread that resulted in a sanction is Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive10#William_M._Connolley here
    • WMC chose to intentionally violate this sanction, claiming it was invalid. He modified my notification of the sanction. JakeInJoisey's bracketed comments on this page will show that it is indeed a modification. He had no possible NPA or BLP exemption. The only reason he did it was to deliberately violate the restriction so that I would have no choice but to block.
    • I blocked, even though I was the one who notified him of the sanction. I That does not make me involved. The General Sanctions statement says in part "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute)."
    • 48 hours may seem a bit harsh for a first time offense under a new sanction, but I took into account the deliberateness of the violation as well as WMC's extensive history and block log.

    Hopefully this answers all of your questions. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a tendency to agree with Bishonen on admins needing to be willing to accept being twitted a bit, but there's a difference between being twitted and someone who's been up before Arbcom and then taken to an Arbitration Enforcement page and having 7 admins consensus on imposing a restriction blatantly rejecting the validity or legitimacy of the process or decision and WP:POINTing a violation of the just-imposed restriction.
    I concur with the restriction and the block for violating it.
    There are appropriate ways to appeal a restriction; that was not one of them, and WMC has been around long enough to know that.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The block appears entirely proper to me.  Sandstein  05:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you are clearly involved. You were indeed in a "current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions". The sanction was not to edit "comments made by other editors". You felt (incorrectly) that he edited your comment. You can't get more involved than that. Second, as I noted, there was no direct violation of the sanction. He did not edit your comment. He added an aside. Yes, he was deliberately provocative in questioning the extent of the sanction. Deliberately challenging things is not sanctionable. The sanction was not to avoid having an opinion, it was to avoid a specific behavior. Third, it does not violate the spirit of the sanctions. Questioning administrative enforcement is something that every editor is entitled to do. Except in extreme cases we don't issue gag orders on editors not to discuss their discipline cases. He was disciplined not for tweaking admins (something that itself is rarely sanctionable) but for disrupting the climate change discussions. I don't see any plausible way in which his questioning of the extent of his sanctions could be considered disruptive. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deliberately challenging things is not sanctionable." Sure it is, depending on how you challenge it. That's why WP:POINT exists. You don't get to do whatever you want if it's to make a point. -- Atama頭 06:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT is about disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point. It is not about challenging administrators to make a point. In the case of POINT violations the point is about something other than the content matter in question, and the integrity of the encyclopedia to readers, or the editing process, suffers collateral damage. In the case of challenging administrative edicts there is no disruption to encyclopedia content or editing process, just annoyance to administrators who are attempting to impose an edict. Dealing with unhappy editors comes with the territory of imposing administrative decisions. Last time I checked, Contempt of cop is not sanctionable here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're confused, since the encyclopedia is not just the articles. It is the entire project. Interfering with process, in any area, is interfering, ultimately, with article production and improvement. Your rhetoric notwithstanding. ++Lar: t/c 10:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean exactly what I say. Editors are not allowed to hamper the editing of the encyclopedia or the collaboration among editors in order to prove a point. Editors are allowed to advocate against sanctions imposed on them, because that is a part of any reasonable process. Nevertheless, in this case he did not break the restriction in either word or spirit. He inserted a bracketed question in the middle of an administrator's pronouncement, something that disrupts nothing but the administrator's pride. If that were interference with process, then exactly what was interfered with by doing this? Certainly not the effect of the pronouncement, which has the exact same meaning with or without the commentary. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, WMC disrupted the smooth operation of the project with that edit and you are trying to wikilawyer around that. So you're confused. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't accuse. I am sincere in my statement that after reviewing the situation I do not believe there was any disruption, or that WNC violated either the wording or the spirit of the restriction. I'm not calling you confused or accusing you of wikilawyering for thinking otherwise, am I? I just don't see any plausible way in which the bracketed comment interfered with anything. But for Wordsmith's decision to issue a block, it would not have affected the project at all one way or another. It would just sit there on WMC's page, a sanction announcement with a bracketed comment in it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, if a restriction has been applied then it should be blatantly obvious that the correct method of challenging that restriction is not to immediately break it. It's not strictly WP:POINT, but it's drama-inducing because it's effectively saying "well go on then, block me". Black Kite (t) (c) 08:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So the proper response is to invest a significant portion of time and emotional energy to going through various bureaucratic hoops? At what point must this compulsive meme of "hating drama" cede to allowing productive contributors a shred of dignity and self-respect? Considering the hordes of misundereducated sorts WMC has to put up with when trying to edit the articles of his accedited expertise, I think we should all be amazed he manages to bite his tongue as often as he does. Badger Drink (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand the problems that WMC faces. However, this wasn't a topic ban on editing articles, it was merely one on refactoring other people's talk page postings, which he shouldn't be doing anyway, and should know that. Given that, what on earth was the point of the exercise? Black Kite (t) (c) 13:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that he never manages to bite his tongue, Badger, which is why blocks like this arise. I really think this needs sorting out soon at the community level, or by ArbCom, but soon. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup ;) This was more than a deliberate violation of the sanction, it was *rude* and amounts to a flipping of the bird. No one should be editing inside other people's comments like that. When I first read the bracketed [...-JIJ] shite, I thought it might be in the LOL-sense, but noted that it was quite not-Bish. That was rude and a major WP:POINT (not even looked if Jake got his due...). Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I took into account the deliberateness of the violation as well as WMC's extensive `history and block log. Power trip much? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NOT a helpful comment. This was a block to prevent further disruption. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it would behoove Wordsmith to actually SAY that. If Wordsmith believed that FURTHER disruption was likely, then Wordsmith should have said, "further disruption was likely in the next 48 hour period". Honestly, it's pretty simple. If we're here to build an encyclopedia, blocking content contributors should be something we'd prefer not to do unless it looked like by not blocking them the encyclopedia was going to be harmed. The response given by Wordsmith looks punitive because of the poor choice of words that Wordsmith used. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually never understood what this whole issue about William being restricted not to edit other people's postings was aobut. I knew about it, but I thought that no one was allowed to do that anyway. But I didn't ask about it at the time. But now I see that all that this is about is that William sometimes responds to people in their own text, just like the way many people reply to an email. I think that some people find that extremely irritating, but knowing William, I think that he pisses off people who really need to be pissed off, purely based on their edits or talk page comments.

    The general sanctions regime doesn't allow this anymore, but the focus here is purely on civility and not on content. This is a very bad development for Wikipedia (which I've also seen in some other case), because this opens a new theatre of war of POV warriors. They don't have to defend their problematic edits anymore (where they are on the defense), they can go on the offensensive for e.g. having been called (justifiably) "stupid" on some civility board. This in turn leads to an escalation of a conflict that moves ever further away from actually discussing editing the articles here (the further, the better for POV warriors).

    The escalation happens because if you are having a heated discussions that is not about editing an article, chances are that you're going to talk about your opponents behavior, inevitably leading to Ad Hominem arguments. This then leads to restrictions on what words people can use, on how they can respond to other people, ultimately leading to where we are now: William being blocked for responding in a way that is entirely normal, just because of some prior imposed restriction, which in turn was imposed to appease POV warriors here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    normal? Maybe I lead a sheltered life, but in all my Wikipedia experience I have not once seen anyone else interpolate comments into someone else's text in that way. People use replies beneath the text, with quotes if necessary. Rd232 talk 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that he pisses off people who really need to be pissed off,...
    ... wow, that's totally not how we do things here. WMC doesn't have any more right to be poking people with a stick than the rest of us. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The restriction on editing other editor's comments was not because WMC interlineates his own comments within other editor's comments -- it was because he completely removed another editor's comment on an ArbCom page, and that was one week after he had come off a prior restriction prohibiting him from editing other editor's comments, which sanction was imposed after a lengthy and tendentious history of WMC refactoring editor's comments on talk pages and discussion pages simply because he didn't like them. It caused a great deal of disruption. The fact that he went back to the same disruptive behavior a mere week after his prior sanction expired -- well... like Wordsmith said, there was a consensus of 7 uninvolved admins who agreed to the sanction, as well as a robust community discussion about it on the enforcement page. Minor4th 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, but then the restriction does not apply in this case, as he did not remove any texts now. I also agree that WMC doesn't have any more rights than others have, but we are where we're now because the de facto rules at the CC pages were challenged by the sceptics about a year ago. We now do things with more adminstrative involvement with the articles under a general sanctiosn regime. But the articles themselves haven't changed much, the difference is that there is a lot more bickering about irrelevant matters. Instead of arguing about editing the climate change articles, we're now arguing about whether or not an editor should be blocked for writing a comment inside someone's else's text withing square brackets. This is a WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The restriction clearly indicates that WMC is not to edit others posts; not "not delete", nor "not change", but "not edit". He chose to question the totality of the restriction by editing within The Wordsmith's notice - therefore editing that post. It appears to be a deliberate attempt at testing that restriction. It should be noted that WMC has repeated that action (see at the bottom of the noted edits), despite being aware that it had previously drawn a block. I think it indicates that WMC has no desire to contest the viability of the sanction or restriction without violating the terms he clearly disagrees with. Whatever grounds people may feel he has in contesting the breadth and manner of those restrictions and subsequent sanction, it must surely be recognised that acting in a manner already proven to be considered as a violation of his restrictions is not appropriate. I would also suggest that some admin, who has not been previously involved in editing CC articles or in dispute with WMC, review this further violation and determine if the current sanction should be extended. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so you can interpret the restriction in this way so that it applies quite directly to his action now. I fully understand that you can then take the position that a strict enforcement could be warranted. But do we want to lose another good content contributor because pointless bickering escalates to boiling point? Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at it this way folks. A new restriction was passed down to WMC. He decided to test the restriction, he was blatant about the fact that he was testing it (look at what he said himself, "except of course in places where I'm allowed to; hopefully TW will get round to clarifying this at some point"). He tested the waters and got blocked. It's like touching a pot you're sure is hot just to make sure, and getting burned. So now he knows that it's inappropriate, and when his block expires in less than 24 hours he can continue editing with that new knowledge. I don't think more drama is necessary about this. -- Atama頭 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't agree that this violates the wording of the restriction. And if the restriction is ambiguous enough that it can be interpreted to prevent this kind of harmless activity, an "edit" that does not change the wording or meaning of the text, the restriction isn't a valid one. Let's divide this into two pieces, the part that he was sanctioned for (changing the comments of fellow participants in an ArbCom case) and the part that he supposedly violated (inserting inline comments on his own talk page questioning an administrator's announcement). The first makes sense to prohibit, it interferes with ArbCom process. The second is purely punitive. Would the community really agree on a sanction that says "editors may not annotate administrative decrees that appear on their talk page"? I don't think so. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree. The ArbCom decision was designed to prevent actual disruption, and I do not think fussing about on your own talk page can be considered in any way disruptive. And it raises the question, what can William Connolley legitimately do on his own talk page? Can he archive it? Technically that's editing other people's comments, so WMC's enemies could seek to get him sanctioned if he does. What about if one of his enemies decides to dump a hateful, obscenity laden rant on it? Can he remove that, or would that be grounds for another vindictiblock? Traditionally we have allowed users considerable leeway on their talk pages, for good reasons, and I don't see any point in withdrawing that basic dignity from WMC because doing so will not prevent any disruption. This doesn't excuse WMC's turning up at Wordsmith's talk page to taunt and provoke him though. Reyk YO! 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TPO actually specifies that you shouldn't edit others' comments even on your own talk page. As always, archiving your own talk page is fine, as is removing disruptive text. -- Atama頭 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TPO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning", and interspersing your own obviously marked annotations cannot in any way be interpreted as changing the meaning. What WMC did on his own talk page was within both the letter and the spirit of WP:TPO. Since William apparently is forbidden from doing one thing that TPO would otherwise allow, it's fair to ask what else he is prohibited from doing. Reyk YO! 00:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that I have hardblocked 86.178.177.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for their goading edit to User talk:William M. Connolley. As I believe that it is an account that was logged out for the purpose of making a harassing edit I hard blocked the address - since the Whois notes that it is an "assigned address", which I understand to mean that it relates to one pc/network - to disaccommondate the editor also. Anyone with better understanding of ip addresses who thinks I may have effected a swathe of potential editors are free to convert it to a soft ip block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock declined and block extended

    As an admin reviewing WP:RFU, I have declined this user's unblock request and extended their block for the reason provided here.  Sandstein  21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You edit-conflicted my warning that talk page privileges can be revoked by posting a message that talk page privileges were revoked. At least I know that I wasn't alone in my thinking. -- Atama頭 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result of this thread

    I've reviewed the entire thread above, applying noise filtration. We decide things not by votes, but by force of reason:

    1. Sandstein's disablement of talk page access is a clear, unequivocal violation of WP:BLOCK. We disable talk page access only in the most egregious situations: banned editors, egregious verbal abuse, attempted outing, and severe harassment. Inserting [bracketed content] into comments on one's own talk pages does not satisfy any requirement of WP:BLOCK for disablement of talk page access.
    2. The original block was petty, punitive and motivated primarily by pique. The sanction in effect was designed to prevent disruptive editing with the area covered by WP:GS/CC. A little mischief by WMC on his own talk page was not significantly disrupting Wikipedia. It should have been ignored. Furthermore, as Bishonen points out in the first post (which was unfortunately rendered unreadable for a time by a disruptive editor), WMC did not alter somebody else's comment. He inserted his own clearly labeled comment within another to respond to a specific point. Doing this once is not severely disruptive.
    3. We grant users leeway on their own talk pages. When users are blocked, especially for controversial reasons, we permit them to vent a bit. Sandstein's extension of the block in the face of such venting was bad admincraft. It was a punitive action, and therefore was against WP:BLOCK.
    4. (Though these blocks were claimed to be under WP:GS/CC, this is dubious. WMC was protesting something on his own talk page, not disrupting a Climate Change talk page. )

    I will unblock WMC in a little while on condition that he drops this issue and does not pursue any sort of vindettas (or any further testing of limits by playing with comments). (The original sanction not to edit others' comments stands.) If there is any badgering of The Wordsmith of Sandstein by WMC, I will restore the block. We want peace on Wiki. The community is excessively tired of these Climate Change battles. I urge the Arbitration Committee to get on with their work. It is getting progressively more difficult to encourage editors to restrain themselves. Jehochman Talk 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (Adding parenthetical material at 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    Please do not do that, it is disruptive, leave it as it is, or extend it. You are an infrequent contributor to the wikipedia and you should leave the wheel war alone. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have something like 30,000 edits. You don't know what you're talking about. Please use logic rather than rhetoric, or else I will simply ignore your comment. Jehochman Talk 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you take this action, I believe it is way outside the consensus that has developed and contrary to the actions and decisions of at least 4 admins who have blocked and/or reviewed the block. I suggest you rethink this. Minor4th 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think your "noise filtration" is a little off. Most editors here seem to agree that the block should remain as justified by the user's intentionally disruptive actions, and unilaterally deciding that Sandstein's extension of the block was punitive without discussion with Sandstein or any comments from anyone else on this thread, is far from constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please name the four admins. Also, are you an involved party in CC disputes, or an uninvolved observer? We don't decide things by votes, but I notice Bishonen and myself opposing this block. I can rescan the thread and confirm some other names and spellings before adding them to the list. Also, admins are not special. All editors in good standing have opinions that count. Jehochman Talk 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The Wordsmith blocked
    2. PhilKnight reviewed and declined unblock request
    3. Atama reviewed and declined unblock
    4. Sandstein reviewed and declined unblock, disabled talk page, extended block
    Minor4th 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you appear to be ignoring the vast majority of editors' opinions by wheel-warring unilaterally deciding that other admins' actions were incorrect and misrepresenting consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Go read WP:WHEEL and see what it says. I just did. You're jumping to conclusions, and adding noise to this thread. Please address the substance of my conclusions if you want to change my mind. Jehochman Talk 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I look at this block, the less I like. The talk page revocation was completely unnecessary. AniMate 22:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the above assessment by Jehochman and object to any unblock. Merely asserting that a block is punitive, petty or otherwise flawed does not make it so. The disruption by William M. Connolley is not the bracketed comments themselves, which are harmless, but the fact that he wilfully violated, twice, the clear terms of a regularly imposed restriction based on a community-imposed probation, namely: "William M. Connolley is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months." Please note that the community sanction reads, in relevant part: "Administrators are not to reverse [sanctions under this probation] without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so."  Sandstein  22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please address the issue of talk page disablement. I believe that is very clearly forbidden by policy and practice. A small group of editors here on AN/I do not get to override policy. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are mistaken. WP:BLOCK provides, in relevant part: "Editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." This is what occurred here: both violations of the restriction at issue ([10], [11]) happened on William M. Connolley's own talk page, and he gave no indication that he would stop violating his restriction on that page, instead pointing out himself that the block did not stop him from continuing to edit the comments of others on his own talk page. Disabling talk page access was therefore the only means to effectively enforce the restriction. Moreover, doing so did not close off any venue of appeal to William M. Connolley, since he remains free to contest his block by e-mail to the Committee or via the unblock mailing list.  Sandstein  22:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the original block which as yet has not expired and oppose unilateral admin action. If Jehochman reckons he's got this far in his wiki career (or some such self-reverential and overly smug bullshit that he just typed on his user page) by not being foolish, perhaps he ought to reflect on his comments and take a step back. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, if you have a thoughtful point to make, you can make it civilly. You have enough experience. Jehochman Talk 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've made the thoughtful point that the block should go back to the one enacted by The Wordsmith. As for experience, I have some, but I don't feel the need to act smugly with pointless and valueless input like "Oh look at my 30k edits" and "oh I keep my bits by not being foolish". Grow up and get over yourself. Pedro :  Chat  22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, let's not sidetrack the thread. I could agree with you to restore the original block for now. The second block is clearly odious; the first was merely controversial. Further discussion could decide what to do about the first block. Jehochman Talk 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree fully with Jehochman. The absolute way of interpretation of the the ban, even on an own talkpage, enforced by the messenger/enforcer where it would be better to do it by an uninvolved admin, where the block was purely punitative (the block did NOT disable what it was supposed to be for ...) was silly. The edit that resulted in the block did not even have the slightest link to the case where the ban was supposed to be effective (CC case .. to protect CC cases, right!? That enforcement was already out of line. It should have been restricted to topics regarding CC .. and I think that was exactly what WMC meant .. ). And now the extend of the block with restricted talk-page access is plainly pathetic. Do you guys realize that self-enforcing a ban (which had community consensus) is what primarily got WMC desysopped? This has gone from plain silly is plainly pathetic. But probably I will get ignored as a 'supported of WMC', so that still the majority agrees with the blocks. Please unblock, Jehochman. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I should note that since blocks are preventative and not punitive, I do not object to an unblock, as with every block I make, if the blocked user gives credible assurances that the problematic conduct will not reoccur. That means a unequivocal commitment to comply with the restriction henceforth and, to use Jehochman's terms, to refrain from "any further testing of limits by playing with comments" on any page.  Sandstein  22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Jehochman's analysis is correct. From a conflict resolution perspective, it is far better to get Willliam to agree to the restriction in the way it is meant to be intepreted, i.e. not causing disruption by changing edits. It is true that we can choose to be fundamentalistic about the restriction and choose to interpret it in ridiculous ways, like William not been able to put some comments in square brackets in side a text posted on his own talk page while he is still allowed to remove the whole comment. But then we are moving away from what Wikipedia is supposed to be and turn it into some sort of stupid online game. Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Placing a comment inside someone else's comment in square brackets is unnecessarily disruptive and was clearly intentionally antagonistic; as previously pointed out by other users, a request for clarification could have been made in any number of non-disruptive ways. I'm not sure what other result he could have expected for editing a stop-editing-others'-comments warning. If the user agrees to abide by the restriction, then by all means unblock; but so far that does not appear to be the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok folks, let's stop telling each other how angry/pissed/disappointed we are with each other. We're not going to get anywhere with this right now, are we? I have made a request of Sandstein, and am waiting for a response. SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SirFozzie has reduced the block to its original term, but seems to have left talk access disabled. Jehochman Talk 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's fixed that - talk access is re-enabled. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Modify sanction

    I think we need to clarify that WMC can, like all editors, manage his own talkpage by removing or refactoring comments there. His sanction not to modify (or interject into) others' comments should apply to all pages outside his own userspace. I believe that under that clarification, the original block is defective and should also be reversed, and in any case WMC's talk page access should be restored so he can speak in his own defense. Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He certainly has the right to remove statements from his own talk page. However, he should not modify others statements, even to "refactor" them. His talk page access is now restored, and the block expiration reset to roughly the original time it was set to expire. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this is a minor point. As long as we are clear that he can remove or archive his talk page content. Jehochman Talk 23:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly a minor point: it was the reason for the recent blocks! Archiving or removing talk apge content should of course be allowed as normal.  Sandstein  23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. This targets exactly the real problem. Any violation of the restriction formulated in this way will now correspond to a disruptive edit. This is unlikely to lead to an escalation like we've just seen. Count Iblis (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've (intentionally) not followed the dramafest that is CC and its associated probation, but I do not understand the purpose of this request, except to provide yet another venue for drama. Just minutes ago you wanted to block William M. Connolley indefinitely and now you want to relax restrictions that, whatever their merits, he has so far shown no intention to comply with? Jehochman, I think you are creating much more noise than signal here and should consider letting other admins handle this matter.  Sandstein  23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    *Sigh* This situation needs a subtle touch. WMC could be blocked indefinitely if he persists in serious disruption or WP:POINT. However, we should not sanction petty mischief on his own talk page. It undermines a legitimate sanction to apply pin-pricks for minor technical infractions. Wait for a big, serious infraction, then do what's needed. Jehochman Talk 23:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole discussion seems odd to me, from my reading WMC was fully aware that he was not to insert himself other peoples posts, he was aware that it was not specified if there were limits to where such action would be a violation. He used such a violation to taunt another user. He was blocked for said violation, he continued to commit said violations on his own talkpage. Is this an incorrect interpretation of events? Unomi (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how I've interpreted it, that's why I declined an unblock. I believe that the actual text that WMC inserted made it clear that he knew at the time of the insertion that it was against the sanction, or believed that it was. -- Atama頭 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    JEH: " This situation needs a subtle touch." I agree. Which is why I was surprised to see you getting involved. Going in and suggesting doing things (or out and out doing them, as you did the last few times you dabbled in CC enforcement) in the face of consensus isn't particularly subtle, is it? ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to lend weight to the interpretation that it indeed covers all talk pages. I note the use of emphatic I concur that WMC should not be editing other peoples' comments, period. and Most agree that it needs to be a complete prohibition on all manipulation of other editor's comments. - as well as the closing editors comments which do indeed not indicate that WP:TPOC violations might be ok in some venues. Unomi (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removal has never been an issue and was not related to this block. No one is allowed to refactor other peoples comments even on their own talk page. This modification would actually give WMC special permissions that the rest of us don't have.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. He clearly cannot manage his own talk page. I'm fine with letting him remove comments or archive them, not refactor them or change them in any way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd appreciate if people who've been in persistent editorial disputes with WMC would declare that when commenting on this thread. We need to be able to sort the involved from the uninvolved. Not everybody has a WP:GS/CC/L Climate Change dance card. Jehochman Talk 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, I guess administrators who have been supportive or lax with WMC in the past should declare that when commenting on this thread. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that would include you. You've indicated nothing about your background with WMC. In my first edit to this thread, I indicated I was familiar with William M. Connolley's shenanigans related to climate change disputes, and I clearly have no patience for those shenanigans. I've also had a dispute with you, in which I've unloaded a hefty amount of evidence about you over at the Arbcom Climate Change evidence page. I notice you didn't declare that when responding to my comment. I normally do declare my past connections, when I remember to do it. Without declaring your own past involvement with WMC, you've tried to hijack yet another discussion in which consensus was forming in a direction you didn't like. Why don't you stop doing that? By the way, have you complained about constant supporters of WMC not declaring that when they comment here? I didn't see your statement about that. Why focus on me? Oh, that's right: I'm the one here who posted evidence against you at the ArbCom case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In WMC's defense, we do allow interruptions of others' text, as long as the meaning isn't altered and attribution is preserved (so that it's clear who said what). These bracketed interruptions seem to be willfully defiant of the sanction, however, a sanction which isn't new; see here where 2/0 stated that "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done", and in the more recent discussion where it was suggested that the restriction should be reimposed and (as Unomi has interpreted) extended beyond the CC articles. Note that the restriction by 2/0 suggests that any editing of others' posts is disallowed, even when WP:TPOC would give leeway. I interpret Jehochman as suggesting we give WMC some rope here, and I think that we should, but I believe that letting the block expire as originally set would suffice. -- Atama頭 23:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that WMC should not be annotating other editors comments on his talkpage (which the sanction clearly doesn't cover), but he makes a fair point that the block doesn't prevent him from repeating the offence (he is still able to annotate other editors comments on his talkpage). So it looks to be like the block goes against WP:PUNISH. Whether the solution to this is to remove the block or extend it to his talkpage I do not claim to know. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if he adds sarcastic subheadings to the top of people's comments? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please! He earned a six month restriction on precisely this behavior after dozens of instances where he edited/removed material he didn't like. Barely a week after the restriction expired he started all over again and it was reinstated, and now he's pointedly rejected the authority of 7 admins! When you accuse others of baiting him, you lose all credibility. This particular episode has involved not a single CC content contributor. ATren (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The sanction as it exists provides fodder for WMC's editorial opponents The link in my quote suggests that other editors will somehow get an advantage in baiting WMC because WMC is restricted from editing other editors comments. How on earth does the restriction do that? I'm getting the impression that this thread is being used by Jehochman to bait editors who aren't allies of William M. Connolley. I can't figure out any other purpose to many of Jehochman's many inflammatory comments here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As a general observation, this has somewhat deteriorated into a general violation of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Yes, due process matters, but the long and the short of it is that an editor has been repeatedly and specifically enjoined not to engage in a particular type of disruptive behaviour, and he has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to respect that. The initial block was appropriate, and obsessing about whether blocks can or cannot be punitive is splitting hairs. He is generally recognised as a good contributor, and sometimes punishment is exactly what's required, in the absence of an ability to prevent harm without using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (eg topic ban). Rd232 talk 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should avoid sanctioning good editors when doing so only makes them angry and causes them to act worse. In the long term this sanction prevents nothing; it encourages baiting and gaming the rules by content opponents. Our goal here is to create quality content, not to run an MMORPG where everybody gets to play. Wikipedia:Content matters. Jehochman Talk 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "not... an MMORPG" -- That's an ironic statement from someone who is flaunting his experience points on this very page. :-/ In any case, no content opponent was involved in this dispute so stop saying that. This is WMC baiting uninvolved admins who are trying to enforce a minimum level of decorum. And for the record, he has a long history of doing so -- he did the exact same thing to Lar a few months ago, he did it to ArnoldReinhold before that and Tedder before that. ATren (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I was among the administrators who decided on the sanction in its original form, and I agreed to it, but it would never have crossed my mind that it was going to be interpreted as extending also to his own talk page. To me, this exception is just a matter of common sense. And I am, frankly, not impressed with the way some admin colleagues have been using their blocking power for playing power games with this user over such a lame issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What extends to his own talk page is the general custom, which exists for good reason, of not unnecessarily mucking around with other people's comments. It's bad enough that he's repeatedly had to have a specific sanction placed to enforce that custom, I really don't see what's particularly defensible about violating it on his own userpage. Rd232 talk 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. I support a full Climate change topic ban. I do not think WMC should be allowed to edit anyone else's comments anywhere. He also doesn't archive anything at all which is although allowed , archiving is recommended. I think one of the problems is that WMC deletes bits of peoples comments and saves others and adds into them as well which leaves a misleading picture. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, WMC has rejected the terms I've offered (not to edit other people's comments, until such time as the community or the ArbCom lifts the sanction). At this time, there is no consensus to overturn the sanction. Should he do so again, any uninvolved administrator can block him for an appropriate term for his disruption. I'd suggest that if this behavior continues, the next step be indefinite (as in indefinite until he agrees to the conditions above), but that is just my suggestion. Your Mileage May Vary. SirFozzie (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All this was pretty obvious already, which is why it should have been indefinite in the first place. He was not simply 'managing his talk page' as this rather pointless section implies, and it's pretty clear disruption will continue once it expires if he doesn't make clear he understands how he can and cannot challenge a sanction placed on him. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SirFozzie's proposal sounds sensible to me. If William M. Connolley believes the restriction ought not to apply to his own talk page or to pages unrelated to climate change, he is free to make an appeal to that effect; until such an appeal is successful, the restriction applies as written, that is, without exceptions as to certain pages.  Sandstein  14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So if push comes to shove we're going to indefinitely ban a long-term editor for adding comments to his own talk page? I have asked this before: exactly what harm to the encyclopedia is caused by this display of defiance? There are some misplaced priorities here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked before, and it was explained before. You just didn't like the answer. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This incident raises all sorts of questions. Was it really the best thing to insert an annotation into a notification? Wouldn't it have been better to leave a small version of what you wanted to say/dispute after TW's comment rather than inside it? Or if the temptation could be resisted, to just leave that as a response? Or better yet, to appeal the restriction so as to reduce the scope of the restriction prior to making the edit?
    • On the other hand, was the best outcome achieved by blocking an user because he seems to be disrespecting "authority" and inviting a block? Was it really so disruptive? Does anyone believe that the drama created and time wasted on this ANI would be halved by blocking? Or would it have been better to: (1) clarify the scope of the restriction, and/or (2) if he isn't like to respond to you positive, get another user who he's likely to be more receptive to...to persuade him to (re)move the annotation, and/or (3) note for absolute clarity that should it occur again on his own talk, he will be blocked, and/or (4)...the list of possibilities on how to handle this goes on. Had some of those steps been taken, would there be a reason for anyone to question the block at all? Was the subsequent escalation appropriate? And while seasoned contributors should know better, can we expect people who have lost their tools to have great judgement? Would he have reacted differently if other steps were tried?
    • To clarify, I'm not advocating any position in support of anyone or any particular action or proposal - I think the handling of this was not up to standard for the most part (and that may be understating/overstating it depending on how you look at it). By all means, if admins are not ready to wade into a certain messy area, we should provide some form of support, I agree - but does that mean others should not suggest alternative ways of dealing with an issue?
    • And don't let me get started on comments like "he is a busted flush as far as wikipedia goes and his continued presence is disruptive." (said at 23:06, 17 August 2010)...really, is this appropriate commentary towards or about any user on Wikipedia? Never mind the fact the subject cannot really respond to the comment, how would someone go about appropriately responding to a comment like that anyway? It's a sad sad day for the wiki when vindictiveness, tit for tat, unhelpful comments, unhelpful characterisations, unhelpful actions, agenda-based editing...all come together to drown what's most important and to distract people from other issues. And when those who should be modelling appropriate conduct (but more importantly, doing the right thing) are also lost in the tsunami, even in matters outside this incident, how will the project be better off...I guess one can only wonder. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcom?

    This ridiculous train wreck has left a long-term editor indefinitely blocked for challenging the technicalities of a community sanction. No matter who you think is at fault here, this is not an optimal resolution. If nobody else does, I would like to bring this up before Arbcom so that they can review the merits of the policies applied here and the reasonable bounds of administrative intervention and community sanctions as they apply here, or perhaps just jigger the participants into finding a better way to go about this. In the spirit of looking before I leap, does anyone have any suggestion about the best way to present this? I don't think it's worth a full-blown Arbcom case, and it's not exactly a request for clarification or enforcement. Perhaps it could be considered as a motion in the climate change case, because that's where it initially arose. Is there any simple expedited way to ask Arbcom whether they will consider this? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, before I do that, there's a practical question. I'm not very familiar with WMC as a content editor. Other than participating in the climate change disputes, does WMC actually contribute significantly to the editing of the encyclopedia? I'm not asking for venting or defending, I just want to make sure I don't waste my time on a lost cause. It may be hard to address this without triggering some unnecessary debate, so feel free to leave a suggestion on my talk page. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "contribute significantly" in this context. Does that include removing things? If so, why yes, he does. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer Wikidemon, I've looked over WMC's last 500 contributions, and out of all of those edits the only articles that he has edited that don't seem directly related to climate change are: Data sharing, Franz Senn Hütte, and Bluetooth. A total of 4 edits to 3 articles outside of climatology/global warming. (The data sharing article might be somehow related to climate change study but I can't tell how.) I hope that answers your question? -- Atama頭 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI if you look on the talk page you'll see that there is a discussion regarding Data Sharing, and the sharing of climate change data.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama, you may want to look over his other 44652 edits. And I don't think that Hadley cell, Arctic, Ozone depletion, Sensible heat, Tropical climate, Arctic, Bumps race, Age of the Earth and Gaia hypothesis are articles reasonably classified as "directly related to climate change". Sure, if the temperature drops by 25 degrees centigrade, that might put an end to Bumps races, at least in Cambridge, but it's a stretch. You might get a better overview if you only look at mainspace edits, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they are. How can you not say that those are climatology-related articles? I'm not even sure how to respond, that's like saying black is white. And I'm aware that WMC has a very long history on Wikipedia and I'm sure there are plenty of other areas he's edited, but I was interested in a sample of what he works on today, and I think the last 500 edits is a reasonable indicator. That is only my opinion, but I think it's pretty fair to say that his current contributions are fairly narrow in scope. I'm not making a judgment based on that, and I state on my user page that I support single-purpose accounts (and I don't think WMC even qualifies as one), I was just trying to answer Wikidemon's question. -- Atama頭 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are talking cross-purpose. Yes, many of these articles are related to climatology. But not all are directly related to climate change, unless you use a fairly broad definition. Sensible heat or Arctic or even Hadley cell have not been subject to the climate change conflicts to a significant degree (if at all). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, WMC isn't a "climate change warrior" who restricts himself to articles where editors are carrying on a dispute about climate change, and that wasn't what I was saying (though now I'm thinking that Wikidemon may have been asking exactly that). I meant that his topic focus is narrowed to topics related to climatology (which only demonstrates what his interest is). I think you're right that we were talking about two different things, I understand what you meant now. :) -- Atama頭 21:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens, the edit to Bumps race was a reversion, and an incorrect one at that, so can't readily be counted as a "significant contribution". A number of the other topics quoted do seem to be closely related to climate change, but I will willingly admit that I haven't looked at all 44652 edits. David Biddulph (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar, if you don't have the time or inclination to at least look through a contribution history, just keep quite. WMC has contributed, significantly, over a wide range of articles. I'd take any reasonable bet that he has added more useful content than e.g. User:ATren, User:Thegoodlocust and User: ZuluPapa5 combined. In fact, I'd be somewhat surprised if he had not contributed more than an order of magnitude more than those three editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said before, looking at the pre-ArbCom activity levels (no idea if he has recently changed his behavior), his article edits tend to consist of about 80%+ reverts (a couple years ago he stopped labeling many of his reverts as such). If there was a tool to determine how many bytes a person has added or subtracted from WP then I am confident that on the whole of things WMC has subtracted many megabytes of content. As for my content, I've never been a huge contributor, but I've made several significant contributions through a smaller number of edits. I've also forgone article editing for the most part for various reasons (some of which involve WMC following me around to non-CC areas t revert me), but there are several articles I'd like to write and I fully intend to do so after the ArbCom decision. Anyway, this isn't about me, so try to focus on people who are actually involved in the current dispute rather than dragging others into it to distract from things. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    StS: We're talking about recently. See the analysis of the last 500 edits, above. Hope that helps. Although I'm not quite sure it will. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought we were talking about "a long-term editor", maybe just below the header of this section it says "a long-term editor". 500 edits was about a month's worth for both WMC and you. In your last 500 edits, I notice seven (7) mainspace edits, all very minor (I think the most substantial ones were adding a header and creating a redirect). That does not imply that you are "a lost cause", but it does show that a month is too small a sample, especially when the parties involved are active in dispute resolution, which of course eats significant parts of their time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Stephan, really, that is a uncalled for and not helpful at all. Quit picking on Lar -- this is not about him. Speak to WMC's contributions.Minor4th 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to show 242 articles created by William M. Connolley. Cardamon (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On bring it to Arbcom, WMC is a long term editor who knows various methods of contacting the committee. I believe during the initial block he was clearly told which email adress to use to appeal. I'm not sure why any third party would beed to bring it to arbcom. If he wants to, he will.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I support bringing this matter to ArbCom. In fact, conveniently, there's already a case that's apropos. Perhaps you could submit evidence, or make some workshop proposals? Or perhaps not. (That you perhaps didn't already know this suggests that perhaps you really don't have the needed context to comment usefully on WMC...) ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I would like to recommend that Wikidemon and anyone else who is opposed to the block or thinks it is an overreaction to a technical violation, please do familiarize yourself with WMC as an editor because his history is important to the context of this block. I can certainly see why this block and the actions subsequent to TW's initial block would appear to be an overreaction or a display of bias if one were unfamiliar with WMC's history of behavior and sanctions and the amount of disruption to the encyclopedia thay has been centered around this editor. Please also familiarize yourselves with the pending omnibus ArbCom case, and in particular the evidence and workshop pages. Please note the volume of text devoted to William M. Connolley behavior, and note also the history of sanctions and requests for enforcement against this editor. A different picture shoukd start to emerge and perhaps you'll see the current block in a new light. Incidentally, it is a near certainty that WMC will be dealt with severely by ArbCom when they issue their proposed decisions. WMC must know that's what is coming, and I believe he has no incentive or intent to modify his behavior to bring it in line with community exoectations. He knows he is a short timer in any event. Not that it even matters a great deal, as he seems to have largely moved on from Wikipedia since he cannot have the amount of individual influence over articles that he once enjoyed -- he has accomplished his mission over the past 5 years, and he has for the most part passed the baton to his more aggressive, tenfentious proteges who have quite effectively taken up where WMC has left off. The arb proposed decisions cannot come soon enough. Minor4th 20:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that's what I am beginning to think. Indeed I don't have context. But I have a hard time avoiding the thought that the rules apply equally to all, and that people's unhappiness with things an editor has done in other circumstances shouldn't factor into it. I think the best thing to do is to leave a note at some appropriate place for ArbCom, which is probably considering the wider context, and I would assume will take a dim view of WMC's actions in this particular incident. But at least it will get a fresh set of eyes. Is the climate change case the one in question? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom usually takes a "rules are rules" POV when dealing woth specific editors, so that won't do any good. Instead what is needed are a group of Admins who will unblock William and keep him unblocked on this particular issue, i.e. editing his own talk page. Any dispute among Admins on how to deal with escalation on ever more trivial points could perhaps go to ArbCom, because that's ultimately what this is all about. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • A NOTE - Somewhere along the line the section called "Arbcom?" got cloned, there were two identical sections and people were posting different things to each. I tried to consolidate the two but if I put something where it doesn't belong or missed anything, I apologize. -- Atama頭 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed my note, but I'll repost it now: Since WMC has rejected the terms, and indeed decided to increase his volume of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I have blocked him indefinitely. Please note, this is not an "indefinite as in forever" block, this is an "indefinite until he puts down the stick and backs away from the horse" block. He knew (or at least should have known) that his behavior was deemed disruptive, and he was offered a path forward (to have the community or the Arbitration Committee review the sanction, and have it lifted should consensus deem it necessary). He's rejected that, and continued onwards. If someone can get through to him and get him to agree to cut it out, go ahead and unblock him at that time. SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declaring a behavior to be disruptive does not make it so. Count Iblis (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And tolerating disruptive behavior does not tend to bring about less disruptive behavior. Minor4th 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry SirFozzie, hope I didn't miss anything else. I triple-checked too. It was just getting hard to follow this discussion when the entire section was doubled and each version was getting different comments. -- Atama頭 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes. I hope I didn't do that :( - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One more pro-science expert removed. Well done! (There can't be many left, can there?)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as "pro-science" editors continue to treat science like ideology, they will continue to be removed. ATren (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is only the prominent site it is because of the good quality science articles that are effectively edited according to SPOV, despite this not being official policy. And ATren & co. are only active here on Wikipedia because it is a prominent website. It thus follows that however they try, ATren & co. cannot have it their way. Count Iblis (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless one assumes they are happier with no science coverage than with good science coverage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just bad science coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this is what really matters. Atren & co. will always edit that editable site which is on top, which won't be Wikipedia if he has his way here, so he'll necessarily find himself in conflict with someone like WMC on another site. Count Iblis (talk)
    Please don't use this as a forum to rag on editors; ANI is rough enough without (more) petty back and forths. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bali ultimate: Don't worry, I'm still here, and I am as pro-science as they come. Much more so than ChrisO, Count Iblis or Stephan Schulz, for example! ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use this as a forum to rag on editors; ANI is rough enough without (more) petty back and forths. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You first, mate. My point is valid... the faction of those who just want WP policy observed is far more pro science than you or others of your faction are, since I'm actually not trying to control the POV the way you guys are. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your new technique to comment on persons, Lar? Or are you just trying to be a pointy kettle? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which edit(s) led to changing a 48h block to indef? It isn't really clear in the above exchanges. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Tarc: I lowered the block on WMC to the original 48 hours and reenabled talk page access as a way to try to calm things down. I asked WMC to consider that the original sanction was still in effect, and that if he wanted to have it removed, to get the community or the Committee to lift the sanction. He rejected that, and continued to interject his comments into other people's edits. As you can read from my restored edit, this is simply a block until such time as he agrees to stop the disruption and agree that until the sanction is lifted, that he will not breech it. SirFozzie (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Extending the CC sanction regarding refactoring others' comments to his own talk page is a mighty big leap, IMO. We do have the "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" line from WP:TPOC that could have been cited instead, though an indef for that seems pretty steep. I tend to view user talk pages as fairly sacrosanct; short of personal attacks, users should have wide latitude to do what they will there. If there are others who do not like WMC refactoring what they say at User talk:William M. Connolley, well, they should simply refrain from carrying on discussions there, IMO. Move the discussions to Wiki-space, where WMC will have no choice but to comply with the refactoring rules. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • To add to what Tarc said, the wp:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation says that it will apply to "Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) ". I very much doubt that that includes an editor's own talk page. So, the sanction did not apply to WNC's talk page, and the original block was invalid. The concept of keeping WMC blocked until he agrees that a sanction which does not apply to his talk page actually does apply to his talk page seems questionable. Cardamon (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC) And yes, WMC could have handled things better. Cardamon (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Effect on smooth functioning of the project

    As Response from the Wordsmith explains above, the sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive10#William_M._Connolley is "William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)'. This was imposed under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Remedy which states "Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation". The Wordsmith states "WMC chose to intentionally violate this sanction, claiming it was invalid. He modified my notification of the sanction." It was not clear at that time that WMC's talk page is covered by the sanction, which was not set out explicitly in the notice, and while WMC's editing of the notice was pointy, his note on TW's talkpge Please clarify was both a request for clarification and a statement that it was beyond TW's powers. The sanctions require that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." The block was imposed without such counselling or any warning that the sanction applied to comments or notices on WMC's own talk page. Thus, in an unusual interpretation of sanctions in relation to user talk pages, a block was given without warning.
    The block notice given by The Wordsmith set out justification in terms of the probation, "Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." [emphasis in the notice] and said "The restriction was valid and had consensus, and you willfully violated it." The validity of the block therefore relates to a judgement call on the smooth functioning of the project, but disruption has been caused by discussion of the block rather than by the refactoring of comments on WMC's own talk page. . . dave souza, talk 06:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As the CC sanctions discussions show, there was no specific discussion or statement explicitly extending the restriction on refactoring to talk pages. The Wordsmith did close the discussion with the comment "I concur that WMC should not be editing other peoples' comments, period." However, I've found no mention of extending the sanction to WMC's talk page. There was a reference to the setting up of the restriction. In discussion on that, the question was raised and at 03:07, 26 February 2010, Lar wrote "User talk?? hmmm. My own talk page is a pretty lax area, if you're snarky you just get snark back rather than asked to redact. At first I would say no. I could see expanding it to include the user talks of anyone who is under a warning or more (any post by anyone there, to cut down on the 'let's bait this guy into doing something stupid') or posts to any user talk at all by any one already on warning or more. But I'm leery of user talk. I'd rather try to see if we could keep it narrow." Not sure who Lar thought would be doing the baiting, but WMC was effectively baited without the narrow restriction being widened. . . dave souza, talk 06:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This ANI has seen a pile-on of editors, and admins whose judgement I respect have approved the block. The effect on smooth functioning of the project is at the very least questionable. It may also be noted that the original discussion was about WMC refactoring a borderline personal attack made by another editor, an attack which was promptly restored and then caused significant disruption to the project.[12][13] WMC's actions in this current episode have been pointy, but confined to his talk page. Repeated disruption to the smooth running of the project has come from discussions of actions promoting persistent and ever tightening restrictions on WMC beyond the standards expected of other editors. In my view, actions following the classic pattern of civil pov pushing to remove a knowledgeable and constructive mainstream editor from editing in his area of expertise. Something for arbcom to review. . . dave souza, talk 06:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth noting as well that SirFozzie applied the indef block in response to WMC redacting the part of SirFozzie's post that was a direct quotation from a private email that WMC had sent. As I understand it, quoting emails without permission is a no-no (anyone remember the lengths ArbCom went to to avoid quoting from emails in the EEML case?) and SirFozzie should not have been quoting an email of WMC's without his explicit permission. I am deeply unimpressed with the restraint and common sense from the admins in this minor incident; the first block should never have happened. EdChem (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WMC's behavior in response to the prohibition was clearly obnoxious and POINTy. Wordsmith's actions are apparently well-intended, but come off looking rather petty. (It is generally a bad idea for an admin to respond to personal taunts against himself by directly issuing blocking, even if the block would seem entirely justified.) More importantly, I agree with Dave that the restriction — as applied to user talk pages — seems highly dubious. The climate change probation created by Arbcom applies to behaviors on climate change related pages. WMC might even have deserved a block for POINTy behavior, but applying the CC probation to pages and actions not related to climate change seems like overreaching, and the applied restriction probably needs to be revised accordingly.
    So, personally, I think it is about time we walk this back a bit, recognizing that WMC has already been blocked more than 48 hours (the length of the original block). Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WMC could have handled this better, the behaviour was unnecessarily pointy, and that would have deserved a good warning. But I agree here, the effect of applying the sanctions here disrupts Wikipedia far more than the disruption should have prevented (and it is not like, that interjecting your comments into anothers' comment is a mortal sin .. are we realizing here that this is not even policy based? WP:TALK is a mere guideline, and note that interruptions are even an example of something that may be allowed under certain circumstances.
    This ban is just plainly absurd. Lets go on, please: 'You have reverted an edit to a page directly related to Climate Change. We have established that your revert was not productive, and warned you. Yet you do it again. Therefore we now impose that you shall not revert any page here on Wikipedia.' ... 'Your style of commenting is not appropriate, and you have been asked to come with properly referenced criteria for inclusion. Yet you still insist in suggesting unreliable information. Therefore we now impose that you shall not edit any talkpage on Wikipedia.' ... This is a great possibility that ArbCom is giving here. As soon as Climate Change is involved, it is one strike and one can be banned from the whole of Wikipedia. No. The ban should have been "you are not to refactor comments of others, or insert comments into others' comments on talkpages related to Climate Change (broadly construed)". Any other page, and that includes an own talkpage, should be outside of that restriction. It might be that it includes discussions that are clearly about climate change on talkpages of editors who are involved in the case, but that is about the limit. And even that is already a questionable ban, not based on any policy of this site (I have yet to see a policy that says these things about talkpages. There are some hard rules which apply to talkpages (plain abuse of our core policies, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:COPYRIGHT), but refactoring .. naah .. that is not in there).
    There is no right there to be drawn from the CC case. If WMC makes problems outside of CC, then that should have gone through the appropriate noticeboards, in a case unrelated to CC (it might have pointed back to CC with 'he does it there as well'). Consensus for a site-wide ban of this type is not to be decided by editors in a sanction page (Arbs can do it, but that is a different situation)). The first block was out of line, the extension of the block was even further out of line, and now this indef block is .. well .. how far can we go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed this matter in detail in connection with posting evidence about it to the Arbcom case evidence page.[14] It's pretty clear to me that the blocks all exceed the authority given by WP:GSCC, which only applies to climate change related articles. The "any other measures" is in a section that only applies to those articles, so it does not extend any authority here. That makes everything else moot. If this were treated as a simple administrative matter under general principles, I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the three edits in question were blockable disruption: (a) asking for clarification of an administrative ruling, (b) engaging in humorous wordplay with an editor who welcomed the interaction, and (c) redacting the posting of a private email. It's a shame to let this one fester, or to have to burden Arbcom with it. It would be nice if we could simply reverse the block and let WMC know that although he should avoid unnecessary provocation even on his talk page, the sanction does not apply there. Consensus isn't the point here - consensus here on what to do about WMC cannot expand the scope of GSCC, much less retroactively so. Also, the restriction in GSCC about reversing enforcement actions doesn't apply, because the action does not fall within GSCC. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec with much of the above) I think it is the wrong time to walk this back even a bit. I can't believe that anyone, even William M. Connolley's most fervent supporters, actually thinks that in the inevitable disagreements we all know he will have with administrators, he will have a cooperative attitude. His hobby is annoying administrators by arguing every point of punctilio while simultaneously engaging in conduct that skirts the edges of any sanction that part-time, volunteer, well-meaning editors have attempted to construct for his long series of misconduct sprees. I'm certain that every single one of us expects, if he returns, that if he has a disagreement over enforcement he will take POINTy actions, do it in a rude way and otherwise act in a way calculated to make administrative enforcement of any provision related to him as difficult for administrators as possible. Hasn't that been the exact pattern of the past -- how many? a dozen? -- administrative enforcement episodes involving him? He wastes a lot of time of a lot of people. After about the eighth episode, concern about the smooth running of the project should have outweighed the desire of a particular faction to have William M. Connolley around to continue his activities in furtherance of their goals. Wikipedia has broader goals. William M. Connolley impedes them. That's why he gathers more and more opposition over time. We can argue with William M. Connolley and his allies over and over and over again about the subtleties of the fine points of the subclauses of the remits in the history of the bureaucracy. Or we can work on the encyclopedia. It's getting increasingly harder to do both. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that that allows to find any stick to beat the dog .. I'm sorry, if WMC is doing so bad, then really, then there will be better reasons than just to implement a ban which is way out of jurisdiction. We have ArbCom to deal with such cases, present the full evidence to them, and let them rule. Do not just make up rules which are not even close to policy based, and which are way out of the jurisdiction of the ArbCom rulings applied. This reflects bad on those administrators, the involved editors, and on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One could just have applied the same ban for indefinite, within the scope of CC .. No-one could have argued against it, and if WMC thén chose to violate, then indeed, blocks of increasing lenghth should be applied (and if WMC is behaving as bad as everyone says, then that would quickly have happened). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon subsequent discussion

    Now that the uninvolved have had a chance to comment, it seems like there is a consensus that WP:GS/CC cannot be applied to WMC's own talk page, or pages outside the Climate Change arena, and that the original block was incorrect. (Deja vu to my original comments.) I believe that block has now expired, so the point is moot. The lesson to be taken here is not to repeat the same mistakes again. And WMC would be wise not to goad other editors, because it is harder to defend him when he does that. Can we archive this thread now, please? Jehochman Talk 12:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that you have admitted that your aim is in defending WMC even if he goads other editors, just that it is more difficult for you to do so in that eventuality. Since your neutrality is obviously compromised would you consider recusing from this subject? And if you do not should others consider whether you should remain an admin? Weakopedia (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a correction - the block has not expired, in fact it has been increased to indefinite. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - WMC is presently blocked under an indefinite label, which of course does not mean indefinite, he was blocked for an infraction of one of his conditions, he objected to the condition which was not upheld and he was pointed in the direction of appealing the condition, WMC was also warned that he would be blocked again if he did it again and recommended to go appeal the restriction, as soon as WMC was unblocked he violated the restriction. He was blocked again which is totally fair enough. All he needs to do as I see it to be unblocked is accept the position and then go and request the condition be altered, we all have to follow the restrictions imposed on us. WMC knows full well the correct procedure for appealing his restriction and this was also pointed out to him more than once.Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you ask someone to accept a position that has no applicability? From what I'm reading those sanctions are not applicable to his talk page so why should he accept them there? Would you accept it if an admin unilaterally told you that you are not allowed to behave on your own talk page in a manner that others are? I agree wholeheartedly that WMC seems to be acting in a very petty fashion here, but he's clearly not alone in that game. Lets put the sticks down and realize that there was no justification for this block and move on until such time that WMC or anyone else actually violates a sanction in a way that is actionable. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block which was for 48 hours from 17:27, 17 August 2010, was changed back and forward then expired on 19 August, SirFozzie having made that conditional on WMC agreeing to stop editing the comments of others. WMC rejected that for areas outside the CC area, and for his own talk page, twice edited the comments of others on his own talk page, and for that was indefinitely blocked by SirFozzie. Thus, the second block is also based on application of WP:GS/CC to WMC's own talk page, and the same questions apply. WMC still appears to be blocked. . dave souza, talk 13:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - yes, indefinitely - until he accepts the condition and then he will be able to go off and appeal it., the result of which I have no idea about. What I do know is his actions and re actions after having the issue clearly spelled out to him were nothing more than a fu to the wikipedia which is not a good position for anyone wanting to contribute to the project to have. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear here, the sanction was not worded with any qualification whatsoever -- it was a blanket restriction. The context of the sanction was the CC probation, which applies to CC articles, broadly construed. So I believe what WMC's defenders are arguing here is that the sanction itself was inappropriate because the probation does not apply to user talk pages. But note: WMC never made that argument himself, he just violated it blatantly to draw the block create all this drama. This is gamesmanship, pure and simple. Regardless of the correctness of the original sanction, the subsequent gaming (his refusal to either accept the terms as they are or appeal them through proper channels) is the reason for his indef block. And furthermore, WMC's defenders' argument is weak: the sanction applied was only mildly outside of the scope of the probation; at best, his defense is based on a legalistic technicality, and amounts to little more than wikilawyering. ATren (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WMC asked for clarification several times, and explicitly made that argument himself, writing at 20:45 on 18 August that "This block is pointless because it doesn't prevent me repeating this behaviour, viz editing my own talk page. Invalid because nothing in the CC probation permits restrictions on editing of users own talk page." WMC is being legalistic but accurate, and it's the escalation of these dubious blocks that lies behind all this discussion. Your wikilawyering is noted, but "mildly outside" is still outside. While I don't doubt that The Wordsmith and SirFozzie felt their action was fully justified, they remain incorrect about the scope of the CC sanctions and in my view made a wrong call. As was wisely said, everyone's behaviour was sub-optimal, including WMC's. . dave souza, talk 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been going on for many months!

    To those of you who are treating this as an isolated case: do you realize that WMC had already received lengthy sanctions for this kind of behavior twice just since the probation began? Do you realize that those original sanctions were imposed after a long, well-documented history of disruptive comment-editing both on his talk and elsewhere? Do you not acknowledge that editing someone's comment (as opposed to removing it) is not permitted even on one's own talk, and that such behavior would be considered especially suspect for an editor with a long history of disruptive editing/removal of others' comments? Do you know that, aside from the comment editing sanction, WMC has also received several other sanctions/warnings, including civility, 1RR probation, and a complete article ban from the BLP of someone he has harshly criticized on his blog? Do you know that his behavior has been reported well over a dozen times at the enforcement board, several of those reports from established editors such as Cla68, SlimVirgin, and BozMo? And do you realize that Sandstein and SirFozzie have never been involved in this conflict, and their were taken as a result of WMC's pointy defiance and not in response to the original violation?

    Really, reading above you would think this was an isolated defiant act of a squeaky clean content contributor. There is a long history of disruption here. ATren (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you all want to block an editor for his long history of supposed disruption then please do so after gaining the necessary community input. Blocking him for altering comments on his own talk page comes of as really petty and immature, not to mention outside the bounds of any policy I'm aware of. I know little to nothing about the history here, but from the outside this all looks really bad because none of the justifications for this block really pertain to a rational application of policy to the behavior the editor is being blocked for. Someone else in this thread suggested that people should ignore childish games played by users on their own talk pages and wait for them to violate sanctions on the applicable pages and then block. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. You all should consider ending the drama now and blocking people when they actually transgress the rules here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, while I'm certainly not defending WMC for stepping over the line, many (most?) o the enforcement requests against him have been closed as unactionable, and he's been the target of a more sustained campaign of vilification and abuse than any other editor I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. A number of editors who oppose his POV have very clearly being trying to goad him and harass him for months now. Whatever else he may have done, the campaign against him on- and off-wiki has been deplorable. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. The editors who have been in conflict with him recently are SlimVirgin, Cla68, Lar, BozMo, even FloNight. The "poor WMC is being harassed by POV pushers" meme has been exposed as nonsense. ATren (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Atren, giving more weight to the minority POV in the topic area of Global Warming has been pushed by SlimVirgin, Cla68 and Lar, with Cla68 starting his editing in the area a long time ago trying to portray the scientific consensus view as "only a theory" and continuing in that vein. Plenty of other editors have been pushing fringe povs in the area more vocally, and there have been repeated and obvious attempts to harass WMC, both on- and off-wiki. No-one thinks WMC's conduct has been perfect or has backed his every action, but your claim that it's an expired "meme" is nonsense. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You were the one who put this in terms of "many months", not just recently. The fact that WMC has been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of harassment, with people literally competing with each other on- and off-wiki to get him sanctioned, is surely relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nonsense. No matter what happens with others offsite, this conflict involves editors that have nothing to do with that. I certainly don't. Cla68, SV, Lar, The Wordsmith, LHvU BozMo, FloNight don't. From all indications, A Quest For Knowledge, Heyitspeter, Minor4th, John W Barber and Off2riorob don't either. All of these editors listed have been involved in this conflict and have expressed concerns about WMC's behavior, and NONE of them can be classified as part of your off-wiki gang of miscreants. Stop clouding the issue with this harassment meme. It has nothing to do with the current conflict. ATren (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This conflict has frequently involved you, Atren, making observations attacking battling against[15] WMC and his views. To a large extent, I've been agreement with many of WMC's views. I have no gang of off-wiki miscreants. Some of those you name may have shared views at times with off-wiki voices and socks, but I see no evidence of gangs. The point remains that there has been a persistent campaign on and off wiki to get WMC sanctioned. . . dave souza, talk 13:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC) better phrasing, diff added. . dave souza, talk 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You struck the wrong words Dave. I have no problem with the words "battling against", but the object of that battle is wrong. I am "battling against" POV pushing and aggressive tactics that I've witnessed for 2 years, not some editor or his "views". His views are fine, and in fact I share many of them, but when an editor holding those views is violating all kinds of policy (including BLP) to support them, that's when I have a problem. ATren (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...says you. Diffs please, or hold thine tongue. Weakopedia (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a whole arbcom case out there about what Atren seems to regard as a battle between "gangs". Having said that, "battling against" is a much more accurate description than "attacking", so I've changed it accordingly. . dave souza, talk 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was more the on and off wiki campaign to get WMC sanctioned that I was referring to. I am honestly interested - I don't understand what sort of an off-wiki campaign could get someone sanctioned. I think there has certainly been some effort to get WMC sanctioned on-wiki, but similarly against Lar, AQFK, Mark Nutley and that other one who always gets sanctioned, I forget his name - anyway, my point is that it seems to me that the people trying to get all these editors sanctioned have been doing so on the basis of sanctionable acts. That's not to say that all the accusations were wrong or right, but the venue has been RFE so it is not really secret, and sanctions have been imposed as well as rejected in most of those cases. From my point of view, although many people on 'both sides' have tried to amalgamate as many examples of past behaviour as they could into each RFE request, that ultimately anyone who got sanctioned was sanctioned for violating some sanction or rule on Wikipedia. And surely the responsibility for sticking to the rules belongs to the individual editor. So my question is, do you have some kindof link to what you perceive as an on or off wiki campaign? If there is something I am missing in my evaluation I'd like to see it. I would point out tho that WMC has brought many sanction requests to the RFE page, but not all have resulted in sanctions. I don't think that means that WMC has an on-wiki campaign to influence the CC sphere, nor do I suggest that his off-wiki blog comments and the replies of Wikipedia admins there are an attempt to do so - is my definition of campaigning too broad or too narrow? Weakopedia (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly, the longer this block is allowed to stand, the longer it appears to be standing out of spite. People are waiting for WMC to agree to adhere to CC sanctions that logically should not be extended to his own talk page. That's like demanding that a blocked user apologize before the block will be lifted, and IIRC that sort of condition is frowned upon around here. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No apologies are needed. No mea culpas.. just an agreement not to violate it while the community/Committee discuss it, and then let the chips fall where they may. SirFozzie (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but whose spite? You do realise that WMC could get unsanctioned any second if he just agreed not to modify other peoples talkpage posts? Do you think that WMC should be allowed to modify other peoples talkpage posts? Even many who disagree with the sanction process agree that WMC could better not alter other peoples talkpage posts, even on his own talkpage, where he is quite free to summarily delete them. You do realise this is the culmination of many acts of WMC displaying a questionable attitude to altering peoples talkpage comments on article and enforcement talkpages? What is so hard about not altering other peoples talkpage comments! And really, when the best WMC has to offer is to call his blocker "Sir Fathead" are you really still going to defend this childish attitude towards Wikipedia and it's contributors? That ignore all rules principle is there to stop exactly this kind of behaviour - if procedure is all that is stopping WMC from being definitively prevented from altering other peoples talkpage comments then it should be ignored. If you have some other reason for empowering his obstructive and overwhelmingly pointy behaviour then what is it? And what does IIRC mean? (note, while the original block was made in relation to CC probation all subsequent blocks have due to deliberate refusal to comply with block conditions - normally when people challenge their block aggressively they get that block extended, as it is never productive to challenge the block conditions in the wrong venue) Weakopedia (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, I don't have a problem with inserting comments in square brackets into other's posts in his user space. I'm not criticising anyone, but I'd prefer some sort of compromise, perhaps unblock as time served, and modify the restriction. Otherwise, I think "IIRC" means "if I recall correctly". PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; all comments were clearly identifiable, while the annotations were clearly identifiable (via square brackets and initials/signature), and all of this was visible on that user's talk. I'll add criticism as I'm sure some people will otherwise miss the subtleness of this view. Obviously, the subject could have just temporarily accepted the stricter version of the rules that some of the admins were advocating, just in the interests of reducing drama, but he didn't. Obviously, some admins who got involved in this (who have yet to appreciate that they are expected to have better judgement) could have avoided reactive blocking, especially given how predictable/clear it is that these blocks are not at all moving towards the "smooth functioning of the project". And all of this is coming from a poorly conceived restriction; is it any wonder that the resounding view about CC General Sanctions in the RFC was not so great? There are a variety of ways in which this whole incident could have been handled - instead, there's been petty + needless escalation, and nobody involved ends up looking better because of it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it quite amazing that at this point WMC has somehow backed himself into a corner where he won't be unblocked from an indef block unless he agrees to follow the same rules everyone else does - yet declines to do so. And somehow finds support for his decision! What's so special about WMC? Why should he have a unique privilege to muck around with other people's comments? Rd232 talk 16:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully, in a week's time everyone will have calmed down, and some sort of compromise will be possible. Also, throwing around comments such as 'bizarre' isn't helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A proposal - It has been suggested that the sanction levied against WMC doesn't extend to his own talk page. It's acknowledged that nobody on Wikipedia has permission to modify other editors' comments, even on their own talk pages (per WP:TPO). WMC does have a habit of inserting his own comment in the middle of other editors' comments, and though he does so in a format unusual for this site it can be argued as allowable per WP:TPO as an "interruption". If the sanctions that suggest that WMC can't edit others' comments in any way don't apply to his user talk page, then the current block should be removed. My proposal is to undo the block, but remind WMC that he still has to follow the same rules as everyone else (he can insert his own comment but can't modify what others have written except to delete or archive entire comments at his choosing) and he is still under a tight restriction at ares under the CC sanctions (he shouldn't be touching anyone else's comments at all). I can do the unblock myself and I'll take the heat for it. Does anyone object to this? -- Atama頭 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my position and I stand by that, I can have a position and be not involved, I am not involved in any of the climate changes issues that WMC edits. Is WMC unable to say...I accept I was a bit pointy and that I pushed the issues after I was warned and I will avoid that in future, I accept my condition and I will appeal it in the correct way as you suggested when I am unblocked . -Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure that would be all it would take, in an email would suffice. In fact I have only one single issue with WMC (although there are more at ARBCOM) and I have asked him more than once but not received a reply. As a citable climate change blogger to please stop editing the BLP articles of his opponents. That is my issue with WMC, I saw it happen on multiple BLP articles were edited with content that reflected negatively on the living people that he has citable conflicts with. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking forward to after the ArbCom case

    ArbCom will make some rulings and then Admins will have to monitor for violations of any rulings, bring editors before Arbitration Enforcement, if needed. But if that happens like this CC enforcement against William was handled, we'll see a lot of trouble. Now, if we look back at why exactly User:Trusilver was desysopped and why User:Likebox is still indefinitely banned, you'll see what Sandstein's and SirFozzie's approach leads to. William's critics should think very hard about this too, as most of them are parties in this ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, Count, if you look on the CC general discussion page, I bring up the future of the CC GS, and specifically the question if GS should have the same level of inviolability as AE sanctions enforcement does there. As for Likebox, without rehashing it too much, I'll remind you that any unblock has to start with him asking for it. SirFozzie (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, the CC discussion page seems to be the right place to discuss this further. About Likebox, I agree that given where we are now your position is defensible. However, one has to ask how things could have escalated this far. Ncmvocalist had asked me on my talk page to revert this thread (its a bit of a distraction), but it is too late for that now. But if people want to reply they can do that on my talk page or elsewhere. Count Iblis (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocked

    I've unblocked William M. Connolley, per the discussion above and my reasoning here. I did remind him about the usual WP:TPO guidelines and that the sanction regarding his editing of others' comments still applies at areas within the Climate Change arena. -- Atama頭 18:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At 17:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC), I endorsed this (and I still do). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, do you intend to enforce the WP:TPO guidlines or only remind him of them?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've run into people violating those guidelines now and again. Usually I'll just let them know that it's not acceptable to change others' comments and it's very rare that they repeat it. I do recall one situation where an editor was persistently doing so at AfD and after repeated warnings they were indefinitely blocked; although I wasn't the one who ended up giving out the block, I would have done it. I'm not going to watch WMC's page or anything but anyone who is persistently abusing their editing privileges by refactoring others' comments should be blocked. I ran across this incident in passing which is why I initially took action (declining an unblock and then later unblocking him) and if I run across WMC or anyone else being disruptive I'll take action if I think it's needed. -- Atama頭 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not asking this as a hypothetical. You clearly have examined this users history of refactoring comments of others. Do you consider his history equalling "persistant despite warnings" and disruptive. I mean his overall history leading up to the now void sanction, not post sanction.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, not in the way I meant. What I meant by persistent is when an editor refactors another person's edit, is warned, does it again, is warned that doing it can lead to a block, then does it again, so they have to be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do it. That's similar to what WMC actually has been doing (kept inserting comments after being warned to stop), except that his edits weren't actually refactoring anything, he was inserting his comments in the middle of other editors' comments which is technically okay to do. In the past (not any time recent that I've seen) he has actually replaced or removed portions of other editors' comments, which is clearly not okay. He has already been blocked for what he did in the past and I don't suggest a punitive block now for it. -- Atama頭 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think we're getting closer to my question. There was behavior that led to the sanction that went beyond the debateable insertion behavior post sanction. My question is will returning to that previous behavior lead to consequences, or remind, remind, remind and remind again.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with this, as long as he maintains something resembling proper decorum. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock, block was ridiculous. Another nail in ArbCom's coffin. Verbal chat 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom had nothing to do with this. ATren (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GSCC Revision

    I have revised the GSCC sanction applied to WMC in this case [16] to note that it applies only to climate change related content and venues. I believe this is consistent with the limits in the wording and spirit of WP:GSCC and the consensus of editors who commented on the issue above. I agree that WMC's behavior in this case was disruptive, POINTy, and frankly rather petulant. And he may well have earned a sanction for those reasons, but the specific issue of editing comments unrelated to climate change on his own talk page is outside the scope of GSCC, and hence was not a valid foundation for a block. Even if it is outside the specific scope of GSCC, I would still caution WMC that frequently inserting parenthetical comments into other people's text is an obnoxious thing to do, and he would be well advised to take note of the fact that most people don't appreciate it. Dragons flight (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "inserting parenthetical comments into other people's text is an obnoxious thing to do, and ... most people don't appreciate it." Indeed: if you need to respond point-for-point, there are other ways to do it (one such method demonstrated in this comment). –xenotalk 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree entirely with your comments. Good idea to revise the wording of the sanction and clear up the confusion at the same time. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's okay in this case. I can foresee other restrictions under GSCC arising out of behavior on pages where the page content is not related to climate change, or where the restriction is applied to such pages. But I think there has to be some direct connection between the climate change probation, the behavior, and the sanction. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This change to the sanction looks sensible to me, and is likely to find consensus here. But I'm slightly annoyed that many above who feel the same way have created enormous drama just because they don't seem to understand that if one disagrees with a sanction, the only reasonable mode of action is to seek consensus to change the sanction first. What one should not do, and what William M. Connolley did here, is just ignore the sanction and violate it in the most uncooperative manner possible just to make a point. Because if one does that, one should expect the sanction to be enforced as written, whether or not it is flawed.  Sandstein  19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, and practically, yes. But are we going to lend the weight of policy behind that, by viewing the violation of a sanction as itself a sanctionable offense, even if the underlying sanction is invalid and there is no disruption to the project other than the challenging of the sanction? It depends on your conception of the role of administrators. Do they enforce by decree or only as enabled by the community via the administrative policies? In this case WMC was clearly pushing things, but in other cases, involved administrators occasionally threaten blocks to win content disputes. Should an ensuing block stand because challenging the administrator was disruptive? I don't think that disapproval of administrative judgment here means endorsing WMC's approach at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's what one should expect normally, and then there's what one should expect when one is William M. Connolley. When one is William M. Connolley -- as long experience shows -- one gets to go right up to the line, act rude, thumb one's nose at the enforcing admin, engage in POINTy behavior, then have the other allies in his faction argue ad nauseum that he's been denied some due process right. If, somehow, a sanction is imposed with consensus from WP:GSCC, some admin then comes along and undoes the original block and the cycle repeats itself, within, say, a month. It's like the phases of the moon. The result is to (a) goad other editors in disagreement with the faction; (b) goad admins; (c) annoy the hell out of everybody so much that the circus drives away anyone more interested in article building than drama. If you have enough people willing to argue for you, despite your continued disruptiveness, it's a very successful strategy on Wikipedia. This strategy tends to remove everyone who isn't a hard-line advocate of one's own POV and leave, in large part, only a few who are hardline advocates of some other POV, for whom there are other methods of elimination. it does tend to produce a growing number of editors who are appalled at the shenanigans, but I guess we have to wait a few more cycles for the number of appalled editors to increase, unless ArbCom's upcoming decision puts an end to the cycle. There is a reason why so many admins wouldn't touch WP:GSCC with a ten-foot pole. This is part of it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreeing with admins, per se, is no problem. It happens constantly. But where the community institutes binding dispute resolution mechanisms, via the arbitration process or as here via community-based probation, we all have an interest to make these mechanisms work, which means that we have to stringently enforce any sanctions imposed under them. That those who enforce it are almost always admins is of no importance. People who violate such sanctions are not disruptive because they challenge an admin, they are disruptive because they disobey the community's decision to provide for binding sanctions. Now if I think I've been blocked because of a flawed sanction, I should raise that issue explicitly in an unblock request. The community can then discuss that as an appeal against the sanction, and if there is consensus that the sanction is flawed, it will be amended and the block lifted. But until such time as the sanction is amended by community consensus, it is binding and may - should - be enforced. If we all followed these simple rules, we would have much less drama in such cases.  Sandstein  20:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you read, but I know what I wrote. I did not compare anybody to Parks and Gandhi. I took objection (by example, and, to clarify it, in principle, not with respect to this particular case) to Sandsteins "the only reasonable mode of action is to seek consensus" and his equivalent rephrasing later on. No, the system is not always right, and there are situations where going against the system is justified and even necessary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the limiting of such annoyances to GSCC pages a little short sighted. I would have been happy to permit WMC to act as desired within policy on his own talkpage, but am wary of giving him carte blanche to act in this manner on other pages outside of CC/AGW related space. When I placed a restriction on his use of demeaning terminology when referring to other parties, I made clear that this was project wide so there would not be any grey area's. While a behaviour may be initiated within the confines of a particular topic, often the restriction addresses the entire project. I suppose if WMC does not make a habit of posting within other editors comments in other area's of Wikipedia, then this may be moot - but it would be a shame if these restrictions need to be revisited to expand the area's in which he may not in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a line to be drawn somewhere. Surely there's room inside that line to extend a sanction to cover other interactions on the same subject, with the same people, or the same behavior if it's closely related and the sanction is tailored to preventing disruption of the sort covered by GSCC. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is an issue of being wise or "short sighted". I believe it is matter of adhering to the limits of policy as currently constructed. The plain text of GSCC and the consensus of most editors seems to be that GSCC-based restrictions are only allowed to apply to actions that are at least tangentially related to climate change. Outside that sphere of influence, broadly interpreted, GSCC restrictions are moot. That appears to the intent of the system created under GSCC and similar general sanctions that define a specific sphere of influence. Maybe limiting the issue in that way is fundamentally a bad idea? (There is certainly room to argue the point.) But if so then I think we should discuss revising where and how these general sanctions fit into our overall framework of governance. I don't believe the current GSCC system allows one to impose any restrictions that apply project-wide. Dragons flight (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandstein wote: "...if one disagrees with a sanction, the only reasonable mode of action is to seek consensus to change the sanction first...".

    Which is true in general, but we have two consider that typically the editor one would be dealing with is not the best editor when it comes to sticking to some particular rules, otherwise he/she would not have been restricted in the first place. Also, for the same reason, typically the editor doesn't readily do as he/she is told, will tend to question any demands made etc. etc.. Given that this will be the profile of the editor, one has to make sure that the restriction is not any more provocative as is necessary to deal with the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So you are saying tailor the remedy to make sure the miscreant is happy with it? That's rather an odd approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say we should minimize unhappiness under the constraint that the problem is addressed. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any remedy that would prohibit an editor from inserting bracketed commentary on their own talk page is already, as you put it, tailored to the miscreant. Tailored to inflame that is. The goal here is calm collaborative content editing in service of the larger goal of a good encyclopedia. And the tool is to use as much administrative oversight as is necessary, ideally no less and no more, to keep the encyclopedia functioning. To quote the original heading here, "respect mah authoritah" blocks do not serve those goals. Anyway, the remedy was outside the authority of the administrator who imposed it, so it's rather moot how it was contoured. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am uncomfortable with a unilateral revision of an existing sanction based on one admin's evaluation of consensus here. If the sanction needs changing, consensus should be sought for that among uninvolved admins at the proper place, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Perhaps such consensus exists. ++Lar: t/c 23:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AN and ANI where appeals are usually handled anyway. Plus, this way you are more likely to get people from outside the walled garden that is GS/CC/RE. NW (Talk) 23:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that backwater page WP:GS/CC/RE has been over-run by disputants. It is quite noisy and well-neigh impossible to guage any sort of consensus there. It's become ochlocracy. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion. Jehochman Talk 02:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps your dislike for the page is due to the fact that whenever you come in and unilaterally do things, you get undone. You've never really participated in the process there, just tried to have your own way. You are a contributor to drama. We gauge consensus quite effectively. ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would concur with Jehochman. As someone who is not involved in most of this, I've mostly avoided that page, not only because I don't want to wade into a dispute I'm not part of already, but because it's pretty obvious to one who isn't worked up about the climate change disputes already that most of the people there are - involved and worked up. As a place to establish consensus among uninvolved parties it seems more or less useless. By extension, perhaps it is a good place for involved parties to let off steam and work things out, but that's the role of content talk pages, not sanctions meta-pages. The administrative decisions coming out of there, which are very few in comparison with the amount of noise, do seem a matter of the inmates running the asylum. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GSCC Revision Revert

    Comment I am going to revert the revision to the sanction for several reasons. First, It's not the place of one admin to unilaterally alter that sanction that was the result of consensus among other admins who were part of the discussion at the time. Second, I'm not so sure ANI can overturn Arbcom or probation sanctions. I don't think so. Third, as written, William Connolley would essentially be free to continue disruption as before -- a good deal of his disruption does not take place directly in article space on CC articles. Much of it takes place on user talk pages and on the talk pages of meta discussions. In fact the disruption that gave rise to the sanction this time was removal of a comment he didn't like on an probation enforcement discussion I believe. There's certainly an argument to be made that that is not a page within the CC probation, even broadly contrued. Fourth, it is wholly disrespectful to make such a modification without speaking first with the admin who imposed the sanction and getting clarification and even gaining some contextual understanding of the bigger picture. Consider my reversion part of the BRD process if that helps.Minorth 02:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm adding a header to call attention to this. For the record, given the many people above who thought the original sanction inappropriate (and the fact it violates the text and spirit of GSCC to impose sanctions based on actions unrelated to climate change), I'd consider your "bold" action to be the unilateral and inappropriate one. Regardless, I'm going offline for the night, so I won't be commenting further on the issue till at least tomorrow. Dragons flight (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I understand why you would think that, and I think if there's a consensus to modify the sanction that's fine, but please do get some input from people involved in the topic area because the particular modification that you made is problematic for reasons that would not be obvious to anyone who has not been involved in the CC area and interactions with WMC in particular. Namely, WMC is very clever about making disruptive edits in areas other than article space and about things that could probably be wiklawyered to be construed as not related to CC content. If the sanction needs to be modified, it needs to be done very carefully and artfully. In any event, NuclearWarfare reverted me and warned me for I'm not sure what -- my edit simply preserved the status quo and called for discussion. I don't know how that can be viewed as disruptive or in any manner intended to cause any kind of harm. Good night. Minor4th 05:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor4th has been warned on their talk page regarding non-administrative modifications of climate change sanctions.[17] Discussion seems to be ongoing there and at WT:GS/CC/RE., which is perhaps the best place to take this - Wikidemon (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not warned regarding non-administrative modifications of climate sanctions. NW did not specify anything at all, leaving the warning unclear and meaningless until he explains it. On the enforcement page, he said I am not authorized to edit that page, but I noted several instances where ChrisO, a non-admin, modified climate change sanctions in the same section, so there's either a double standard or there was another reason for the warning.
    Noting Chris' post below: Yes, ChrisO, I'm aware you would love to see me blocked but I didn't violate anything and I didn't disrupt anything and there's no question that my edit was a good faith attempt to prevent harm that might not have been anticipated by Dragon's Flight. Get over yourself. All I did was return the status quo so that the appropriate wording can be agreed upon if there is to be a modification. It's also absurd to say that I've been engaged in a campaign for months to get WMC blocked -- my very first edit even remotely related to CC was a month ago. I've had very little interaction with WMC, but I am not shy about saying that he is extremely disruptive and I hope that ArbCom deals with him decisively. That notwithstanding, his sanction should not be nullified, and I dont think that is what Dragon's Flight or the community intended. Minor4th 10:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith / bad faith and BRD are not relevant issues regarding the appropriateness of the action. It was inappropriate, and a stunningly bad idea from the perspective of dispute resolution and avoiding project disruption, to continue fomenting dispute here. But since you didn't know you were doing anything wrong and you're unlikely to do it again, a block would be punitive. Wherever you stood a month ago, you are involved at this point. Some of the administrators taking action here are too. The goal you are fighting for is trivial to the point of absurdity. You want WMC's now-reversed block to go down in the record as valid as opposed to overturned, and you want WMC to be prohibited from doing his bracketed comment thing on his talk page. To what end? The project's function will be the same either way, whether WMC does his bracket thing or not. If this is a matter of precedent to you it should be obvious that the community does support extending sanctions to talk pages /if/ the sanction is made clear and if there is a sufficient nexus between the behavior prohibited and climate change editing. Beyond that, Arbcom is about to rule, and they can impose whatever sanctions they see fit - so whatever principles we establish here will likely be preempted in a matter of weeks. Given all that, carrying on across multiple administrative pages on this is a considerable waste of effort, and to one like me who is only peripherally involved, it looks like a WP:BATTLE approach. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but you're wrong about what I want and what I"m "fighting for." I have no interest in the sanction going down as valid, and I don't have a problem with WMC being unblocked now. I also don't give a rip whether he's allowed to do his bracket thing, although I find it annoying -- but that can be remedied by staying off his talk page. What I am fighting for is a more evenhanded application of sanctions and enforcements to both "sides" of the CC topic area. I agree also that ArbCom is about to rule and it's therefore silly to talk about modifying probation sanctions and to a large extent I think it's counterproductive to even impose any new sanctions at all right now. Incidentally, I really do not think there was a genuine mistunderstanding about the scope of the sanction that needed to be clarified, and I think this ANI was a huge drama-ridden mistake. I also think you are talking about the sanction as it applied to the bracket thing and on his own talk page, and I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned about the sanction as it applies to the removal of another editor's comment in an enforcement discussion about WMC, which is what gave rise to the 2 month sanction against him. With DF's modification, it totally undid that sanction as it applied in the situation it was meant to correct. So that's what I think, and that's what I'm fighting for -- not at all what you've described. Minor4th 18:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, it's completely inappropriate for a non-admin to unilaterally attempt to overturn an administrative action, particularly when said non-admin has been engaged for months in a campaign to get the target of that action blocked. Minor4th should consider himself lucky he wasn't blocked for this - only being given a warning was pretty lenient given the egregious nature of what he did. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not particularly Chris, remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive; I think it's unlikely Minor is going to start edit warring on this, though I agree that it was at best unwise of him to try to overturn an admin's decision in such a manner. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not going to get into an edit war or revert war over this, but I can't say that I have any remorse or regret about the reversion. I hope that it brings the proper focus on the modification and the effect it has of virtually vacating the entire sanction. I'm still not sure this is clear to those who have not been involved with CC articles and the Arb case and without the extensive context in which the sanction arose in the first place. Minor4th 10:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a good BRD revert, because I'm not sure I see a clear consensus here for such a change in the restriction. I think having a discussion at the GSCC page is appropriate. Note that if there turns out to be consensus there may be other sanctions that need revision. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was the one who rollbacked Minor4th. I left them a followup note on their talk page a few minutes ago, as I thought it would be self-evident why I reverted them last night. But apparently not, so here it is:

    It has been well-established in site culture that no non-administrator has the authority to overturn a block or sanction given by an administrator by themselves. You reverted a clearly uninvolved admin on the page. If you thought his sanction modification was inappropriate, it doesn't matter – you still have no right to overturn it. If an admin did it, it would be the start of a wheel war. The warning was given instead of a block, which a functionary I mentioned this incident to thought would be an appropriate step.

    — NW (Talk) 12:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    I stand by that post entirely. NW (Talk) 12:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Inasmuch as NW might have a point about a non admin reverting, I've reverted back to the pre Dragonsflight version. Please seek clear cut consensus first before reverting further. Asserting consensus exists doesn't mean it actually exists. The best way to do this is raise it at the GSCC page and seek consensus there among uninvolved admins, as it is far easier to evaluate consensus there than it is here. ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec):And my response to Nuke's comment: If you think a block is appropriate, then by all means .... honestly, that's preferable to vague threats in my opinion, and I will not accept this notion that I'm "lucky" I wasn't blocked. In the future, you might consider including the perceived infraction along with your warning. I personally think you are placing form over function; with an assumption of good faith you would have seen that I was not simply being rebellious and ignoring well-established site culture. I don't think there is any well-established site culture in this instance because new ground is being broken and the community is facing issues it has never before faced. If you are honest with yourself, you will also recognize the value in the substance of my comments surrounding the reversion, but I'm fine with whatever happens. You have a habit of taking enforcement and other admin actions against one perceived "side" of the CC mess, and you either deliberately or unconsciously fail to see and enforce violations on the other side. This has been pointed out to you before, and you showed great promise when you behaved in a circumspect manner and declared that you would give it the attention it needed. It is unfortunate that your introspection has not yielded a more noticeable improvement. I know nothing about you personally, but I suspect that you are young, and while you may have the exuberance of youth, you lack the confidence that comes with maturity. I could be totally wrong on that -- just a guess and this is not an insult, even if it rings true. There are good opportunities for growth and understanding here that could benefit the encyclopedia and the Foundation, but I'm afraid your attitude is a bit 2 dimensional and constricted. I don't mean that to be insulting either, but I will take this opportunity to encourage you to expand your vision and release your preconceptions. You could be a really good admin, and that is not something I would say about most. Take seriously the advice that is gently given to you -- I have seen a lot of it lately. Consider carefully whether any of it applies and why some editors are perceiving things as they are about you. You could accomplish a whole lot more with humility and thoughtfulness. Have a good day. Minor4th 12:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrespective of the modification, reversion, re-reversion ... the modification needs to be discussed and appropriately worded for the reasons stated above. There is not consensus, and there has not been a thoughtful consideration of the modification and implications of the particular wording that now exits. Please discuss. Minor4th 12:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have formulated a request to modify the sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification and welcome discussion there. Perhaps consensus to modify the sanction does exist among uninvolved admins. Perhaps it does not. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this thread can now be closed. Discussions about the modification of the restriction take place at the discussion opened by Lar , while the drama surrounding this case is discussed here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine by me. Would that the drama were confined ONLY to WR though. :) (ProTip: it's not) As a note, I think this WR post gives a pretty good summary of affairs. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ITartle

    Resolved

    This user moves articles wrong, writes bad edit summary and impersonates User:ITurtle(He is a bureaucrat in Korean Wikipedia). He's pattern is like User:Crystall Robbot.

    - Chugun (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please notify ITartle of this discussion as required (see the yellow box that appears when you edit this page).  Sandstein  05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified the user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for missing notifying. - Chugun (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't immediately see anything requiring administrator action. "Moves articles wrong" reflects content disagreements that need to be resolved per WP:DR, "writes bad edit summary" is unclear and "impersonates User:ITurtle" is not clear to me without evidence that this is indeed the user's intent; the similarity in usernames might be coincidental.  Sandstein  21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chugun, if you feel the username is problematic, try taking it to WP:UAA. That's the kind of thing they deal with on a day-to-day basis. As for his alleged bad moves and edit summaries, it would help if you could provide some diffs detailing what you think the problem is. There's nothing an admin can do unless it is cear that ITartle is deliberately disrupting the project through those means. If you think Itartle is a sockpuppet of User:Crystall Robbot, try asking for someone to look into it at WP:SPI. Be forewarned, however, you will need to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, to back up your claim if you want someone to act on it. Aside from that, have you tried talking to ITartle and describing the problems you're encountering? Often, these kinds of issues are best resolved by the involved editors discussing it amongst themselves. Try to take an objective, constructive tone and let them know what, in particular, you have a problem with. Administrators are just regular users with a few extra tools; they don't really have any increased authority. The only way an admin will intervene is if the use of those tools (eg, blocking) is required to prevent disruption to the project. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I see (I didn't just know UAA and SPI). I missed the point although I just tried to talk him in ko.wp and there was no way. :) - Chugun (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel the problem arises from the culmination of his behaviour on several wikis, then try meta. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with meta, so some digging on your part is in order. Good luck! Throwaway85 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) - Chugun (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Donald Duck behavior

    I want to report User:Donald Duck behavior. I'm clearing wikipedia from User:Zombie433 fake edits. I reported it there[[18]].

    User:Donald Duck reverted my good edits, then I post a message with explanation on his talk page [19]. But he is deleting my messages and posting some stupid warnings on my talkpage. Could you explain with him his freaky behavior?--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • You need to notify any user you discuss here. I'll be doing that now. elektrikSHOOS 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling you a vandal for posting an explanation of what you are doing on xyr talk page is inexcusable behaviour on Donald Duck's part. However, you could have acted to prevent yourself from getting into this mess in the first place. You're removing what you assert to be false information that one editor systematically added to Wikipedia. But there's no clue in your edit summaries that you're doing this. Your edit summaries do not provide any way to distinguish between what you are doing and what vandals do to Wikipedia every day. You're blanking parts of articles and statistics from infoboxes, and the very best that your edit summaries have been are "fake, pov". In many cases, you haven't provided any edit summaries at all. How on Earth is anyone to tell that you're doing this with good intentions, as part of a WikiProject Football cleanup effort, if you don't say so in your edit summaries. Link your edit summaries to a WikiProject Football discussion showing consensus amongst editors to systematically revert these additions.

      Here's a maxim for you specifically to remember (that will have Arthur C. Clarke spinning in his grave like Rama):

      Any sufficiently poorly made well-intentioned edit is indistinguisable from vandalism.

      Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't the first time that I've run into this issue with Donald Duck. I don't believe that they have the firmest grasp on WP:VAN. See here where there were two good faith edits reported as vandalism (which I'll admit eventually led to the editor's block after some uncivil responses to the vandalism templates, but that's beside the point), and even some edit warring on the editor's own talk page. These good faith edits reported as vandalism are accompanied with less-than-stellar edit summaries, so probably no more than a trout is warranted, but I do see something of a pattern of mistakes here. -- Atama頭 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harrassment is a blockable offense. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but this would be borderline at best; harassment usually occurs when an editor targets another editor or group of editors and specifically tries to make them miserable through various means. Donald Duck's behavior has been untargeted, and more importantly I believe that they truly believe that their vandalism warnings are genuine. Mistakes can be blockable if they cause disruption and the editor has been warned about them and willfully continues them, but that hasn't happened here from what I can see. I still feel that a nice fish-slap is all that's needed. -- Atama頭 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with everything Atama has said. I know I'm not perfect and make mistakes, but there is a bit of a pattern I see with Donald Duck. Tommy! [message] 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I was referring to Wrwr1's repeated harrassment of Donald Duck. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then you need some sense of perspective. Three user talk page edits and no interactions other than on the football articles that the user talk page edits were discussing and explaining is not harrassment by any stretch of the imagination. This edit summary should not be taken as gospel. It's Huggle Happiness, just hitting the Huggle buttons that one hits all of the time because it's easier than doing things right according to specific cases. Notice that Donald Duck reverts and dismisses/ignores every editor who doesn't have an account or a user page, whatever the discussion. This response is a good indicator that Huggle Happiness is setting in, too.

            Indeed, the talk page message there, again blithely ignored by Donald Duck because it comes from someone without an account whom xe has dismissed as a vandal, is an attempt to communicate, made by an ordinary editor, with someone who has gone Huggle Happy. The recent edit history of Worksop makes for interesting reading: Two Huggle using editors ganging up with robotic edit summary explanations against that editor, not only whose information is correct but whose intent to correct is explained in the talk page edit that just gets ignored by the Huggler.

            If this weren't bad enough, at Milieu therapy Donald Duck has just used Huggle to reinsert a blatant copyright violation four times. Attempts to communicate about that were ignored too, and the editor who was doing good work keeping us free from content that is "Copyright Focus Alternative Learning Center All Rights Reserved" is now blocked for "vandalism". Huggle Happiness is not acting to the betterment of the encyclopaedia here.

            A quick word in the ear of Spencer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems warranted at this point.

            I'm going to leave it up for the next few hours for the edificiation of people without administrator privileges reading this discussion, but since the copyright violation in Milieu therapy goes back to its very first version (as noted in 2007), the entire edit history is a copyright violating derived work, and has to go. It's unacceptable that a Huggler should edit war to keep copyright violations in Wikipedia and blatantly ignore the people coming to xyr user page to discuss it. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • @Everard Proudfoot: I assumed you meant Donald Duck because I couldn't imagine how Wrwr1's communications could be considered harassment.
            • @Uncle G: Thanks for that extra information. I didn't realize how extensive this problem was, I've apparently only seen the tip of the iceberg (and I admit I didn't take the time to really look into their behavior, I've only seen Donald Duck's behavior in passing a couple of times this week). This looks like a serious problem and I'm wondering if this uncommunicative editor is far too disruptive to allow unblocked. I think I will take the time to look into this. -- Atama頭 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see nothing disruptive in my edits. Per Ungle G's comment, he / she should have put clearer edit summeries. "Fake" is not a clear edit summary. Anyone in my place could have done the same as me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He posted a very rude response to a warning I gave him after he reverted a blanking at WP:AfC, that was done after the original author. He asserts that he has done nothing wrong, and that we are treating him like he is dumb. He also says that everyone makes mistakes with HG. IMHO: Someone needs to be brought back down to earth. HG doesn't make you God. ANowlin talk 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that "HG doesn't make you God" is fair or applicable in this case, let's try not to make this discussion unnecessarily heated. Donald Duck, I am glad you have decided to participate, but don't you see that the sheer volume of mistakes you're making is a problem? I'm willing to cut any recent pages patroller some slack, fighting vandalism is very admirable, but all of the "friendly fire" going on is really worrisome. Even more troubling than the mistakes is ignoring the repeated pleas to be careful, and an unwillingness to listen when someone protests a vandalism tag. -- Atama頭 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anowlin, there is nothing rude in my response; don't accuse me. Atama, how's this for a start at resolving this discussion? - Donald Duck (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I simply do not understand how you reverted the removal of copyvio 4 times at Milieu therapy despite clear edit summaries asserting it was copyvio. Most users would be blocked for that. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Woah! He wasn't blocked for this? ANowlin talk 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • His / her edit summaries actually weren't that clear. Yes, he pointed towards WP:COPYVIO and such, but what was copyrighted in the article? He / She never said what was copyrighted by linking to where the text came from. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it's a removal, that points to WP:COPYVIO, maybe you should check, instead of pressing Q or R. ANowlin talk 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for striking out those warnings, that's a helpful gesture. I'm wondering, is Huggle the whole problem here? Maybe avoiding that tool is a good idea. Just throwing that out for consideration to all here. -- Atama頭 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also, I agree, the response to Anowlin wasn't rude... Curt, perhaps, and dismissive, but not necessarily rude. (Rude would be saying that Anowlin was stupid.) -- Atama頭 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, I recently came back from a hiatus because my PC was broken down from July 1st, 2010 to July 26th, 2010. In that time period, I either used my mom's PC or my Dell, which I now call a substitute PC since the Dell is just there as a back-up PC now. Neither of them had Huggle, so I figured it was a good time to take a break. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, xyr edit summaries were fairly clear, and the content being removed had "captured from: www.focus-alternative.org/milieu.htm" in a section title and a {{copypaste}} tag at the top. 75.173.6.133 wasn't exactly being mysterious and secretive (unlike 71.198.107.182 who, if xe had pointed this out more clearly all those years ago, would have saved us a lot of this trouble).

                Incidentally:

                edit

                What's wrong with 67.87.110.178 trying to tell us what Connecticut judicial marshals are armed with? Uncle G (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also have had numerous problems with DD's edits. A quick look at his/her talk page will show three different reverts that were unwarranted and unexplained by DD which I protested. This has now moved from annoying to disruptive, IMHO. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And I've just discovered that s/he's also filing false vandalism reports.[20] Will somebody with some authority around here wield a trout, or perhaps even remove Huggle access? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a saying to remember: "Everyone makes mistakes". Anyway, your edit summary "stupid 'bot" was very misleading. Please use clearer edit summaries in the future. Thank you. Also, here's a suggestion. If you don't want your edits showing up on Huggle, create an account. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should I cater to your inability to actually look at an edit as opposed to over-relying on Huggle and making assumptions based on an edit summary? Creating an account isn't going to correct the problems you exhibit. Even a quick look at the history would have shown that I very clearly indicated at every step what I was doing and why.69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called being civil. Also, I did look at the edit, and I found nothing wrong in ClueBot's revert. You removed content without an explanation. Creating an account will solve the so-called problems I don't have. You'll be automatically whitelisted by Huggle, meaning your edits won't appear while someone's using Huggle. - Donald Duck (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a heads up this was an incorrect revert (which is what the IP is talking about) rollback and warning is only for clear vandalism - which this was not. A good look at the diff (and the used edit summary) should have prompted you to check the article history - which would have provided good context. Even then rollback is inappropriate - it is a content issue and so should be undone instead then discussed on the talk page. I agree anyone can make mistakes; but you have made a good number in a short space of time - it might be worth refreshing on vandalism policy (in a nutshell; err on the side of caution and prefer to treat it as a content issue if you can). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I too have noted incorrect warnings, reverts, and uncivil behaviour from this editor. This reversion was incorrectly marked as vandalism in the edit summary and posting a level 3 vandalism warning was also uncalled for. When the editor queried this on User talk:Donald Duck, the response was a warning about test edits on User talk:Donald Duck, which was also inappropriate. A question or comment about an editor's actions cannot be considered a test edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above behaviour came to light following a post at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Threats from Editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where I also saw it. I considered posting here but Jezhotwells beat me to it. Not good. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this has gone long enough. The original post / report was regarding Wrwr. I stroke out my warnings on his talk page, so this has been resolved. The above issue, which is unrelated, is from August 12th; therefore, it's not necessary to post about it. Next thing you guys will do is look for something else to use against me in my 2009 discussios. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point, and I'm sorry I hadn't checked the date that the actual edits occurred. By the way, I almost didn't look at your edit here, you marked it M. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite all right. I'll post on your talk page shortly with a question. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What people are trying to do, DD, is to ensure you understand that you have a long history of bad reverts, misuse of rollback, not responding in a meaningful way to legitimate questions, and, most of all, that you understand the missteps you've made and will strive to do better. Simply dismissing something as old when you haven't learned from it is just continuing the pattern of unrepentant, errant reverts. I'm still not seeing acknowledgement of any of this. And nine days is not that long ago. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading that sounds very patronizing. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If nine days is so long ago that it's the mists of memory, how about three hours? Take these edits:

    Tolgagurcan is happily and quietly writing an article on the TAI Hürkuş. A 'bot warns on the article's talk page that one of the links is to a disambiguation. Writers fix the problem and Tolgagurcan removes the warning from the talk page since it has been deal with. Then you come along, put the 'bot notice back (even though it's no longer true) and give the poor article writer a Huggle vandalism warning. And this is while this very discussion on this noticeboard is drawing everyone's attention to your use of Huggle. What on Earth are you thinking? Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was thinking, and I did what any normal Huggler would do, which is to revert unexplained blanking of content or removal of content. I also gave the appropriate warning, which was a "huggleblank1". In that message, there is nothing that says the edit was vandalism. Quit looking for things that aren't a problem as excuses to get after me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Any normal Huggler" is expected not to warn editors for undertaking normal talk page maintenance. If you don't see such behavior as a problem, that's a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Donald Duck, you don't seem that understand that your editing behaviour is the problem. Why do you think som many editors came here to report so many diffrent incidents. Please desist from this behaviour is it is disrupticve. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DD, no it is definitely not what any Huggler should be doing. Lack of an edit summary does not mean vandalism - it means the user might need a friendly (NON template) talk page note about using edit summaries. If you see no ediit summary you should (even must) take time to check the edit and it's context before reverting. I will consider edits for anything up to a minute when Huggling. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers

    moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 00:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I spotted this article in Ha'aretz this morning. Whilst there are several existing editors enforcing a pro-settler POV (some for several years now), some extra eyes on this area of Wikipedia (particularly the articles mentioned in the news report - Haneen Zoabi, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Bil'in and Gaza flotilla raid) might be a good idea. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm interested in the "Best Zionist Editor" competition and the trip in a hot-air balloon over Israel. I'm not much of a Zionist but I like hot air ballons and I want to be that lucky encyclopedist in 4 years time. I'm assuming non-Zionists can enter the competition. Luckily all of those articles are already on my watchlist so that's a start. More seriously, it's not unusual for articles to be published on the media calling for people to edit Israel related articles in Wikipedia, one of government ministries had a completely out in the open paid Hasbara scheme around the time of Operation Cast Lead (not sure whether that is still going) and I've seen various off wiki advocacy sites that have similar aims and offer advice. I'm not sure it's anything much to worry about plus I'm not sure that the partisan battling in the I-P area on wiki in general can get that much worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since one of the remedies ArbCom implemented after the Wikipedia:CAMERA affair was to urge editors to notify them of coordinated efforts like this, would someone who knows how to do that please inform the Committee? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The New York Times has picked up the story[21]. Way to go, guys. Skinwalker (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be a serious blow to neutrality of Wiki. We should keep an eye as suggested by пﮟოьεԻ 57-- Jim Fitzgerald post 21:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing votes

    moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Several days ago, I initiated a discussion at Talk:Hyundai Elantra#Merger of Elantra LPI Hybrid to merge the contents of Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid to Hyundai Elantra.

    One of the voters, Mariordo decided to canvass support for his point-of-view by messaging four other users, [22], [23], [24], and [25].

    This is not the first time that Mariordo has done this. At a previous discussion to merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry (XV40) the user in question canvassed five votes from users that would support his point-of-view: [26], [27], [28],[29], [30]. An administrator at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid even stated that canvassing votes is not allowed due to it undermining the consensus-building process.

    Of the four users that the user in question has requested support from, all of them voted in his favour at the previous merger proposal at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid (the primary topic and rationale behind both mergers are identical).

    I have attempted to reason with Mariordo at his talk page ([31]), but he maintains that, "inviting other editors to participate is allowed", despite the clear guidelines of WP:CANVASS, a policy that I have made clear to Mariordo on several occasions.

    All that I am requesting is for the integrity of Wikipedia's consensus building procedure be maintained. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]
    Mariordo has, on three occasions, notified me of discussions regarding electric vehicles, including hybrid electric vehicles. He understands that many of my edits revolve around this subject, and I have always appreciated his notifications. He certainly does not know how I will feel about any given subject, and we have had disagreements in the past (see Talk:Electric_bicycle#Pike_Research_Report as an example). He phrases his notifications in neutral terms, and he has never tried to influence my opinion when he notifies me. I have responded to two of these notifications, and not responded to one (other than acknowledging that I received his note and declining to participate in the discussion). I do not feel that I have been "canvassed" in any way, shape or form.
    OSX has been consistently antagonistic toward Mariordo, as he is toward many people (myself included) who disagree with his edits. Here is one example of his childish harassment and name-calling: Talk:Hyundai_Elantra#Merger_of_Elantra_LPI_Hybrid. It is clear to me that the notice on this board is just one more attempt on OSX's part to silence a rational, dedicated, polite editor whose views sometime conflict with those of OSX. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's too much inherently wrong with this canvassing. The alleged canvassing could have been handled much better by OSX, the warnings he gave were aloof and bordering on rude ("I'll report you to the ANI board and you may be blocked"); but I don't think it's a gross violation of policy, or arguably a violation at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, being the second time this user has done this (and been told about it too) I was simply following the guidelines of WP:CANVASS which states, "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing."
    I've asked Mariordo to stop canvassing on two separate occasions but have been ignored. Too bad then if my tone came across as a little aloof. I think Mariordo is guitly of the same. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When have your accusations that Mariordo canvassed votes been ignored? Your accusations have been dealt with in depth each time I have seen you make them. Such accusations generated substantial discussion in the Toyota Camry Hybrid merger thread. See here for an example. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the links provided by OSX clearly prove, I simply notified other regular users interested in the subject about the ongoing discussion, and according to the rules of appropriate notification, the text is neutral, the posting were limited (only 4 users), and in a transparent way (leaving messages in those users talk pages). So I do not see any violation to Wiki policy, I just a followed a regular channel to make others aware of the discussion.-Mariordo (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So Mariordo, I take it that you won't mind if I notify some other editors as well? Neutrally and transparently of course. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVASS covers inappropriate canvassing and in this instance I don't see anything that wrong with the manner in which the user canvassed. When a discussion on a particular topic is being put to the floor I believe it is encouraged to notify appropriate users and wiki projects who are known experts or long time editors of the topic. Where this crosses the line is when users are hand-picked for their viewpoints. The message from Ebikeguy serves to illustrate that the canvass was not restricted to a pre-defined point of view and I will agf toward the truthfulness of Ebikeguy's statement. WP:Articles for deletion, although not a direct reference in this instance, encourages the notification of interested wiki project and main contributors of an article. In this instance, I can understand why Mariordo would want all topic-interested editors to participate in the merge discussion. If Mariordo's canvassing has taken a different tone or gone outside of the circle of editors who are intimately involved in the topic of hybrid automobiles I would feel otherwise.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The message from Ebikeguy is deceptive and does not explain that Mariordo only notified the editors that supported his point-of-view in the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. That is the point of this WP:ANI complaint. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My message was straightforward and fact-based. It was in no way deceptive. I spoke the truth plainly, and I strongly disagree with any statements to the contrary. OSX may be assuming that all editors who are interested in electric vehicles will vote as a block on any given subject. This is clearly not the case, as I demonstrated in my previous post on this thread. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels

    This user, Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs), after editing tendentiously from various IP addresses for many years, finally created an account and continues to edit tendentiously. The individual's behavior has demonstrated a clear conflict of interest with respect to the Jason Leopold article. Multiple editors have requested that this editor desist from editing the article and restrict himself to making suggestions on the talk page. However, the editor refuses to get the point, and the conversations about it tend to get rather surreal. Currently the article is protected, but the editor doesn't seem to get the spirit of cooperation and consensus necessary to participate in Wikipedia process, but seems to see Wikipedia as a battleground, gloating when he thinks another editor has made an "error", not really discussing but asserting, proposing unreliable sources to promote his opinions of the subject, etc., etc. All the facts are laid out ad nauseum at a recent RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels, in which the editor received no support from anyone and multiple editors agreed he should not edit the article. Yet he still will not voluntarily agree to restrict himself to the talk page and continues to be combative on the talk page. As this is a long-running situation, which I've described in the RfC from 2008 but which actually goes back further, I believe it is time to have a serious discussion about whether a community ban might be appropriate. Yworo (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was asked by this very user to create an account, which I did. When I started editing from this account and expanding the article as requested and providing additional material I was attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold and my edits reverted. This article is biased and the fact that it's protected and the neutrality of it questioned is an issue that should be of concern. In the past two weeks, since I created this account and started editing this article, I have abided by the policies and guidelines set forth and I request that you look at my editing history as an example. Yworo, however, seems to take issue with the fact that I am working to improve this article and that means providing context, balance and, yes, positive material to balance it out. The surreal nature of the discussion is certainly true but if you look at the discussion page of the article you will note that each time I suggest a link or an inclusion of new material I am attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold, a sock puppet and told the material I am trying to add is "resume padding." Look at the conversations surrounding the California Energy Crisis and Enron. I added material that was in line with Wikipedia policies and standards. Yworo routinely changed the material I was including, going so far as to remove it or revert it back without providing a legitimate reason. One time, Yworo said the link I provided was not working and reverted it back. I went in and fixed the link and readded the material in the Enron section and again was attacked and threatened for doing so. As I have stated dozens of times at this point, I would like to improve this article. That means expanding upon it and not make it one-sided. I would be perfectly happy to bow out of editing it if in fact Yworo was removed as well. Frankly, I think the conversations on the discussion page will illustrate the biases of many of the people who are working on it. The users do not need to like me, but I believe my contributions to this article, especially since I created an account have been important and within the guidelines. And I would like to continue contributing without fearing that each suggestion or citation I add or section I create is going to end up with me being attacked or accused of being the source.
    I would like to note that there is an anonymous user who has been contributing to this article in the past few weeks: 69.17.54.2: that may be in the same vicinity I am: Los Angeles. I was accused of being every IP address that contributed "positive" material or tried to expand the article. But because the contributions and comments of this IP, as recently as Wednesday, have been negative with regard to the substance and content of the article, Yworo seems to be supportive of this user. Mind you this user has been making changes to this article since 2007 and those changes have been well outside wikipedia's policies and has not been asked to create an account, threatened with banning or complaints leveled. Is it because the IP's opinions about the subject of the article and Yworo's are in sync? I don't know. But I do find it curious. That is part of the surreal nature of the issues and discussions surrounding this article. It is not one sided. It's clearly complex. But I should not be the one who bears all of the blame. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, multiple editors have not requested that I, Jimmy McDaniels, refrain from editing this article. Yworo has. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please learn to indent. The requests are all over your previous IP address talk pages, on the talk page of the article, on the BLP noticeboard, etc. And there's a long section on your current talk page from Off2riorob, here. Yworo (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    i have also requested Jimmy refrain from editing the article and think its a real good idea, he has a massive WP:COI and is disruptive to the BLP when he edits it, this has been going on a length of time and also occurred at the Truthout article and the related AFD which was swimming with fishy socks. I can handle him on the talkpage but he should please stop editing the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm curious, what is the conflict of interest? I've looked at the RFC and Talk:Jason Leopold and of course this ANI report, but I see nothing to suggest there's a COI. What connection does Jimmy have to Jason Leopold that would be a COI? He claims to be a fan, and he seems to have POV issues, but that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Being Leopold's relative or employee or PR person or something along those lines would. What am I missing? -- Atama頭 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He has claimed multiple times to be Leopold's lawyer (four examples: [32], [33], [34], [35], and admits he did here), and nearly everyone ever involved believes he is Leopold himself. Besides his unintentional admission of identity with the IP editors, I believe I've thoroughly established continuity of identity in the RfC. Yworo (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty blatant COI then. I'd support a page ban enforcement of suggestions at WP:COI, restricting the editor's article edits to non-controversial edits and otherwise making talk page suggestions for content changes. I do see some constructive talk page input so I think such a ban would permit the editor to contribute while at the same time prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would help a lot and as you say, still allow him to contribute as he does have some input that is beneficial to content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would love to see him voluntarily comply with this. If a topic ban is applied, I suspect we will simply see and have to deal with sockpuppetry. I could be wrong about that though... Yworo (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have written a lengthy statement here on the edits and contributions I have made to this article over the past two weeks and I'd like to know why that is not being discussed. These edits and contributions have expanded the article. I have not done anything that violates policies or guidelines here. I was asked to sign up for an account, which I did and since then I have been very vocal about suggestions to help improve and expand this article. My edit history, since I signed up for the account, shows the value in my contributions and I again ask that they be looked at as well as the commentary I have made during the course of editing and on the discussion pages. This article needs to be improved. Twice the neutrality of it has been challenged and tagged as such. It asks to be expanded. The bottom line, once again is that attempts to improve or expand this article is unsupported. I do not have any relationship to the subject of the article whatsoever. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times do I need to say that I am not Leopold?? Stop suggesting that I am. The snarky comments that you continue to make are disturbing and underscores further bias. As I said above, I should not shoulder all of the blame. If there is a conflict of interest I believe Yworo now has one too because this is clearly becoming personal for him/her. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please address why you claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. And became offended that I referred to the IP address that did so as a "nutcase", self-identifying with the IP. If you continue to refuse to admit that it was you who repeatedly made this claim, and explain why you did so, there is no reason to believe anything else you might say. Yworo (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, if you claimed to be his lawyer and now claim you aren't, you were being deceptive either now or then. This inconsistency doesn't engender trust. I deal with conflict of interest issues quite a bit (I hang out at WP:COIN) and it's not uncommon for an editor to claim some sort of connection in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, but it almost always comes back to bite them later. Editors with a conflict of interest are generally allowed to contribute until other editors object to their edits, in which case a topic ban isn't uncommon. I believe you're trying to have your cake and eat it too but it's not going to work, you've already let the cat out of the bag and your COI has already been established by your own words. It's too late to claim that you're uninvolved with the article subject at this point. -- Atama頭 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things. First, Yworo. It was clear from your "nutcase" comment that you were referring to me and the comment you left on my talk page saying as much would make that apparent to anyone. Your comment was directed toward me. You were playing a game of gotcha. As far as being Leopold's attorney I made a comment saying I was trying to be his attorney and I did see evidence of defamation and libel on this article and brought it to Leopold's attention. I never heard back from Leopold following my correspondence. The contributions I have made are valuable and the arguments I put forth are worthy of discussion. The discussions on the article page show the bias of some editors toward the subject matter. Arguably, that is in and of itself a conflict of interest if the editor is only interested in adding negative commentary to the article and does not even want to entertain the thought of balance or neutrality. Many of the editors, again, based on the discussion page, show deep disdain for the subject of the article: Leopold. To me, that is an issue that needs to be dealt with and one that at least one other editor agrees with. At the end of the day, that is what should be the topic of discussion regardless if I am here or not. This is the first thing that pops up on Google and therefore it should represent the most up to date and neutral point of view and material about the person. I would expect the same for every other article but editors do not seem to treat the entries of other media people the same. There is a real desire to make this one as negative as possible. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Arguably, that is in and of itself a conflict of interest if the editor is only interested in adding negative commentary to the article and does not even want to entertain the thought of balance or neutrality." (Buzzer sound) Jimmy, you're likely "referring" to WP:NPOV; which cannot be achieved when an editor has a very serious conflict of interest. Much like one who is (at least) "trying" to be the attorney for the subject of the article. Editors are actively trying to make this article as "negative as possible"? See WP:Consensus. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..." "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..." "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..."
    That is not "a comment saying [you were] trying to be his attorney". That is saying you are his attorney. I think it would be a cut-and-dry COI if you had just said you are his attorney, but your actions could (could, not all may see it this way) be interpreted as editing beneficially on his behalf in order to gain favor with him. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Still a conflict of interest anyway you look at it, though. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like we have consensus that a topic ban is in order here. Does anyone (besides Jimmy) object to this outcome? Yworo (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If he's not Leopald's lawyer, he wants to be (as Jimmy has stated above) and can't be expected to abide by NPOV. I think topic bans get thrown about a bit too freely but this is clearly an example of why they exist. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior of Binksternet towards IP user.

    Resolved
     – Toddst1 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The behavior of Binksternet is beginning to concern me. Earlier tonight, an IP user visited ##wikipedia-en-abuse connect for help with what they felt was abuse. They calmly explained their situation, and how they felt. After further discussion and some investigation, we found that Binksternet violated the 3 Revert Rule (3RR) (See page history), and incorrectly warned the user (See: this diff. Since, I issued a warning to the editor for violation of 3RR (see: this diff), and also made a note about the incorrect warning (see: this diff). After his reply, I advised him that the editor intended to file a report with AN/3RR, and that he might ought to appologize (see: this diff). He acknowledged that he made a mistake with this reply, and later posted this message to the IP user's talk page. Since, a rather nasty spat has continued, as the IP user believes that the editor is abusing his authority, and is only making excuses for his actions. (see: this diff comparison). The focus of discussion seems to be on the IP user's talk page.

    • The IP user has since decided against the AN/3RR report, citing that the system was confusing them, and that they were afraid of being blocked or banned if they edited Wikipedia again.
    • The IP user has openly admitted in the IRC channel, that they are afraid to edit Wikipedia again, and my not return due to this users actions.

    I'm trying to remain neutral in this, but this seems like an incident best suited for discussion at AN/I. Thank you! ANowlin talk 02:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC) ---[reply]

    • Yep. I see that edit war. I also see misuse of rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 123.243.203.94's demands for a shrubbery certainly aren't helping the situation. Have any of you IRC people tried correcting any of the several misconceptions that 123.243.203.94 has? Binksternet is not a "nazi". 123.243.203.94 wasn't blocked at all, let alone by Binksternet, who isn't even an administrator and certainly wasn't "abusing power" to disable anyone's editing rights since xe doesn't have the capability to do that. We don't "penalize" people. And given the aggression in pretty much all of 123.243.203.94's edits (including calling Binksternet a vandal), I think that any claim to have been "scared off" by Binksternet should be taken with at least a pinch of salt. Whatever Binksternet's faults, there's some work to be done with the other disputant here. This isn't entirely one-sided. Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While not having a conclusive opinion by any means, my impression of 123.243.203.94 is that, unlike Binksternet, he or she is a new editor and is extremely unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and practices. And frankly from what I have seen, given the treatment he or she is getting, they are very reasonably confused.   Thorncrag  04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Binksternet. Thanks for not blocking me as it would be purely punitive. I can assure you I will not be damaging or disrupting the wiki by working to retain a cited section of the article Wife acceptance factor. I feel that the IP editor was working to harm the wiki by removing good information relevant to the topic, variant terms which are in popular use and which redirect to the article.

    I don't take part in IRC, so it is impossible for me to sympathize with the progression of the IP editor getting more and more frustrated—all I have are the interactions in article space and user talk space. An editor who loudly proclaims that they were wronged while engaging in the deletion of cited content looks to me like an editor who unreasonably wants the content deleted.

    In general, I am a deletionist in that I feel the wiki is strongest when it contains well-supported, relevant and notable information. In spite of my deletionism, I will take care to help a new editor who appears to be working to build the wiki. I am quick to correct new editors who want to take out cited, relevant text, and I make sure my edit summaries and talk entries explain plainly what is going on. Is that "bitey"? I don't think so. I assume good faith until shown otherwise.

    This editor took out cited text three times in a row (over the course of two days) before I decided to let him or her know that a fourth reversion might result in getting blocked. The way I went about warning the user was a mistake I admit to: I used WP:Twinkle to combine the warning action with content reversion action. I think that Twinkle should be modified so that anybody selecting the edit warring message should have an edit summary that does not assume vandalism. Right now, the Twinkle edit summary for that action combined with a content reversion is "Reverted 1 edit by User:xxx identified as vandalism to last revision by User:yyy." Since edit warring and 3RR over content are not vandalism, the edit summary is misleading and incorrect. It should say something like "Reverted 1 edit by User:xxx to last revision by User:yyy, with added 3RR warning." I did not intend to tell the IP editor that they were a vandal, and the message on their talk page did not say vandal. (By the way, the same intent was present for my warning of IP 124.176.118.18 at the De Havilland Mosquito article. The IP editor was coming off a block and needed warning again about continuing the edit war. No vandalism notice was intended.)

    Until today, the WP:Twinkle page did not specify how the tool should be used for content reversion. The only guideline I found on that subject was at WP:3RR where it said "Anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." I moved that sentence to the Twinkle page today so that the guideline would be made plainer. According to that guideline, I could have used Twinkle to revert the changes in the content dispute if I wrote a relevant edit summary to go along with it. I will remember to do so in the future, and I will contact the Twinkle programmers to see if the vandal edit summary can be changed. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    After asking a question at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/RFA, I realized that I had become blind to the green AGF link offered by Twinkle and had been using only the red VANDAL link. I supposed that the green AGF link was plain old rollback, but as of this edit I have begun once again to use the AGF feature of Twinkle. Too bad I cannot go back and change a whole bunch of my Twinkle edit summaries that should have been performed as AGF but were labeled "vandalism". :/
    Here's to putting the best foot forward from now on... Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Hopping sock: range blocks requested + proxy check

    There's an IP hopper who seems to be rather intent on harassing me by stalking my contributions and then undoing them with edit summaries such as "rv tom the ho bag" over the last 3 days or so, even in RfAs I have !voted in. He has also harassed User:Favonian (with edit summaries like "Fav the sexy dane"), User:Zzuuzz, and User:Syrthiss. He seems to be rather quick in changing IPs, however some of the most recent IP addresses include:

    • 78.176.21.218
    • 78.179.184.2
    • 88.242.151.236
    • 85.108.84.210
    • 91.121.211.11

    Ranges include:

    Note:There is a range list on User talk:Zzuuzz (above) (and his block logs may be of some help to any onlooking administrators) which I'm told are quite effective, however these ranges are usually blocked only a matter of a few (2-3) hours or so, and then he comes back the next day. I think maybe 8 hours or so would be a start, but I'm unaware of how WP usually deals with this stuff. Thanks for your help, Tommy! [message] 09:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the same charmer as "tedious IP jumper". Turkish ISP(s), unhealthy obsession with certain users, etc. TFOWR 09:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Tommy! [message] 09:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Rangeblocks seem to be the most effective way of curtailing the IP's silly games, but I suspect there will be resistance to longer-term rangeblocks: they affect a large number of users. Possibly the best solution is simply to keep the list above handy, and rangeblock them all as soon as our friend shows up. Though I'm very tempted by the IP's suggestion that we block Turkey: I have a Midnight Express dream involving this IP... TFOWR 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you are the favorite in the harem now Scotty!! But hey you are the one who confessed to having dungeon S&M fantasies. I say let`s ELOPE - so I got the whip, a 9-foot chain, two 12-foot 2x4s, a plastic bag, handcuffs and a Sinatra vinyl - enough to get freaky you think?
    But you better bring a good tootbrush - I hear that scots arent too hyped on dental hygiene. Hardcore dungeon S&M is one thing but I have to draw the line at bad teeth. Sorry!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.122.156.248 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All the ranges are currently blocked. I've got the IP's favourite editors' userpages watchlisted, so I'll rangeblock next time I see the IP pop up. If I'm around and I miss it, ping me. More eyes/mops welcome, naturally. TFOWR 09:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon that blocking all 100,000 IPs from a main Turkish ISP for a long time is not in our interests, but prompt blocks of increasing length might help. These ranges all need to be blocked at the same time, without messing about with individual IP blocks. They are currently blocked, and the user has since wandered onto open proxies again.[36] Range blocks won't help with that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but open proxies can be blocked long periods of time, which makes this easier. Tommy! [message] 10:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping that the Turkish kindergartens start back soon... meantime I'll catch up on my reading... TFOWR 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing with open proxies is that there are many thousands available at any time and they only get used for two minutes each. But that's another discussion. I'm reminded that all this started after this vandal was baited. Learn from that Tommy, and we'll keep on blocking the socks. <to fade> RBI, RBI... -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I really didn't think saying "Just so you know, I can see your contribs instantly" would be baiting (I thought that was more or less directly antagonizing)... lesson learned. Tommy! [message] 12:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dante8: Possible sockpuppet? Maybe?

    So Dante8 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) as well as the anon accounts 72.78.224.46, 24.116.128.242, 68.81.39.234 (and probably a few more) are all pretty clearly owned by the same person. Dante8 appears to be a new user and it is possible that he/she forgot to sign on when moving from location to location but these accounts have used to edit the same pages on the same days. I worry that these multiple accounts have been used to create an illusion of consensus on controversial pages, particularly on the deeply flawed article on the Ordination of women. I didn't think the situation quite called for a SPI so I figured I would open up the matter for conversation and give the user a chance to comment. - Schrandit (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - The topics that Dante8 (and certainly at least 72.78.224.46  Looks like a duck to me) are editing are quite literally sending chills down my spine. I hope my "gut" suspicions are wrong on who this might possibly be; and I'm at least "half-sure" that I am. Hopefully there will be a response from Dante8 to "clear things up" soon. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree - I'll be surprised if any of these IP's come here to comment. If I am right, it would seem to get the block button going. To make sure I'd lean towards taking this to SPI, though no comments from these IP's and it does indeed seem like a  Looks like a duck to me. Jusdafax 04:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely should go to SPI; but it might be added to a previous SPI if it "pans out". I am "somewhat" familiar with a certain banned and currently socking editor who identified herself as a lesbian ordained minister with strong interests in Judaism. If a serial killer was thrown into Dante8's edit history, I'd be convinced of who it was. My interest is "piqued" with this little case, and again, I truly hope I'm wrong - it's just a "hunch". Dante8: please speak up! You've clearly been notified of this report... Doc9871 (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well with all this in mind I'll add a notification tag to the ips and if we don't have a response soon I'll move it over to SPI. - Schrandit (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the above user is currently engaged in disruptive edit warring and POV pushing on the family of circumcision related articles, some of which are listed above. For example, in Circumcision and law, s/he is removing information found in a peer-reviewed journal because s/he does not agree with the author's hypothesis or scholarship. While User:POV Detective is entitled to his/her opinion, s/he may not remove pertinent information that is properly verifiably sourced from articles. The user has been informed of this multiple times (please check the edit history of the article and User talk:POV Detective), yet the pattern of ignoring wikipedia policy and guideline remains. Similarly, there is a detailed discussion on Talk:Circumcision about the validity and applicability of a specific news article. Despite, and perhaps in spite of, the ongoing discussion on the talk page, User:POV Detective has continued to add the contested information to the article. The users history clearly indicates that s/he is a single purpose account, which while in and of itself is not an issue, in combination with the lack of respect for wikipedia policies and guidelines does indicate that the user may be here more to push a particular point of view against policy than to collaboratively build the encyclopedia. Furthermore, while the user may not have violated the letter of 3RR, viewing the diffs above and the edit histories of the articles in question, shows that the spirit of edit warring against consensus is clear and apparent.

    Being involved in the discussions, I am loathe to impose measures aimed at protecting the integrity of the project as the appearance of partiality would exist. Therefore, I am asking for uninvolved admins to review the evidence and comment, or take appropriate actions, to maintain the integrity of the project, which may include a temporary revocation of the users editing privileges until such point as a commitment to adhere to our policies and guidelines is made and adhered to. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To add to Avi's detailed comment, I would like to point out that POV Detective regularly labels users opposing his/her edits as "circumcision devotees", a personal attack that, in my opinion, is extremely uncivil. Jakew (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)As an addendum, the user is now engaging in uncivil edit summaries, which while perhaps indicative of a lack of maturity on his/her part, does not contribute to the collegiate environment required for the project in general, and contentious article sets, such as circumcision in specific. For example:
    -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is clearly a civility issue here. User:POV Detective should not be making these types of comments and appears to be defending the use of information that reliable sources actually present as inconclusive at this point. What I don't understand is why people are baiting him and goading him on with unrelated arguments on the talk page. From the outside it is understandable why POV Detective thinks he's arguing against a "pro-circumcision" crowd, because many of the people arguing against him are acting like they are part of such a crowd. A short block of POV Detective for edit warring and incivility would probably help here, but someone should tell the local peasantry wielding pitchforks to cool it as well. This is as simple as -- "You're adding unreliable information to the entry, and if you edit war to keep it in you'll get blocked." End of story.Griswaldo (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot speak for anyone else, but I believe my comments and edit summaries were neutral, clear, and to the point. The above user's response is to delete warnings, to which s/he is entitled, but with dismissive summaries, and continued disregard for any consensus, policies, and guidelines which are in place. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've previously warned them: they deleted my post here with the edit summary "delete threats & personal attacks". I'd echo Avi's comment about dismissive summaries. (Oh, and good block, Heimstern). TFOWR 17:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block was very appropriate, good job for sure. I don't think there is anything on the talk pages that violates policy or requires administrative attention (except for POV Detective's incivility and edit warring which has now been dealt with). I just wanted to suggest to some involved that fanning the flames never helps. Let's hope this editor can come back and refrain from edit warring and name calling. I'm not sure how hopeful I am about that actually happening, but I have my fingers crossed.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The worst editwarriors in circumcision-related articles are undoubtedly Jakew, Avraham, and Jayjg, three users unanimous on all edits and consistently enforcing Jakew's ownership of all such articles since he stopped updating his circumcision promotion website in 2006 and joined Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Where's your evidence for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the background of this pretty well, see the conflict of interest noticeboard and my own talk page for some back history to this dispute. -- Atama頭 20:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who would have known this was such a POV battleground? I read over the archived discussion about "uncircumcised" at Talk:Circumcision, which was a complete fiasco. People love to argue around WP:UCN when they have a cause they are battling for. That said some fresh eyes on these pages would surely be useful.Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholeheartedly agree that fresh eyes would be helpful. And yes, unfortunately, in my opinion, discussions seem to have a tendency to derail into non-helpful arguments. New faces would be welcome in trying to handle one of the more contentious set of articles here. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    False company information to film articles

    Pricer1980 (talk · contribs), who has a history of challenged contributions, has been adding company information to film articles that appears to usually be false. I first noticed the editor's contributions when he made this edit to Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. Assuming good faith at first, search engine tests revealed that there was no relationship between the film and Vanguard Animation, Odyssey Entertainment, and BBC Films. I reverted this addition and explored the editor's other contributions. Many contributions involve indiscriminately listing production companies, which is not truly a problem in itself, but search engine tests show false details. For example, this includes the film Bel Ami to have the US distributor MGM. This indicates that Lascars will be distributed by a Sony branch. Neither detail is valid. These contributions coupled with the editor's history (including being blocked once for false information) warrant some kind of step to end this disruption. I contacted Cirt, who had blocked this editor before, and he directed me here. Can the editor's prolific contributions be reviewed and the proper action be taken? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend an immediate preventative block to curtail further damage and allow his edits to be reviewed. Pricer1980 is clearly making some very dubious edits, such as this one where he changed the titles of numerous French-language films from French to English. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Problems are continuing. Pricer1980 edited Unstoppable (2010 film) to give it a very Spanish treatment. At Telecinco Cinema, editor added Unstoppable despite no evidence of relationship. I'm more and more convinced that this editor is spreading false information that can be generally be overlooked. I reported the editor for restoring uncited content to Bel Ami (2011 film), but I think a longer preventative block is necessary. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for one week as a first step to prevent further damage and allow correction of misinformation. I will invite his comments on his talk page. Please comment here on whether there is anything constructive about user's contributions and whether the block should be made permanent. JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine that this is anything other than vandalism if the editor has been repeatedly informed that this is wrong and they continue. This is the worst kind of vandalism, the subtle kind that you have to do a little research to even identify. Looking through the editor's contributions at random, I see this which looks fine until you click on the link to the article to see the film was released in 2004, not 2000. Edits like that are just senseless... If the entry was made under the proper year (2004) it would have been a valuable addition, but putting the entry in the wrong location is just causing confusion. I can't see why this editor should be allowed to contribute, I suspect every single one of their edits needs to be scrutinized and undone or repaired. -- Atama頭 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads-up. I fixed further damage since Olivier Assayas's Clean has no relationship of any kind with Quebec. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I would just assume that every edit he's made is dirty and undo them all. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2nd block in less than 2 weeks. Indeed, if they keep this up a block is warranted. 220.101 talk\Contribs 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... This editor has 711 live edits to Wikipedia to look at. They've made no effort to ever communicate in all their time here, they've made 3 edits to their talk page only to blank warnings and a block notice. I don't think this editor has any desire to collaborate, and it looks like cleaning up their mess would be a gigantic task. -- Atama頭 23:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a notification at WT:FILM about this editor's pattern in case socks are used. You're right, though, that there is a bit to clean up. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also managed to revert most of the damage done by that user. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a rock star! Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am! Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef block - Come on, now - per Atama, this dude has never once troubled to communicate with any of us despite blocks and warnings? Indef block, not a one week block, to protect the project. This user is bad for Wikipedia. Jusdafax 04:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Range Vandalism

    Not sure where to place this, IPs 168.30.150.64-219 have been repeatedly vandalizing the article Eddie Murphy [37][38] Warning them will seem to do little good since they are changing IPs every minute.

    168.30.150.0/24 (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours. Those are the only contributions from that range. TNXMan 17:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a school, FWIW. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe things like this should go to WP:Abuse - Enti342 MEMO 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Abuse reports can't do shit. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been involved in WP:Abuse Reports Before that have had successful endings. Enti342 MEMO 21:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was before. Nowadays you will not get a successful abuse report without a wikimedia email address or a legal threat against the ISP for disregarding its own ToS. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 00:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you report it to the school the worst that'll happen is that Wikipedia gets blacklisted completely from the school network. The best that'll happen is the kid who made six test edits one morning gets to write a hand-written apology to their network administrator. Compared to teh schoolblock it would be a total waste of time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But, but, but... What if he has to send us cookies and a handwritten appology? No, in all seriousness: All educational systems of the size of this one, will have some sort of policy in effect. Odds are, the person who did that, will likely get their network-access rights revoked. It's like that in Oklahoma, and if I remember correct, we had to set up that way thanks to some Federal edjumacational policy or law or something. ANowlin talk 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits like this barely deserve one post on Wikipedia, let alone a full-blown abuse report. They're blocked and that should probably be the end of it. TNXMan 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you there. If it continues after unblock however, WP:ABUSE and/or WP:LTA will look further in to the matter. I will be keeping an eye on this IP range for a while. ANowlin talk 22:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MickMacNee at WP:ITN

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Nothing more to see here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wasn't sure if this should go here or WP:WQA, but MickMacNee (talk · contribs) is engaging in some unconstructive behavior at In the news, in particular this diff towards me in response to letting other users know he has an unconstructive history with multiple blocks, as I had encountered his incivility a few months ago. Here are some more. [39], [40], [41](ending of this one in particular), etc. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an isolated incident on a totally different matter an admin removed another attack by this editor here Mo ainm~Talk 22:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Most certainly not isolated. A bit belated, but a recent enough discussion on the Northern Ireland talk page showed us Mick's new catchphrase "Shit, or get off the pot", which I hardly think is a civil term. diff. Many examples from the same discussion, like suggesting that I should be sidelined from any discussions on the article [diff.WikiuserNI (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I only recently started posting material at WP:ITN the past few weeks. Prior to that I had not encountered this editor. Now, I have a reasonably thick skin, but I was taken aback to read this astonishingly uncivil reply to one of my suggestions, which would put almost anyone off and especially someone new to Wikipedia who might be a bit shy. A quick look at MickMacNee's talk page reveals other issues in the recent past as well. So, I think most here will agree there is a problem, yet Mick has also been a valued long-term contributor in some areas including ITN. But a look at the block log for Mick is amazing. Here is sad evidence of someone with a long history of inability to grasp - I'd even say studied unconcern for - the basics of collaborative editing. With that in mind, and seeing that numerous blocks have not made an impression, I must call for a three month block as a preventitive measure to protect editors, and especially those who may be altogether new here, from this manners-challenged editor who seems unwilling to edit and comment in even a minimally collegial fashion. Or to be direct: Mick, I think you need to pretty much take the rest of the year off from the project. It will do us all some good. With respectful concern, Jusdafax 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the admin who remove MickMacNee's comment at WT:BISE. You'll note that I also removed another editor's comment at the same time. Both editors have issues with each other, and I've asked them to disengage. To date (and my request was made very recently) they do seem to have done so.
    I'm not convinced that MickMacNee's comments at ITN would, taken individually, be WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA issues. Likewise for the phrase "shit, or get off the pot" (a colloquial expression meaning, in this context, "provide references or stop complaining"). I am concerned, however, that MickMacNee is very good at sailing right up to WP:CIVIL but no further (usually... clearly their block log suggests "over-sailing" on numerous occasions). I'd also add that while I'm reasonably tolerant at WT:BISE (the editors there are all "big enough and ugly enough" to take care of themselves) I am not at all convinced that this tolerance should extend to ITN: a main page area where WP:BITE is hugely relevant as it should attract new editors. This edit ("Are you [Doc Quintana] outing yourself as the imposter who keeps stalking me...") hints at part of the problem: MickMacNee is a target for harassment, due to their outspoken attitude. Dialing-down the attitude would greatly improve the atmosphere with good-faith editors, and, I would imagine, reduce the level of attacks from sock-puppets and trolls. TFOWR 06:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, 18 blocks in 30 months indicates a serious problem, and your point about WP:BITE is the core of the issue, since ITN is trying to attract new users, not scare 'em away. Like a spoiled child, Mick feels free to type these kind of edgy, petulant outbursts even at a Main page project because he has never faced any real consequences. And it is my strongly held view that until his actions result in a major, no-nonsense block, expect more of the same - which can and will have the effect of scaring new users away. Jusdafax 08:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TFOWR, I think Mick is responsible for how other editors treat him by his own behavior, so I don't think the word "harrassment" is appropriate on how other editors treat Mick, but perhaps could be appropriate for how Mick treats other editors. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, Doc Quintana, that wasn't nearly as clear as it could have been. Mick is the target of harassment (the bad faith, sock-puppeting, attacking kind), but not from good faith editors. I stress that I do not believe Mick's allegations against you to be correct or warranted, but perhaps understandable in context. TFOWR 11:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem, i'm only concerned with his behavior. Just to clarify, I don't his allegations in this instance are understandable given that I haven't seen him since February. If I had some kind of vendetta against him, It would make sense that I'd be following him around. He just was where I was, and where other users are that don't deserve his behavior. I believe he is the master of his own destiny when it comes to other editors who he may have irritated that have gone to inappropriate behiavor themselves. Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong doesn't make a right either. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Mick's issue is that he gets fed up with some of the interminable rubbish spouted here by some users and he is unable to stop himself occasionally telling them what he thinks about it. I think I have had an adult type spat with him over some issue or other, imo he is often correct but simply should not bother telling the users. If I was Mick I would emigrate to a new account as he must get terminally sick of users saying, this user has been blocked before as was the case here from DocQ who admits himself that he had previously been in a dispute with him. And then, weak reports are made like this one, which standing alone belongs at WP:WQA. I think Mick is a useful contributor in a wide range of topics and is a good NPOV writer, imo users should stop with referencing peoples block records as an excuse to make a report, if a report won't stand alone then don't make it. I think we have this legal issue in the UK. Your not allowed to mention someones criminal record until the subject has been found guilty of something new and only then is the previous record taken into account as regards sentencing. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If Mick decides to make a new account, that's his decision. He'll face the same problems unless the root problem is solved: his behavior. And I do admit that I was in a content dispute with him, but he was blocked while I was not, again because of his behavior. I'm not saying that Mick isn't a valuable editor, what i'm saying is that no one is so valuable that they can act uncivil. Finally, this isn't the United Kingdom, it's Wikipedia. There are different standards here, Wikipedia is not for everyone. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, considering you said yourself on opening this thread that you were unsure if it belonged here or at WP:WQA, personally if I felt that way I would have gone to WQA, what are you requesting happens to mick for this minor digression? Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to move this to WQA if that's appropriate, and i'll leave Mick's fate to the admins. All i'm concerned about is his behavior. Decorum is not an option on Wikipedia and he needs to respect that. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he does seem to have been getting openly pretty fed up over the last days, there was also the stupidest WP:LAME edit war over a category on a redirect page. I notice he is almost 24hrs without an edit, maybe he'll take himself a couple of days off to get over himself. I am only a single user and general consensus may lie elsewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Merely delete any unwanted posts by Mick. That way we won't loose a contributing editor. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guy has an attitude, there's no doubting that, but there are several editors with even lengthier blocks and even worse civility problems. Mick makes many useful contributions to some very tense areas where discussions tend to get very heated. I would also point out that he has been the subject of genuine harassment– I fairly recently hard blocked an account set up to impersonate him. He needs to dial down the tone, but blocking him won't solve anything. He'll either come back after the block more-or-less unchanged or he won't come back at all, which would make a block purely punitive imho. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes bluntness in an editor (like Mick) is a good thing. In the past some have expressed their frustration with me, over my lack of straightforwardness. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had barely come across "Mick" (as he is known to his friends - of whom I am clearly not one) until recently. We disagreed about a few things, which is fine - he's probably right more often than wrong, but that's not the issue. His recent edits seem to involve ongoing battlegrounds of borderline incivility, vague threats, baiting a new admin etc. There is no doubt the editor has made a significant contribution, and may do so in future but at present the balance of pros and cons would seem to be moving in the wrong direction. User:MickMacNee, you probably do not believe me, but I wish you well. Sanity probably lies this way for a wee while. Ben MacDui 16:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he has been close to the edge recently, perhaps a note from an Admin letting him know there is a consensus here that he should tone it down and keep it civil and polite or some forced wiki break will be in order. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure a note from an admin would be well received, but perhaps a conversation– on- or off-wiki– with someone he respects (which would rule me out!) might have an effect? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion noted. I've no comment at this time, unless or until someone who doesn't have a history with me takes an interest, except to clarify that the original comment was a reaction to Qunitana turning up at a stale ITN discussion to comment on me in a totally irrelevant and incivil (check the policy, it's not just about being a meany) manner. If anything needs to be discussed at WQA, it's that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problem editor

    69.69.17.194 (talk · contribs) and his later IP address 69.69.20.198 (talk · contribs) spread personal commentary throughout talk pages ([42] [43]), and caught my attention when he added his personal commentary to the article Sophia (wisdom). When I asked him not to put in personal commentary and to cite a source, he pointed to the text he was commenting on as his source. I kept directing him to WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS (not using the shorthand, of course), only to be ignored, attacked ("you are an exemplar of the iniquitous, not the wise" "billy goat editor", "ignorant", "ignorant" again), or had the guidelines misinterpreted against me (hadn't commented on him at this point). In another case of the last type of behavior, he suggests I quit my undergraduate English studies and take Scientology courses. I highly doubt this user is going to prove useful, as he has paid to be brainwashed into believing that English means what a degenerate and greedy cult says first and whatever benefits him most second, not what the rest of the speakers of the language think English means.

    I'm not asking for a block (although I won't disapprove of one), but I'm going to be becoming less active because of classes, my girlfriend, and a new job. While it is the start of the weekend, I don't know how long it's going to take for him to get to the end of his rope, and he may continue to cause trouble later (possibly by waiting, or hopping on another IP address). Just letting everyone know while I can. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As a precaution, I managed to revert that personal attack regarding the "billy goat editor" part has been reverted on Ian.thomson's talk page. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Wikipedia" swastika posted on ITN article

    Resolved
     – It's gone. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I'm requesting that an admin admin-delete this edit from the history of 2010 Aksu bombing. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already reverted & editor warned. I have a feeling he may not be around for much longer. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this was a request for revdel-ing it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict): I think that is a good candidate for RevDel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems Tnxman307 felt the same way; the revision is now gone. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic editor

    Can someone take a minute and review the contributions of Javedsbr (talk · contribs)? I just watched him create an article consisting of an enormous, unformatted copy-paste text dump under a nonsense title, then almost immediately pagemove it to a new location. Both are tagged for db. I had a look at his talk page and it's the longest mess of image license warnings and copyright warnings I've ever seen. Not sure what is going on here but it's a little funny (not ha ha funny). Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget that you need to notify the user if you put a notice here. I've done that for you. David Biddulph (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [44] The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef by an admin. I also reverted further legal threats as well as BLP violations placed on her talk page [45]. Finally, I sent the article she was vandalizing to AfD for BLP1E. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion, vote-stacking, ongoing vandalism

    Hi, I need to ask someone to block two socks of IP 138.162.8.57 (talk) who was just blocked for the fifth time as a vandal. His two socks both !voted in one now-current AfD, they're both are in use to evade a current block, and one continues to vandalize.

    Btw, apologies in advance if I've given too much detail here. I wasn't sure how much was appropriate; comments welcome on that.

    IP 138.162.8.57 (talk) has been vandalizing for years. He's a prolific editor. Approximately 20% of edits have been obvious vandalism, another 10% subtle vandalism - like erroneously changing event dates by a few years, and the balance have been constructive or at least remotely-plausible-at-a-stretch, those having mostly to do with the United States Navy, with a conservative political preference - e.g. "Most Americans believe (Obama) isn't a a natural born citizen of the United States", and with various other subjects. A reverse IP lookup attributes the IP to the Naval Network Information Center (NNIC), with headquarters in Jacksonville, FL. This IP was blocked for the fourth time, on August 5th, for a week. It's my understanding that this branch of the NNIC provides internet access to most or all of Florida's Naval facilities.

    After his fourth block expired on August 12th, IP 138.162.8.57 returned to editing August 18th, and his first edit back was vandalism, as were four out of his next ten edits, before he was blocked for a fifth time, for two weeks, beginning August 20, by Cirt.

    IP 138.162.8.58 (talk) is an obvious sock of 138.162.8.57, that also should be blocked, as it's being used for block evasion and to !vote in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Obama_first_family_vacations. A reverse IP lookup yields the same result as 138.162.8.57, and the two IPs have edited the same articles just minutes apart.[46][47][48]. Although a little less vandalism has emanated from IP 138.162.8.58 (talk page warnings here) I found many other minutes-or-hours-apart edits made to the same articles by 138.162.8.58 and 138.162.8.57. Sometimes one would revert the other's vandalism - a pattern consistent with 138.162.8.57's occasional self-reverts of vandalism. Other times one IP would continue the other's vandalism of the same article.

    The two IPs mentioned appear to represent a single user's work location with the U.S. Navy. I also strongly suspect IP 74.248.43.156 (talk) of being a home or alternate location for the same person. The reverse IP lookup for 74.248.43.156 identifies a BellSouth customer in Panama City, FL. In addition:

    • There's a large U.S. Navy presence in Panama City, FL, including a Navy base, which would account for 138.162.8.5x as a "work" location, provisioned by the Navy Network Information Center.
    • The Navy base in Panama City, FL, was founded as the U.S. Navy Mine Countermeasures Station, and it continues that mission. IP 74.248.43.156 is in Panama City, and by this edit he shows an interest in things Naval, and in one of the Navy's mine countermeasures squadrons in particular.
    • IP 74.248.43.156 showed up just after IP 138.162.8.57 was blocked for the fourth time, and shows the same politically conservative tendency and interests in his brief editing career under that IP.
    • In this edit IP 138.162.8.57 added a ref for this Panama City newspaper/web article to the Obama family vacations list. While not conclusive, it does indicate 138.162.8.57 has an awareness of Panama City events, as well as IP 74.248.43.156.

    This person, in one of his edit summaries under one of his IPs, did provide very specific information about his Navy assignment on a particular date that his "ISP", the Navy Network Information Center, could certainly use in conjunction with the personnel data they would have available to personally identify him. ( Saying this doesn't come anywhere close to wp:outing, btw, as the information is too general for anyone outside Navy personnel to ID him. ) If anyone wants to initiate a contact with the Navy under the auspices of Wikipedia:Abuse_response, however, including that information might be helpful. Contact me for more information about that, if desired.

    Looking carefully through the history of the two IPs, 138.162.8.57 and 138.162.8.58, leads me to believe that they're quite stable, i.e. that they've both "belonged" to the same Navy employee for years. I personally think extending the existing two-week block on 138.162.8.57 to "indef" would be called for, even without this new evidence of block evasion and vote-stacking in an AfD, given that he has shown he has no interest in changing his behavior. I also think 138.162.8.58 needs an "indef" as an obvious sock and vandal, and that 74.248.43.156 is also quacking loudly-enough to merit the same indef as a sock being used for block evasion and vote-stacking. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good detective work, Ohiostandard. I take it there has been nothing taken to WP:SPI yet? Jusdafax 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Affirmative, Jusdafax. Nothing has been taken to the sockpuppet investigation page yet. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a pretty clear case of WP:DUCK to me. If the 74.248 IP isn't the 138.162 editing from a different location then it's the meatiest meatpuppet ever. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Thanks, Jusdafax! ( and Sjones23, and Burl ) No, nothing to SPI from me, anyway. I was (vain hope?) thinking it might be avoidable given that there are only IPs implicated, or "implicated so far", anyway. Nothing I'm aware of here that requires checkuser authority ... although I admit I don't necessarily understand how a check user process is run or what it comprises. Does it look for new named accounts coming from implicated IPs, too, even if they're not explicitly identified in an SPI submission? But don't answer that if you'd have to kill me after telling me. ;-) Don't want to open up the inner workings of the process too publicly, I mean. But no, no SPI thus far; I've never filed one before, although I'll probably have to in a wholly different matter in a couple of days. If an SPI is called for, and you or anyone else feels charitable, I'd be pleased to be able to avoid learning how to create one properly just now; as I need to go offline for a couple of hours, anyway. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me like it might be more effective to drop a line to someone at NNIC to let them know that someone is using taxpayer money to vandalize our website and has been doing so for quite a while. ElKevbo (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah no kidding. You'd think the military would have more important things to do than troll and vandalize wikipedia. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that members of the US Congress and their staffs do the same thing, I doubt it. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, this is the same U.S. Government who wants their FBI logo removed from Wikipedia. Which is probably in itself an overreaction to the embarassment caused by the Wikileaks incident, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. –MuZemike 05:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments and the suggestion re contacting NNIC, everyone, but for now ...

    We still need an admin to block, please.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Israel

    I think that Wikidea may need to have his reviewer rights looked at a bit closer. I saw this edit a few minutes ago. No one, so far, has said a word to him about it. Dawnseeker2000 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry my friends who are having a jolly evening made that edit. Many apologies! Wikidea 02:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really think there is anything to see here, it was a rather unsubtle edit from an account that otherwise(from a brief review of edits) seems to make solid edits, you may want to tell Toby that to test that theory he would have to be more discriminate. un☯mi 02:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Look

    [49] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCforLife (talk • contribs)

    List of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners and List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries need some attention from soccer/football experts. Recent edits look suspicious, but I can't evaluate them. --John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported this User as a vandal, he's intent on removing huge amounts of information and won't stop. At best, he's gone way over 3RR. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a sock of User:SuperSonicx1986. The latest of many. --WFC-- 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And apparently a sock of 72.145.93.60 (talk · contribs) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interests of assuming good faith, I'll let others judge this. --WFC-- 05:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    110.20.34.7, 110.20.11.94 and 110.20.55.15

    Resolved
     – Blocked 2 first (socks, I believe), left third one because it seems hopping. Watching the desk. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    These three users, who I suspect are the same person, are making numerous inflammatory remarks on the Mathematics reference desk. I request that they be blocked.--220.253.222.146 (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That IP apologized afterwards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Continued later as other IPs, such as: 110.20.1.146, 110.20.2.147, 114.72.202.2, and 114.72.218.253. David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sincereofficial

    Resolved
     – Indef blocked for subtle, sneaky vandalism.

    --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sincereofficial (talk · contribs) has a LONG page full of warnings over insertion of false information into a long string of articles, they were blocked for three months last year, yet they continue. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic edits to the Julian Assange article

    I reported this on the WP:BLPN page, but due to the high profile of the Julian Assange article, I thought it ought to be bumped here. There are new edits conerning claims that an arrest warrant has been issued against him in Sweden. I won't go into details here. The edit is sourced to a Swedish site, and since I don't speak Swedish and can't find any English language sources, I thought it might be best to bring it here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The source looks 'legit enough' and the contents do confirm that he was arrested in absentia over rape allegations from 2 women. Anything beyond that is up to the editors involved, personally, in this case, I would probably lean towards WP:NOTNEWS. un☯mi 05:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My knowledge of Swedish didn't allow me to verify the source. Is it a credible one? I erred on the safe side per BLP and reverted the edit. The rest can be decided at the article talk, and my own feeling is err on the side of leaving it out unless/until more sources can be found. --John (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, Expressen could probably be aptly described as a sensationalist newspaper, I don't think that they would "make it up" but on the other hand it is not clear how well the story checks out. They claim to have spoken with the prosecutors office who have confirmed that the arrest warrant was issued. I agree that we should probably hold off until other sources pick it up, which should be "anytime now" if it seems to check out. un☯mi 06:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a classic WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS violation: There is one media outlet with a highly unlikely story of rape: "The women victims did not want to press charges against Assange, fearing his position of power." But how could an Australian journalist have a "position of power" in relation to two women he allegedly met while on a lecture tour of Sweden? Then there are other news sources parroting the first, and Wikipedia has an article confidently asserting "An arrest warrant for Julian Assange was issued by Swedish police", while for balance, the article later says "Assange states: '... I have not been contacted by the police'". In 24 hours we should know if an arrest order has been made. Meanwhile, the speculation should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The arrest order is a reliable fact, independently verified by other news sources. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a BLP issue - it doesn't (yet..) require admin action - I'd encourage Everard to mark this resolved and we can discuss it on more relevant pages. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The arrest warrant appears to have been rescinded. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Qualities108

    isn't just attempting to convert people to Hindusim, they're posting long incomprehensible rants and threating people with going to hell. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Blocked 1 week for inappropriate use of Wikipedia and personal attacks. --Jayron32 06:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dipso IP jumper

    We have an IP jumper, who claims to be under the influence of strong drink, attacking Materialscientist. Is there basis for some range blocks or other remedies? Favonian (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it's been handled. TNXMan 13:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    doc was also attacked, frankly just block all of his IP addresses till he sober.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    110 just posted another comment, he is still at large--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, he "sort of" attacked me - I'll weep about it later, I'm sure. The most pertinent question is one he posed to me: "Is it possible to block someone who can continually change his IP address?". That's the question of the hour... Doc9871 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    now 110 is posting his drunkern ramblings here at ANI board for incidents, he is also asking for bears (i assume he means more alcohol, someone block his new IP already--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the process for disruptive trolling dynamic IP addresses is something like, IP block, IP block, IP block, range block (small as possible) block, revert contributions and ignore. Serious infractions can be reported to his service provider. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Favion just blocked the latest IP address, hopefully this is the last we see of him--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone has a handy list of the IPs, I'll look into a rangeblock. TNXMan 13:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    he mentioned he was using a laptop , so far all the IPs 110 and one 114, we could block the entire pub for a week--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put down two short rangeblocks: 110.20.0.0/18 and 114.72.192.0/18. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Not quite. A rangeblock encompassing 110 and 114 (even if it were possible) would block up to 536870912 users, which is slightly larger than your average pub. TNXMan 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both ranges resolve to the same ISP in Sydney, NSW. [What time, if at all, do the pubs shut in Australia?] David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    block the ISP then, and tell the barman/maid to send their patrons home--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't be sure that he's at a pub, or even if he's actually drunk. It's not terribly likely, but this could hypothetically be a twelve-year-old Australian bug-"squisher" having a "giggle-fit" for all we know. He's certainly being very disruptive. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to figure out who this is, considering the subjects being edited. We'll see... Doc9871 (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Crapflood of low quality content

    Everything created by Paedea2008 (talk · contribs) has been of extremely low quality and unsalvageable. While some of their content seems to be hoax, such as TV Animal Farm, others seem to be good faith contributions about real things, but of such low quality that they're unsalvageable articles. Per WP:TNT, can someone please blast through this user's contributions, and maybe give some kind of warning? Many of their contribs have already been speedied. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine

    This is going to be a tough one, so bear with me. Today, I blocked Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) and Eric1985 (talk · contribs) for two independent incidents in which they have been inciting people, through off-Wikipedia blogs, websites, and political magazines, to come to Wikipedia to correct what they believe is an anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia. I received evidence about their actions via e-mails from two separate editors, following a thread at WP:AE. In the case of Jiujitsuguy, I can't really point to the specific websites I'm talking about because they include his real name. In the case of Eric1985, the actions come from a website called WikiBias (the writer intentionally omits his name there); once again, though, I can't explain how the connection to this website was made because it includes exposing personal information.

    You can see for yourselves the nature of WikiBias. It's not heavy on personal attacks and he also seems to caution potential recruits about violating Wikipedia's policies (noting what sockpuppetry, edit-warring, and the concept of NPOV are). However, the website is a clear violation of WP:MEAT, not merely expressing his views about Wikipedia in a general manner, but repeatedly pointing editors to discussions and asking them to participate in them (e.g. "View the discussion on the move, and chime in with your opinion if appropriate, on the discussion page." [50]). He also has a how-to guide that isn't just about getting started on Wikipedia, but rather about gaming the system.

    With Jiujitsuguy, again, I can't post the particular websites, but it's more of the same. He's less systematic than WikiBias -- he's only got a couple of articles on various websites advocating disruptive behavior -- but his rhetoric is far more inappropriate, referring to Wikipedians as, for example, Islamofascists. Again, he provides a how-to guide for gaming the system on Wikipedia, with the intent to push his agenda. Further, Jiujitsuguy has a very colorful history on Wikipedia, one which -- trust me -- his block log doesn't fully express.

    I'd like to get a review of the situation, but I'm not sure the evidence should be freely handed out to every single admin that requests it. Concurrent with this post, I have forwarded the evidence from Nableezy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), the two editors who sent me e-mails, to ArbCom. But at the very least, the concept of this kind of off-wiki canvassing can be discussed here. During the ArbCom proceedings for the CAMERA debacle (May 2008), there was the conclusion that simply being a meatpuppet wasn't grounds alone for an indefinite block, and that one's on-wiki actions were paramount. But in both these situations, it wasn't that they were the meatpuppets; they were the meatpuppeteers. Still, some might argue that these blog posts are outside of our interest, as people are free to hold whatever positions and opinions in real life. Surely, many of the editors in the Israel-Palestine area hold similarly firm views and may even be coordinating efforts over secret mailing lists.

    However, I feel both of these cases are of very serious concern for Wikipedia. The Israel-Palestine area, as I'm sure you know, is still a minefield, with protections, bans, and blocks being doled out on a weekly basis and some bitter dispute always brewing (and the ArbCom proceedings of January 2008 not sufficiently putting an end to the nonsense there). I don't see any reason why editors who seek to bring additional agenda-driven editors to the equation should be permitted to edit in this area or, given the clear subversion of Wikipedia policies, anywhere else on Wikipedia.

    Any and all remarks on the matter are welcome. -- tariqabjotu 18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget this quote from Eric1985s Wikibias: "So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." and his post at WP Israel: "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, people might also want to note the wingnut that posted a comment on the blog post you just linked to, who seems to be hosting training conferences for Zionist Wikipedia editors ... -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the blocks and the report at WP:AE earlier. I believe that, assuming the blocked editors are responsible for what you say they are responsible for, then the blocks are within the terms of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. However, rather than relying purely on your own judgement, I think your best course of action is to submit all the evidence you have to the Arbitration Committee for review. CIreland (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I forwarded the evidence to ArbCom at the same time I made this post. I fixed a typographical error to clarify that. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work to protect the wiki. I applaud your blocks. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not directly related to the case above, but it is relevant. Perhaps ARBCOM and Wikipedia in general should, in the future, investigate if certain articles and areas should be restricted to edits made by a some sort of "board" comprised of appointed or elected individuals. While this goes against the mantra of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit", its blatently obvious that the current system has failed and attempts to "fix" it are only met by abuse of the system. ARBCOM rules are routinely circumvented, and enforcement of the rules are not consistent; that is to say, we currently have editors who have stated its their mission to bring for "such and such truth" to the situation, when in reality they are just battlefield warriors intent on making sure their own position reigns supreme (with numerous blocks, bans, etc..etc to their edit history). Assume Good Faith editing has failed, and while it is a main tenant of Wikipedia, its being used as a tool to promote agendas and can potentially open the door for all sorts of liabilities. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking other editors is acceptable. Unfortunately, Jiujitsuguy did word it in a way that was asking for some inappropriate covert tactics. I think a indefinite is a little harsh but do understand how big of a concern it was.
    I still believe Nableezy outing Jiujitsuguy on a forum related to all this terrible in a completely different way. It was not his place to do that. That could have led to harassment or something even worse. And he shouldn't have mentioned it on Wikipedia since it came across like he was asking people to dig out the information.
    Hopefully we can put this situation behind us. If Jiujitsuguy does come back way down the road and request reinstatement it should be considered and watched closely.Cptnono (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still believe Nableezy outing Jiujitsuguy on a forum... He did no such thing. Not here, not anywhere. I never suggested he did, and I don't think Nableezy has either. -- tariqabjotu 22:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcom Amendment?

    I started to write an Arb amendment request and I still think that may be what's needed to deal with this. I think there's a number of troubling aspects about the situation:

    1. You have the WP:ARBPIA decision and discretionary sanctions which were put in place to help control these types of disputes. It has clear guidance for admins on how to deal with these disputes (though It's debatable about how effective they are given the repetition of names on the log).
    2. You have the WP:CAMERA decision (note: any reference I make to CAMERA is to the decision and not the organization) which is almost an extension of ARBPIA. Here it clearly covers the topic of canvassing and in this case it was on ARBPIA articles. However, CAMERA did not put forth guidance or discretionary sanctions like ARBPIA did and it doesn't offer much direction on how to handle the very sensitive issue of reviewing the outside wiki evidence. You get into issues of WP:OUTING so you can't really make it public but if it's not public then how do you determine who gets it and who reviews it? CAMERA says to bring it to Arbcom but I don't know if that is practical.
    3. I have a growing concern of witch-hunts. Those who bring these accusations of off-wiki canvassing may not have the purest of motivations themselves. In this case those involved have consumed many admin resources themselves with warnings, bans and blocks for ARBPIA violations.

    I think going to Arbcom requesting some guidance is what's in order. I think the CAMERA principles of dealing with external groups and collective guilt should be added to ARBPIA. This would bring those actions under the same process of sanctions. Then a method of dealing with off-wiki evidence should be set up and I think that's something Arbcom needs to facilitate given the sensitive nature of it. Perhaps a workgroup with a mailing list solely for that issue.

    All in all I think you did the best you could with the guidance we've been given Tariq. I am a bit concerned we may be condemning by association or condemning for off-wiki acts without corresponding evidence of an organized campaign on wiki. --WGFinley (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the CAMERA Arbcom case, I think the more recent WP:EEML case is also relevant to the issue of off-wiki actions. CIreland (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit surprised by Tariqajotu's actions. First, I think he should have given the editors in question the opportunity to defend themselves. Second, if he was minded to do it, he should have consulted with other admins. Third of all, if he did do it, the thing to do is allow for actual review of his actions here, rather than shove it upstairs to ArbCom. I see no difference waiting a few hours would have made. Frankly, if we're dealing with off-wiki actions, I'm a lot more concerned with Nableezy's alleged outing of another editor. In response to Tariqajotu's offer to email the evidence to any admin, I do so request.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did Nableezy out another editor? Diff please? All I can see is his comment "There is unambiguous proof that Jiujitsuguy has violated WP:MEAT several times, though that proof requires linking to sites which contain his real name so I cant do that here." That seems to me like an explicit refusal to out another editor. The allegation that he outed another editor appears baseless, and should be withdrawn.RolandR (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the thread. I did not say it was on wiki. Apparently it was in a forum. Since I have not yet seen it (Tariq has not yet responded to my request for the evidence), I have added the word "alleged".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What editors (allegedly) do off-wiki is none of our concern. Are you proposing to start investigating and taking action against the many people (some of them apparently Wikipedia editors) who have identified and denounced me in countless forums? RolandR (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is when they're essentially saying: "Hey, let's cause shit on Wikipedia, but make sure they don't catch you: here's how..." HalfShadow 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah so. Does that apply to Jujitsuguy and Eric1985? If so, I suggest you remonstrate with Tariq, he's your go to guy on this. I have not proposed taking action about anyone, I have asked for more information and suggested fuller investigation of the circumstances. Something wrong with that?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the allegation against them is not that they made comments off-wiki, but that they were actively seeking to recruit and guide people to edit Wikipedia in a tendentious manner. In the absence of any evidence, it is unacceptable to make such an accusation against Nableezy. RolandR (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but the alleged actions took place off-wiki, and you just said what people do off wiki is none of our business.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. -quote from ArbCom in the CAMERA case. The commitee is responsible for determining who did/didn't do what others accuse, Phearson (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, and that's just it. I have no opinion on whether it is a good or poor block yet, Tariq has not yet sent me the evidence as I requested following his kind offer to all admins. I am however very concerned by the procedure here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt, you seem awfully aggressive about this. I have a life; it's not a crime to not respond to you within two hours. You don't need to repeat in every post that you are waiting for me to respond to your request to forward you the e-mails. In that time, I wish you had reread what I said, because I did not offer to send the evidence to all admins. What I said was "I'm not sure the evidence should be freely handed out to every single admin that requests it." -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why the need to involve ArbCom here? I think we are quite able to discuss a principle of "If you are found to be organising a large-scale campaign to undermine the neutrality of the project, you may be indefinitely blocked" just fine on our own. I don't see much opposition to Tariq's action, or why advocacy of this type is beyond our ability to deal with; generally speaking, the impulse to run to ArbCom at the first sign of drama is a worrying indication of creeping paternalism. Skomorokh 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Tariq sent it there concurrently with his action. It might actually be wise to let them handle it in this case, if they are willing, as it is hard to judge Tariq's action without the evidence (still waiting) and so then then there would have to be a process of sending the info to admins who want to participate in the discussion. ArbCom has confidential listservs and other resources that we don't have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points all, but I think there is enough publicly available information in this instance to make a call that does not rely on private correspondence; my main concern however is that the policy aspect of this is reflexively booted to the Committee without an attempt at hammering something out first. Skomorokh 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a suggested starting point for the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that you are coming very close to imposing a ban on off-wiki criticism by WP users. I suppose that you guys can do that if you choose, but the description control freak comes to mind. If you choose to prohibit these things, it will not change anything for the better more than have past arbcom decisions on I/P issues. Can anyone who proposes these restrictions show that past restrictions have benefited WP by improving I/P articles, or talk page discussion? Simple observation indicates the answer is no. Just lots of WP users (on both sides of the issue) blocked over the years, without any improvements to show for it. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem isn't that he expressed opinions about Wikipedia or even about deficiencies. In my initial comment, I tried to contrast the acts of these two people with what would have been okay. An article on how to join Wikipedia and some information about how it works and its policies is okay; an article on how to game the system is not. An article talking generally about perceived biases on Wikipedia is okay, but an article specifically telling people to chime in on a particular discussion so they vote a particular way is not okay. In this area, many people's political positions have come out in their comments on talk pages, and they have not been penalized for them, even if the existence of them inevitably leads to battlegrounds. We can't prohibit people who have some opinion on this conflict -- many people do, in one way or another -- but we can prohibit disruptive actions. And meatpuppetry, which is what this is, is clearly disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did they ask people to vote a certain way in discussions? And btw, you were going to provide evidence, I'd be grateful for a copy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems a control freak approach. Not to mention thought control. But all the trials I see occurring in the USA, of those accused of 'conspiracy' (essentially the accusation here too), strikes me as punishing those who might have bad thoughts, but have not actually done anything wrong. You have punished those you think have bad intentions, even though you may not be able to prove they have actually done more than talk. I am sure your intent is good, but think what you have done is more problematic than what those you call meatpuppets have done. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Footballer BLP enabled pending changes

    There have been more edits to this article in the past 24 hours than in the whole of 2008. I've turned pending changes on, but the actual facts of the article need sorting out. At the moment it's a self-contradictory mess thanks to the silly back and forth by people who think writing things in Wikipedia will make them come true. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it definately isn't 4chan; all the IPs seem to be UK based, and the chantards have their own 'style', if you could call it that. HalfShadow 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll keep an eye out when I can for the next day or so. If the back and forth is goes up again, I might swap pending changes to semi-protection. Thank you for helping to sort out which Wrong Version is the right one. ☺ I haven't envied you that task. Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Persecution by another editor

    An editor called Smatprt is following me around, calling me a "vandal" and a "sock", gratuitously deleting my posts deletions and has even deleted this edit of mine (which cites a scholarly source) for the second time [51] even though another editor restored it after the first deletion!! He's even deleted my post on a mediation page listing my objections to his behavior [52]. People disagree in life but one should not try to stop the other from speaking ... everyone has a right to be heard. RewlandUmmer (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not everyone has a right to be heard. You've been accused of being a sock puppet of Barryispuzzled (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled/Archive and Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets#Can someone intervene here?, who edits on Baconian issues and, specifically, targets Smatprt's edits. He and his socks don't have a right to edit. Someone will probably look into this shortly (I'm out of time here now). Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no idea who you are, sir, but I'd thank you not to address me as if I'm some common criminal. There is no courage in joining in with the mob when you are hiding behind a computer screen. I'm an academic at a top UK University and deserve far more respect than you are giving me. My username is a sockpuppet for me because like thousand of other editors here, and because of reputation, I don't want to reveal my identity on these forums. I'd also like to see the evidence for what is shaping up to be a false attribution of another's identity to me, presumably because you and this Smatprt fellow are in collusion to protect the Oxfordian theory article at which I made perfectly valid scholarly edits which this Smatprt reverted without justification (another editor reverted his change). But I'm interested how you plan to plant a convicted person's identity on me, which is undoubtedly your dastardly scheme. For example, if you want to claim that I am Professor Roger Penrose, would the fact that we use the same network at our establishment be sufficient? Unless you can satisfactorily answer this question then I ask you to show more respect. RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, whoever you are. And don't attack administrators. They are doing a thankless task that is both onerous and time-consuming. The first lesson here is to be patient. If you are not a sockpuppet, then Smatprt's behaviour will be held against him. It was certainly not wise to make an attack post against him, or anyone, within your first series of edits, a mere two days after registering. And your first edits were to Baconian theory, which led Smatprt to the not unreasonable suspicion (though he should have acted more cautiously) that you might be a sockpuppet of the Baconian Barryispuzzled. Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your measured mediation. But just for clarification, are you saying that anyone who adds a Stratfordian citation to the Baconian article is a Baconian? Are you also saying that there is only one person who has ever edited the Baconian article? RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I'm trying to understand why Smatprt, with whom I have a long-going disagreement, behaved this time in such a precipitate manner. He may well be, and I hope he is, mistaken in the intuition that led him to make those reverts. But I had remonstrated with him, and you appeared out of the blue, with a dismissive remark about the page he edits (not unlike somethings I have said in exasperation in the past). That might well have struck him as less than coincidental. In fairness, therefore, I have written a note to him. I have absolutely no opinion on this. I can understand your indignation. I can understand why Smatprt may have thought you were a previous editor. But the rest is best left to the sober, quiet and patient work of admins. They do clear up these matters eventually. Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug, neither of the links you provided mention RewlandUmmer. Simply being accused of being a sockpuppet is not sufficient cause to delete someone's edits. Furthermore, while I was suspicious of a new editor finding their way to mediation and AN/I within days of arriving, AN/I was recommended to them and I'm assuming mediation was mentioned on the relevant talk page. Also, the mere interest in Shakespearean Authorship and Baconian Theory is far from damning, as I'm sure there's many an english lit major who might find the articles and decide to contribute. Be wary of WP:BITE and be careful not to confuse a new editor with an WP:SPA. I'll look into this issue further and see what the deal is, specifically if there's any quacking going on. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the mediation link on Smatprt talk page. RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's edits should be removed until they have been found to be a sockpuppet or a clearly such (not this case), and the blanket removal by an involved party as here is troubling. This is not a good thing for Smatprt to be doing. Verbal chat 21:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the link to the BarryisPuzzled sockpuppet archive (one of 3!)[[53]]. Feel free to examine the edits and come to your own conclusion. It's painfully obvious that Barry is attempting a comeback. (Amazing how this "new" editor is so familiar with WP editing practices, including some complicated linking formats!) Smatprt (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's easy, my 10 year old son could do that! I simply copied the linking formats from other posts. I also notice that other editors (see Xover below) are starting to see my willingness to provide information here as a welcome opportunity to join in the baiting. So I intend to back away from here and wait for the admins to look into it. RewlandUmmer (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, the pattern exhibited by RewlandUmmer since the account was registered matches Barryispuzzled and his socks so well that I was considering whether a case should be filed at WP:SPI to determine the truth; Barry's favorite target was Smatprt, for reasons related both to the topic (SAQ and Barry is a Bacon guy vs. Oxford for Smatprt) and because Smatprt was instrumental in getting the socking shut down; and Barry's MO is definitely to try to stir things up and play mind games (he used one sock to attack one of his other socks to try to garner sympathy and defenders). Incidentally, an IP edit made to RewlandUmmer may be helpful in determining who's who here (and it is geographically plausible as Barry). --Xover (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I don't care for attacking this Smatprt person. The conflict arose because this guy turned up and deleted a Stratfordian citation I had added to the Oxfordian article which, by the way, another editor put back in. Those are the facts. RewlandUmmer (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=380229851"