Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

NW (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • You need to make those buttons a little larger, as my eyesight ain't what it used to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not really an incident, though, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the buttons, "um"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This button leads not to specific articles, but to random articles tagged unreferenced BLP, which is not a bad idea. Of the first two I checked, one had been referenced since Feb 20, 2009, with links to published reviews,and should never have been marked unreferenced. (Whether the reviews offer sufficient extensive and reliable coverage to support notability might be another matter); The second can be referenced easily from GNews (though whether they actually support sufficient notability is another matter also)--perhaps the note was placed here to indicate the excessiveness of the fuss over these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to add a "Source a BLP" link to the sidebar, perhaps just under "Random article"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, I like that idea. And I'm pleased to say that Halid Muslimović is also removed from that category. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or can this be made into a templated button, for interested user to transclude on their pages? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's also defaulting me back to the nonsecure interface to do this, which results in my other username being used... Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody shrink those, please? That's kind of obnoxiously large. HalfShadow 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a great motivational tool: let's have the size of the buttons directionally proportional to the number of tagged unreferenced BLPs ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=D Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... could you change the title of the button to "Read a piece of unmonitored potential slander"? Works just as well for either description.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• instead of editing the button, source a BLP. that's what i did!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random idea; could we have this as a watchlist notice for maybe a week? Nothing heavy, just a short intro with a link to this tool --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template created at {{uBLP refbutton}}. Access Denied 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is exactly the sort of being on the wrong page and two steps behind that I'm talking about. If you had been reading the noticeboard page where the discussion is actually happening, you would have noticed the existence of Template:Big Red Button, substituted above but transcluded on the proper discussion page, which was created a month ago. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am forced to Facepalm on behalf of us all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

Its about time we banned this long time troll. He has caused unending disruption and endless usertalk trolling, and banning him will give us so much more leeway revertin his edits. access_denied (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support without any regret for the ban - enough was enough. Jcarleo has been trolling for years and he was blocked indefinetly in June for his actions. Now due to his trolling and recent sockpuppetry, I can say that serious disruption and trolling will not be tolerated at all, as well as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has also proven that he will not be fit for this site after all. So, this is a necessary end for this user. Wikipedia needs administrators, trusted users (like myself), and bureaucrats, but not trolls and users/IPs who vandalize Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - [1] 20 socks!? We can do without this guy. Jusdafax 05:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - 20 isn't even close to the actual number of socks he has. Also see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jcarleo, and know that we (actually I) stopped tagging his IPs/accounts after he continuously kept removing them with new socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For those of us who have never heard of this individual, it might help to provide a few diffs as to why exactly he should be banned? --Elonka 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: months of vandalism, disruption and harassment is enough. I see no constructive edits jcarleo has made nor do I see any in the near future. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Has there been a SPI to link the accounts? There's not one on the main account that I found...

We have to have reasonable information on which to base ban proposals. This one so far is sorely lacking evidence. Please expand with edit history, SPI, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One place to start would be to look at the history for User:C.Fred, as well as the filtered edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the history for User:C.Fred, as well as the filtered edits"? Someone post some actual evidence and links, please. This is all incredibly opaque. We can't agree to banning someone based on this kind of shaky evidence. Fences&Windows 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one of many reasons to ban him... access_denied (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. That's a link to the history, which tells us nothing. Give us some diffs please.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LemonMonday (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

LemonMonday is currently blocked for editwarring with User:Fmph at Belgium. This is very interesting because he had just reverted Fmph on Climate of Ireland to an unsourced position in the last 2 days.

Both of these editors have worked the British Isles naming dispute area. LemonMonday has been a single purpose account whose main space edits from 2008 - Winter 2010 were made up of reverts of User:HighKing at articles they (LM) have never edited before. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] He was also recently blocked for violating WP:BATTLE twice (October 30th and October 8th by Jehochman)[9]. Jehochman was convinced to unblock following this promise by LemonMonday. Subsequently LemonMonday raised two malformed article RFCs [10][11] - he was advised, by me, on how to fix the RFC at WP:BISE[12] but do date he has not. These RFCs discussed the subject of British Isles rather than how to improve the articles. The RFC on Talk:British Isles borders on falling under WP:NOT as it asks a question beyond the remit of Wikipedia to consider at all.

The above issues with this account fall under disruptive editing generally, but more specifically, WP:POINT, WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLE. LemonMonday was warned only a week ago that single purpose accounts are “expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda” (per the ArbCom ruling at the Race and Intelligence RfAr[13]). This recent spurt of reverts is alarming because LemonMonday has never edited either of these articles before. LemonMonday is now following another editor around reverting them.[14][15][16][17][18][19] LemonMonday has been the subject of a series of ANI threads in 2010[20][21][22], there are also issues with this account going all the way back to 2008[23]. Each one coming to the conclusion that LemonMonday was making pointy edits incompatible with Wikipedia.

Proposed remedy

I’ve been enforcing the British Isles probation for the last few months, but I now believe that LM’s issues with Wikipedia policy are beyond the scope of just that probation. It is time that this editor learned either to abide by policy or is simply prevented from disrupting others. Hence I put forward to the community that LemonMonday should be either:

• Community banned from Wikipedia, per WP:BAN.
• Or given a full topic ban from all British Isles, Britain and Ireland topics widely construed and banned from interacting with volunteers who are editing in that topic area, per WP:GS/BI and WP:BAN.

--Cailil ^talk 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discussion part one

Though I'm no longer involved with BISE, I'd recommend waiting until the LM account's 72hr block expires, before continuing further on disciplinary action. It was annoying enough having the LB account's continous protests over it's civility sanctions being passed during its own block. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point GD but if the community wants to look at a full site ban I'll unblock LM on the condition that he only posts here. If the community wants to take the other road it's unnecessary. This isn't a court proceeding it's moderation of an internet project - our contrib history speaks for us--Cailil ^talk 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at your first diff there in your list Calil - if you look at the 12 diffs from 3rd October to 8th October - there is a budding little edit war (8 edits) there about tags involving several recognisable names from BISE. On your second diff, HighKing reverts a different editor, TharkunColl, twice, on an article he has never edited before, in order to exclude the word british isles. LemonMonday then reverts him once. I haven't yet looked through all the diffs but I remember noting in the previous ANI thread on this subject that certain editors were being pilloried for reverting edits on articles they'd never edited before when in fact the editors making the original change or original revert had never edited them before either. I shall look through the other diffs too. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 3 - another little two reverts each edit war between User:HighKing and user:TharkunColl on British Isles versus British Islands (!?!) then one revert from Lemon Monday. Nobody having edited it before.

Number 4 same again. Looks like a series of little articles on fauna, translated from nl.

Number 5 same again.

Number 6 is a little different. It dates to October 2008. However, again it is an edit war between TharkunColl and HighKing started by this peculiar edit by HighKing. Lemon Monday comes in for the last edit.

Number 7 is his contribs.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point Fainites. HK's edits then, 2008, were extremely problematic but HK's edit pattern changed. That does not excuse LM's wikihounding then, nor does it now of Fmph. LM should not be involving himself in revert warring at all anywhere - he fact that he has chosen to follow users he is in disagreement with elsewhere just makes that worse. He has been doing this since '08 to present.
If there is a problem LM should report it - as he has been invited to do for months. Rather than do so he has breached 3RR and the British Isles topic probation. And he has done so after blocks, warnings and community input (ANi threads etc). Therefore he knows he should be doing this and is choosing to anyway.
On the matter of the usage of WP:BISE (which is/was part of the problem) that is being reformed to come in line with site standards and if I find anyone from either side editing in a manner incompatible with WP:5 they'll be brought here. W.hat makes this especially serious from my perspective is that LM's edits have the appearence of hounding a user he's in disagreement with in an Ireland topic area to another topic area - in other words the BI dispute is being spilt over onto unrelated pages.
I included teh contribs deliberately so people can have quick access to LM's main space edits to see how many are and are not reverts--Cailil ^talk 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not waving a flag for LemonMonday! It just seems to me that if HighKing changes British Isles where he can and then revert wars to keep it that way, I don't see why the last reverter in line is the only one criticised when none of them have edited any of these articles other than to edit war over British Isles. I don't see how HK's editing pattern has changed that much except that he very carefully keeps under 3 reverts. It also seems to me that if an editor spends his time hunting down and removing a legitimate term he has taken a particular dislike to then it seems odd to complain if other editors hunt down his changes and revert them. Technically the latter could be called hounding or stalking - but then what is HKs activity called? (By the way "British Islands" is not a term I have ever heard in all my puff). Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the later set of diffs - these aren't BISE punch ups. The argument is over adding northern european climate as the norm. Fmph and LemonMonday each reported each other for 3RR/edit-warring.lemonMonday reported and Fmph for 3RR/edit-warring and another editor reported lemonMonday. LemonMonday was 3RR and got 72 hours. Fmph wasn't. I agree they are BISE spin-offs though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fmph wasn't what? And please strike your comment that I reported LM. I didn't. Fmph (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't 3RR. And sorry - it wasn't you that reported LemonMonday.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fmph (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind anybody who's eyes haven't glazed over at the mention of the word BISE, the terms of the probation are Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. By that definition, HighKing and TharkunColl's behaviour should be looked at as well. British Islands appears in some translated stubs. TharkunColl changes British Islands to British Isles. HK reverts. TharkunColl reverts it back and HighKing reverts again. Then LemonMonday reverts HighKing. Just looking at number 3, none of them could have looked at the reference which clearly gives a map of Europe. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is turning into the usual. Let's put up a HK smokescreen and TOTALLY forget the issue at hand. Bjmullan (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a somewhat bad faith way of looking at it Bjmullan. I have not been "involved" in BISE until I looked into it quite recently simply because of it's frequent appearance here and I find a lot of it frankly absurd. I call it like I see it. If you have any detailed challenge to what I say the diffs show - by all means expound it here. I am not - as I said - waving a flag for LemonMonday. I am indicating that examination of the diffs so far appears to indicate that all 3 may well not be abiding by either the spirit or letter of the probation. Obviously diffs will need to be examined further.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not. Why exactly am I being dragged into this for edits since 2008 that are nearly 3 years old? Before BISE was started? Before BISE sanctions were even talked about and created? Now *that's* bad faith. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first diff is 2010 and most of the others are late 2009. The probation may be more recent but the same arguments and problems have been going for years. I raised this point because the diffs regarding LemonMonday were provided although I take your point that TharkinColl was not involved in 2010. Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the nub of the problem, and the nub of *your* biased view. Since 2008, my behaviour has changed. I learned, I discussed, I am civil. I work with the community. I follow policy. What is being highlighted here is LemonMonday's behaviour and failure to meaningfully contribute, and *your* failure to objectively look at his behaviour and instead try to turn this into (yet another) "Close Down BISE" or "HighKing is evil" rant. Your own opinion on the merits or otherwise of BISE (which are pretty well known) should not be confused with objectively examining Cailil's opening statement and LM's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And is anyone going to tell the editors in question that their motives and behaviour is being questioned at ANI? Fmph (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites while as I said above I see your point about the edits in 2008 by HK but the reason I bring up LMs edits from 2008 is because his pattern of main space edits is the same as it was then and becuase LM has a very limited number of article contribs - most of them reverts of HighKing and now a new more serious pattern of hounding is starting.
This thread is about a pattern of abuse by LemonMonday from 2008 to present. The reformed BISE should deal with any further 'first mover issues'. LM has a pattern of about 60 hounding reverts from his last 100 cntribs regardless of the topic probation that stretch from September 2008 to present, that is the issue here not whether HK and TharkinColl were sanctioned (btw TharkinColl was sanctioned by BlackKite in the period you discuss). As I have stated many times if HK was continuing in the vein he had been in 2008 his edits would be an issue for me. But he's not. This thread is going back on topic - to deal with the issue of LemonMonday's behaviour at present and his choice to ignore 1 and half years worth of advice and warnings to change--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. My concern was that the list of edits you raised showed BISE behaviour from a number of editors rather than a pattern of LemonMonday hounding one editor, mostly in late 2009 and one in 2010. It seems to me that if there is a campaign to remove the use of a particular phrase from wikipedia, there will inevitably be a counter campaign in the other direction with most if not all of those involved following each other's edits. The recent diff in 2010 involved several BISE editors. I take my hat off to you for trying to police this situation and keep it within bounds. I have not really commented substantially on the situation with Fmph except to say LM 3RRd and Fmph didn't. I agree this thread should get back on topic. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs Fainites. I just want to deal with what's in front of me first. I do sincerly think that the problem you mention (the firt mover in these revert wars) should be resolved by BISE's review. I see a problem with any campaign to remove any term anywhere on WP and I hope and trust that the preponderance of good editors (those who put WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR firt) at BISE will keep things in order if editing atmosheres can be normalized--Cailil ^talk 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the bottomline. I am not accusing anyone but am stating clearly for non-involved editors the context and what has been going on in this area.

This is the third time Cailil has initiated a banning discussion against someone who was blocked from defending themselves in the British Isles area; myself, Triton Rocker and now LemonMonday. More than "annoying" doing so seem plainly unethical to me. In all three cases, despite the same group of editors being involved in similar behaviour, the proposed sanctions have always been one-sided. "The Community" applying such sanctions rarely goes outside of the same involved characters.

It takes two or three to tango. At the very least, to appear fair, the ban/sanction should be two way. This issue has been raised before by others [24] and myself recently on his talk page. Fmph is a British Isles renaming dispute regular, not estranged from and edit wars in this area. SarekOfVulcan has also involved himself in editing warring in this area. LemonMonday just fell for a simple "gotcha". I have not looked closely at the timestamps but if he is editing from the UK, he may well have done so overnight and thought himself to be clear of any possible 3RR. He did the responsible thing but reporting an edit-war first. [{WP:AGF]]

Looking at the edit it would seem an exceptionally petty issue of no great importance or damage to the Wikipedia. Never before has Belgium been so exciting. Reading the source Fmph gave, there is no mention of Belgium in it nor specific geographic definition of it and so surely it was correct to remove it?

Reading what Fainites writes about the validity of all the references, once we remove their apparently impressive barrage and all the policy talk, do we really have anything of substance here? Are there really any terrible abuses going on? No, not at all. HighKing is again dragged back into the discussion as progenitor of the problems. Bjmullan comes in again to support on one side. [25] Snowded will soon appear to propose a case by case approach. It is the same old British Isles renaming dispute, business as usual.

If there is something to be done regarding the British Isles renaming dispute, it should be done fairly and en masse rather than the same admins taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game. It goes without saying that doing so changes the balance of the discussion on British Isles related issues. Coincidentally it is always to advantage one side's while other abuses are ignored.

I have recently suggested that what is really needed is to take the British Isles renaming dispute issue to Arbcom and was accused sorely for doing so by Cailil but, for everyone's sake, we need somewhere where the events will be looked at fairly by uninvolved third parties and moderated. This attempted sanction is just part of a bigger play and should not be allowed on its own. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise reading this and this also to get a flavour of these absurd disputes - absurd on all sides. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just call the place Lizland (l'island) and be done with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wot, Belgium? Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd call Belgium other names.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, LB fails to mention anything about LM following me first to Climate of Ireland, and later to Belgium, articles he had never previously edited. Neither does he explain why any edit to the Belgium article has anything to do with the British Isles (Hint: the correct answer is that it doesn't so it's pretty safe to assume that LMs actions were against me, and not against what I was editing). And the bad faith allegations and emotive language against Cailil (talk · contribs) "taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game" is pretty typical of his/her ad hominem attack style. Unreal! Fmph (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fmph ignore this please I have asked LB to strike his ad hominem remarks--Cailil ^talk 13:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have the usual name calling. The fact is that over the last year High King has played by the rules and has proposed changes on the task force page and accepted community decisions. I sometimes think it might be a good idea for the community to appoint someone to go through the edit histories of the main players and establish some facts so that we could avoid these smoke screens in the future. In contrast to HighKing Lemon and Levin have just been nay sayers, arguing for the insertion of BI whenever they can and objecting to its removal with few if any exceptions. They are both SPAs. And yes, I will continue to say that we have to resolve this issue on a case by case basis using references. The behaviour of both SPAs is not helpful to that, but LemonMonday is constantly breaking WP:AGF and edit wars at the drop of a hat. A topic ban at least I think. --Snowded ^TALK 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction discussion

What is being proposed is that LemonMonday is either site banned or topic banned from all Britain and Ireland topics and banned from interacting with all editors involved at the British Isles naming dispute anywhere on wikipedia. The reasons are given in full in the first post along with diffs, but in short LemonMonday has a pattern of hounding reverts of editors from the British Isles topic. That is now extending beyond the topic into other areas thus creating a battleground and revert warring thus disrupting the project to make a point--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months, and see if the editor can do better after a break from the topic. This is a measure I think we should use more frequently, before things come to an indefinite topic ban or site ban. (Part of me is tempted to topic ban/interaction ban the entire BISE crowd for 3 months - Wikipedia won't collapse in their absence, and they might return to the topic later on a bit wiser.) Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for block/ban applied to entire BISE crowd. If it takes two to tango, HighKing's British Isle renaming dispute WP:BISE is a Buenos Aires ballroom (and Buenos Aires is neither in the British Isles nor Britain and Ireland, although they have just opened up a Grill in Dublin [26] which I suppose makes Ireland the largest geographic area ... zzzz).

If there is need for any sanctioning or banning, and this case look very petty and one sided, it should involve both parties equally. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which 'both' parties? The reason that it's 'one-sided' (in your narrow POV), is that only one side is behaving badly. The preferred response would be for 'both' sides to behave properly and then the balance would be restored. So you chivy up 'your' lot to behave properly and I'll talk to 'my' lot. This response smacks of desperation as it looks like you may lose your tag team partner, so your repsonse is to ban everyone on the other side of the argument, who have been behaving themselves. Fmph (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and LemonMonday. The dispute in itself if not worth a fig but using it as an excuse to take out a player in the British Isle renaming dispute is. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what have I done wrong to warrant being banned? Don't you get it? LM broke the rules. I didn't. That's why the proposal is to topic-ban LM. Good grief. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is right! Fmph (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LevenBOy you have had FULL and fair warning to abide by your editing restriction and stop using wikipedia as a battleground either strike your commentry calling my actions unethical/involved, and your opiniosn about other users or you will be blocked for breaching that restriction (full warning given here)--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months and to be applied just as stringently (and perhaps more swiftly) to other editors who cannot abide by community policies. Enough is enough, it's time to get tough. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

resolution?

• Given that there seems to be a consensus here for a topic ban with interaction ban and that the same consensus exists for the same action from a previous ANi thread only a water of days ago[27] - I will impose this sanction within 24 hours. It should also be noted that this ban is within the remit of topic's probation and is a discretionary sanction. I am happy to review it after 3 months and 6 months. If I am unavailable or unwilling to do so at those times I am open for the community to do so here or at another appropriate forum or for the ArbCom to do so.
  However, I'm leaving a window open here in case LemonMonday wants to say anything constructive, and indeed in case LevenBoy wishes to retract the remarks he has been directed to redact as violations of his civility parole.
  If nothing happens within the next 24 hours both accounts will be notified of the actions pertaining to their accounts, LemonMonday topic banned from all British Isles naming topics widely construed (see TB02 listed at WP:GS/BI - that is a ban from both editing and discussing in any way whatever) and is banned from interacting with users from that area of dispute. Furthermore if LevenBoy does not remove his disruptive remarks in breach of behavioural restriction as notified, he will be blocked for violating his civility parole.
  Any outside opinions on this are vey welcome--Cailil ^talk 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would have no problem with that. Mo ainm~Talk 19:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support your handling of this difficult situation and also your proposed actions. Bjmullan (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure three editors - one of them heavily involved - one tempted to ban the whole BISE crowd, for, with one other heavily involved against counts as consensus for a topic ban. The complete lack of outside opinion on this may be a clue here. One could speculate forever as to why the usual bunch of commentators here do not comment either way but the fact is they don't. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I entitled this "resolution?". And just so you know as listed above every thread about LM comes to the same point if he continues disrupting the project its time to topic ban. That was the resolution in November and August.
I am however trying to open this to floor for discussion. I'm notaware that Rd232 is involved in this and I was including the consensus from the last discussion as well.
It should be noted though I've brought this here to discuss either a full site ban or a topic ban. There was no support for the site ban. The topic ban is within the remit of the probation and can be administered if an uninvolved sysop deems it appropriate - hence my mention of the sanction as discretionary. I am happy to leave this open for more input and if none is forth coming I'll ask a few uninolved sysops to review before acting. Personally the first thing I'd like to see is a constructive response from LM and LB, that if it came would help them both--Cailil ^talk 01:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN § Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn.Kathir

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Ibn.Kathir has been using quite aggressive language; baiting and insulting users. Such language can be categorized as attacks based on race, religion, /creed, etc. The user is continuously refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content on Talk:Aisha despite being urged to do so by various users. Other users have tried to point out during discussion that they are uncomfortable with her/his words but s/he relies on same language. S/He during discussions at various times have used sectarian words discrediting all attempts for abusive in nature. He is too busy in pushing her/his agenda (of discrediting all Western and Shia Muslim sources & is even selective regarding Sunni sources & selection of matter from them, I quote her/him ,"...most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic...") to respect anyone's opinion &/or Wikipedia policies. It seems s/he has set her/his own guidelines and policy regarding acceptable references. Few of his comments are as follows:

• idiocy of the...
• i wont agree to any sunni sources that are quoted or sourced from shia or shia sources...
• turning this into a shia propaganda piece...
• More idiotic shia misquotes...

S/He has consistently shown his hate/dislike towards Shia, Ahmadiya, and western community in general & scholarship in specific. S/He has shown similar behavior on pages Talk:Criticism of Muhammad, Talk:Abu Bakr, etc.
Also, it seems User:Ibn.Kathir is employing sockpupputs to advance her/his cause, e.g. User:Ewpfpod, User:Howard.Thomas, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, etc
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a content dispute, from your explanation. If you think there's sockpuppetry involved, you should file an WP:SPI report. Also, User:Ibn.Kathir doesn't appear to be registered; did you misspell the username? GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it is Ibn_kathir.--Korruski^Talk 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informed the user and corrected the username in the thread heading. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks like a content dispute" ? This matter was filed because of bad user conduct, how is;

More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has.

simply a content dispute? Tarc (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to quote the entire sentence; I made it clear I hadn't been able to locate the discussion and that from the quotes the user provided it appeared to be a content dispute. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Certainly not a content dispute - civility with perhaps a racism undertone starting. Nothing blockable yet from what I see - of course, this is an issue that should have been at WP:WQA first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, correct name is User:Ibn kathir. And yes it is regarding content dispute but it seems s/he agrees to nothing and keep using allegations and accusations towards users, communities, creeds, etc. I didn't requested for blocking anyone I just reported the happening and my concerns. The attitude of user is blocking activity on Aisha & it seems on other articles also. We have tried to engage the user but s/he refuse to be constructive contributor. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's not just a content dispute. I've warned them about crossing the line into abuse, hopefully they will take heed. Fences&Windows 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI report was filed on 30 November at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi by Faizhaider. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments where not aimed at him and meant in the general sense which is different from saying someone is specifically an idiot, further more anyone who can check ip addresses will see i have only one account so i think the person reporting this is doing their utmost to silence any opposition to his views.Ibn kathir (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a group of people idiots rather than a specific individual only magnifies the problem. If you are calling more than one person an idiot, its a personal attack against more than one person. It certainly doesn't excuse the behavior. --Jayron32 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way to handle this, Ibn, is don't comment on other editors, comment only on content and how to echo sources in the text. Keep in mind, some sources might not agree with other sources and more than one outlook on a topic can be cited, following WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you read the entire section you may come to think the other persons actions [quotations] where deliberate considering what i said earlier, hence my outburst, but yes you are right and i will tone it down. Just to clarify something Shia are not a race so their is no racist undertones. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, sometimes and in some places, see Shia as ethnically linked. Either way, putting down a whole swath of believers in a given strain of faith can be every bit as harmful as a racial slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never intend to silence any opposition, in contrary I (& others) tried to include user IK into the discussion and tried to address IK's views and comments even if they were opposite to mine (this can be checked by referring to the conversation on Talk:Aisha) but IK insisted on some points which are even contrary to WP standards (infact we were ready to accept that also and we asked for list of references IK will agree but to no avail). I only reported incident to ANI when it became unbearable for me (& to other users) so that corrective measures may be taken.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no less hurtful or harmfull than calling Aisha a wretched women, read the comments and you will clearly see that being said prior to anything from myself. She is considered a saint among my people. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither making a religious slur, nor answering with another slur, is on here. It only makes things worse (as seems to have happened). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add User:Ibn kathir insulted me as well in Abu Bakr and Islam and Aisha talk pages, and he called my contributions idiotic and garbages [28].--Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User IK was the first person on Talk:Aisha to use words like idiotic and garbages and down play opinions of others by labeling them fringe/minority belief/opinion and addressing users based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. e.g. Shia, Ahmadiya, Western, etc. User IK opinioned that no reference on the article Aisha is acceptable except Sunni sources that to interpreted by Sunni scholars and used by Sunni users i.e. practically user IK wants to block away all users from article who contradict opinion of User IK based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. User IK is sort of running Non-cooperation movement added with insults and accusations which target whole communities save individuals.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a western person cant be anti western, the best muslims i have met in terms of hospitality and respect are the shia of iraq so im not anti shia, labeling something as inherently shia [such as thier hatred among other thing for the prophets wife's and companions which is exclusively their belief hence the label] is not anti a community its just stating a fact, and none of what you have said is relevant on this admin board so i dont know what else you are trying to prove. I will concede that the incident played out different in my mind but the time stamps say something else, but as i clearly stated earlier i was reacting to the other users quotes and accusations in which he essentially said Aisha the prophets wife hated her husband and lied about him and then their is this blatant lie in which he claimed the prophet called his own wife "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” i know the full context of the hadith and its explanation by experts in exegesis and it has nothing to do with Aisha, but again this has nothing to do with the admin board.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add prior to the quotes i had advised the other editor that primary research would not be accepted and pointed him to the relevant wiki policy of primary research after which he thanked me for the advise and said i had made matters easier for him and not long after he quotes what i stated and said the above, i thought it was a deliberate attack against her.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Ibn Kathir, what was written in Aisha page, were from prominent western secondary sources. That western orientalists have reported Aisha's life the way you don't like is not problem of Shia, it's your problem, and you can not solve this problem by insulting Shia users.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions, User is acting in bad faith and personally attacking other editors over his edits at Softpedia. He is not quite understanding policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and others. He's been warned but it seems he has a disregard for what he has done. Input greatly appreciated. Momo san ^Talk 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the user definitely got off to an unpleasant start, there are a few signs for hope that xhe'll improve. After initially editing in the same way as User:193.226.140.133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), xhe's registered an account. After being asked, xhe's started signing posts. The sniping seems to have slowed down, if not stopped. I would urge that we show a little patience with a novice editor. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you've identified folk correctly? Isn't KeepInternetSafe&Clean the user who was 69.114.240.113? Surely 193.226.140.133 is the Softpedia CoI editor on the other side of the dispute? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, my head hurts! Yes, David's got it right. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am allowed to post here (if not my appologies)...I am posting here my last two posts from the talk page KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, like a few "volunteers" before you, you still don't answer to the point, why YOU DELETE my contribution and DO NOT DELETE softpedia ADVERTISING (I should say free advertising). Can you please answer to this simple question? Thank you. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of info, a lot of reviews, media, people in the know give the warning that Wikipedia can not be trusted. I see that with my own eyes now, and before I get out (and never visit this website) I want to make a suggestion regarding your “strict” policy regarding verifiable source of info. I understand that policy to be applied for well-known topics that have been written about in many media sources. I think is a non-sense, a disservice to users asking that policy to be applied to a trivial, un-known, insignificant topic like www.softpedia.com. Where somebody can find such “verifiable” sources? Should we go and ask media, Web-security companies, PC magazine to rate web-sites like this every year or so? Allowing only one point of view (theirs), given them the liberty to publicize what and how they are doing their thing and not allowing another point of view, a “check” to agree/disagree to their saying, I don’t think that is correct and conform to what big Jimbo thinks that Wikipedia should stand for.

Just for the sake of discussion (you guys cost me too much time anyway), can I escalate this issue to a higher-up level, supervisor(s), maybe mr Jimbo?

Thanks. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cerberus, is this link a verifiable one, according to your NPOV policy? Based on that, I want to add to softpedia webpage that they use deceptive layout and ads making difficult for user to find the download link. CAN I DO THAT OR YOU WILL ACCUSE ME AGAIN OF VANDALIZING? http://website-in-a-weekend.net/making-money/advertising-design/

"Integration, not deception

Notice how hard it can be hard to find the real download link on download pages hosted on some download websites with white backgrounds like Softpedia which host freeware, shareware, and trialware? Tricky, right? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users feeling tricked and might not return to your site. And that’s bad for future earnings from ad clicks."

• That is a page of business advice wich does not tell very much about Softpedia. I don't think a page of business advice is a good reference for an encyclopedia. NotARealWord (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept references only from CNN, New York Times and what else? You are so biased. This site of professionals says that Softpedia is tricky for users, what I keep saying for a week, and you still don't accept it?!? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Softpedia mention is only a small comment. A review about Softpedia itself works much better for it's article. NotARealWord (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user should be blocked for a short time for failing to understand what Reliable Sources mean and the fact he is personally attacking other editors per WP:NPA. Momo san ^Talk 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Momo, whom and how did I attack personally? You are wrongly accusing me again. I see a pattern here from Wikipedia editors. Saying that you are "useless" is a matter of opinion, it is a free country, nothing offending, to the majority of users/visitors of this site, what you guys are doing, hiding the truth=you are of no use. Cerberus?!? Nothing offending,somebody should be proud of such a nickname, meaning u r doing a good job for your master. Bottom line Wikipedia and the editors censuring my saying against softpedia, you are so pitiful, a totally embarassment. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

QED. David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we indef block this guy? Per this, he's been indef blocked twice already with other accounts, one being the super-troll User:Bad edits r dumb. All of Fat Man's edits are trolling, and he has been calling other users "dumb" constantly as of late. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For saying what? "I hate admins?". Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any recent diffs to support problems recently? Wikipedia review notwithstanding, do you have any on-wiki evidence of recent disruption? Perusing his recent contributions, I do find some positive content work, including some extensive work on expanding and cleaning up at least one or two articles. While content work cannot override bad behavior, his edits don't appear to have consisted of, "All... trolling" as you claim. I am well aware of this users past, blocked identities, but given that he seems to have turned over a new leaf, and is not currently causing a problem, on what specific, diff-supported grounds do you wish to see him blocked? --Jayron32 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[29], [30], [31], [32] to name a few. I just think that his trolling has far outweighed any positive contributions he has made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI section is more disruptive than anything linked above. Please contribute to the encyclopedia rather than attempting to ban a good editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone keep trying to defend this troll? "Good" editors don't have their main accounts indef blocked four times now. His unblock requests even show that he is just a troll (see his talk page). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please side with love rather than hate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The love you take is equal to the love you make." Such as the love shown for both the editors and for the English language, in comments like "u r dumb." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's time to block. Per my comments here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's four sketchy edits in the past month. I agree that the 4 edits you provided are bad, and should ideally never happen, but I do not think that they rise to the level of instantly blockable. --Jayron32 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with an indef block. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You people are being unnecessarily ruthless and thin-skinned. Users should not be blocked for something they wrote on another website with the exceptions of canvassing and child pornography.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[33], [34], [35]... all within the past month. I don't read the crap he writes on WR, I am basing this purely on his disruptive editing here and with his other trolling account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said "u r dumb" as recently as today.[36] Having escaped 4 indef's, he probably figures he's teflon. Maybe time to apply the brillo pad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon is cheap and artificial; I'm more like carefully seasoned cast iron, rich with years' build-up of carbonized grease and free of metallic flavor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery, either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why start off with a link to WR? That appears to be the motivation for this thread. These wiki-links (mostly from early November) appear to be attempts at humor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey, Saturn, U R dumb!" That was pretty funny, yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I LOLed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will now file a grievance at WP:EQ.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shaking in my jackboots. :) Or is it Fat Man who'll be your target? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The things that really made me start this thread were (1) his post on WR right after BErD was indef blocked, and (2) the diff provided by Bugs to TCNSV's talk page, which is on my watchlist. I searched through WR for the original post (I assumed no one else made the connection between the two accounts yet, for which I was mistaken), but found this one instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After Fat Man's sock was blocked for giving wikipedians the BErD, it's odd that his original account was allowed to continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind what I said earlier, based on his last comments here today, he shows no remorse or signs of intending to take the project seriously. I would support an indefinitate block here. Significant is his prior history. I would never think of blocking a user if this was the sum total of problems. But given his extensive history of general trolling, I see no evidence he intends to stop. --Jayron32 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, er, refactored my comments, like when i said that guy was dumb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeh,[37] after the threat of indef started to look realistic, and meanwhile invoking the ID of your indef'd sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every comment here, including this one, is troll feeding. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM P-:--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, again, are we not blocking him until he starts acting like an adult human being again? --Conti|✉ 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, clearly hasn't changed and is evading block. Someone just do it. Netalarm^talk 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! i will submit to mentorship and adoption and arbcom sanctions and all manner of indignities. but pls don't block me because i have a lot of constructive edit todo before i die. :-(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope this means you're going to die soon... HalfShadow 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly at the end of something resembling cable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HE MADE DEATH THREATS TO ME!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Looks like a hope for divine intervention of some kind. That's not a death threat. Unless he has God's private phone number on speed-dial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Times like this I wish the computer had a punch button. Isn't there a cartoon you could be watching, Fat? HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Judging by that block log, the blocked sock and the several nonsensical comments above, the user is either on a long-term trolling campaign or simply does not have the temperament required for useful contribution in a collegial, collaborative, adult environment. I agree with Jayron32 and Eagles247 and support an indefinite block.  Sandstein  22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i hope you do not become an arbcom sandstein becos you are wrong in this case. also a lot of my block log are outright MISTAKES (do your research) but a couple of them were legitamate and things like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note I have blocked User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back indefinitely for trolling and disruption. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef

I see a whole lot wrong with this block, and it needs to be undone. First, several of the diffs above are old and have nothing to do with current activity. Second, Eagles jumped into a matter that was already settled. Third, the allegation that TFM has made no productive edits is simply wrong. Is no one paying attention here? You don't get to re-block someone based on an old, already visited block without new problems. This is a bad block, looking like someone just wanted to block The Fat Man based on a months old post to WR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that another boomerang coming this way? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's troubling that Eagles247 puts up old diffs, of an already discussed unblock, then alleges no productive edits (which TFM's contribs clearly shows is untrue), jumps into an already settled matter to allege disruption, and then everyone else piles on like sheep and no one bothers to check. Bad all 'round. If you want to block TFM, you can't do it because you don't like something he wrong on WR months ago. Is anyone paying attention here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I made a judgment solely on his contributions on Wikipedia, not WR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i actually agree with this block, but why did the administrator Eagles start the thread in the 1st place if he was just going to block the guy regaldess of anything anyone here said? why not just do it yourslef if you werent seeking consensapproval without going through this weird ritual? User:Smith Jones 22:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what Eagles was doing in there at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would have agreed with the block being a person who supported indef before, there was no consensus in here for a block, the best solution is to create an RFC. So unblock and develop a better consensus on this Secret ^account 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to do anything as big as this without first getting the opinions of the community. I am still a newer admin, and TFM has been indef blocked many times and subsequently unblocked. I waited a little bit for another admin here to do it, but I decided to step up and do it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is really poor reasoning, as are your old diffs, your diff to an old post on WR, and the 22 minutes you allowed for discussion. Please undo this bad block now, and gain consensus for an indef. Deciding to "step up and do it" doesn't show the valiant judicious decision you might think it does; it shows impulsivity and a lack of diligence or even review of the matter. What brought you to this matter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandy - did you even read the crappy luz-filled edits from this editor just above?. I give him top marks for being a manupilative and clever little prick, and artfully manouvering various editors as they jump though wiki-hoops to AGF etc. etc. Ultimately however a pointless troll whose fun needs to end (if only because we're all bored of it now - Fat Man - seven year olds find repetitive comedy humorous - the rest of us like fresh material - there's a good chap) - keep blocked and block the future socks. It's not complex. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pedro, why are you not blocked for calling another editor a "clever little prick"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know Sandy - perhaps you have an idea - why not fill the rest of us in on your thoughts? Whilst we're at it I've a mental list of admins and bureaucrats whose behaviour has gone well beyond blocking yet nothing ether happens - your mate Raul being a shining example. I'm sure there must be a reason why these people (me included) don't seem to get blocked.... Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a freshly minted admin making a mark. But others weighing in here didn't exactly look at evidence before issuing an indef. Wrong on many levels; 22 minutes between notification and indef block? That's lots of discussion. Unblock needed. Pedro, I think LULZ is a rather normal response when one is targetted by a freshly minted admin. Yes, I went through all the diffs before weighing in here; how many of you did ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, with respect I'm not exactly the most block happy admin around - but the "oh look a death threat" and "nom nom" all caps bullshit is hardly overlookable. I don't need to remind you that indef doe not mean infinite..... I personally think we'd all be happier without Fat Man, but that's my opinion only and consensus may well be different. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For gosh sakes, why not respond with lulz to something as stupid as this? Beats indignation. Of course, we don't yet know the background or what brought Eagles247 to this matter anyway. Maybe you'd be happier without TFM, but speak fer yerself. I'd be happier with less child admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure which bit of but that's my opinion only you missed in my comment immediately above yours but funnily enough I was speaking for myself. Complex stuff, clearly. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am missing something really obvious here. But if he has been indeffed under other accounts, and those indef blocks still stand, is he/she not evading a block with this new account? Sorry this question seems so obvious I think I must be missing something.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or is The Fat Man account the master account and the former accounts were blocked as socks? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Man is the main account, then he devised the plan to troll with BErD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it doesnt really matter whether or not that Eagles is a new admin or not. he has the right to block accorind to Wikipedia policies. my real confusion here is why he bothered to even make this WP:ANI report in the first place. he was already convinced that The Fat Man should be blocked when he made it; he left it open for about .22 hours worth of comments then indef blocked him. my question is -- why not just skip the WP:ANI rigmarolodex and just block the guy, if consensus is so unimportant?? User:Smith Jones 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone here said "NOOOO DON'T BLOCK HIM!" then I wouldn't have blocked. I wasn't sure what the rest of the community would think about my decision if I just blocked him, esp. because other admins have unblocked TFM in the past. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the notice here was made for teh Lulz. now eagles is a big time AN/I endorsed admin blocker of problem editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no offense, and i dont want to tell how to do your job, but you shouldnt really care about that. or, if you are going to care aobut that, you should give us more than a couple of minutes to talk about it. opening this thread and then abruptly resolving it without ereaching any consensus just creates more bad feelings than if you had just blocked the sucker (evne though i agree with your block, i still think that you picked a weird way to do it). Your decision was right, but you kind of took the long way around and now you're rubbing lots of people the wrong way who now think you just asked for their opinions specifically so that you could cut them off and ignore them halfway thorugh a convservation. User:Smith Jones 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a wise admin once said, no one is perfect when they obtain the tools. Adminship is a learning process, and I have learned from this thread how to address a disruptive user. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the diffs I have to say I support this block. It's annoying because the user has made good edits, no doubt about it. The user himself asked on User talk:Gimmetrow (can't be bothered fishing out the diff) "Can I have, like, a trolling "allowance" where I can perform mostly (let's say 93%) innocuous edits?". No, that can't be allowed to happen. And it will happen if he is not indefinitely blocked. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles, those diffs look stale to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate further? I know he was blocked less than a month ago, but he clearly has not changed based on his comments in the thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posts on WR are mostly meaningless here. As for the en.WP diffs, blocks are preventative, not punitive. What's he done lately? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal should be made to Fat Man that he should stop trolling, or it's indef the next time it happens. Undo this block and I'll propose a solution, his comments and article writing are sometimes spot on. It's hard to tell the difference between trolling or a good faith comment. Secret ^account 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this proposal, but I doubt he'd take it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? We block troll accounts all the time. Why is this one an exception? AD 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do your homework instead of asking dum questions here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin did the right thing by asking some opinions first, which is what good admins should do in cases that might be debatable. Fat Man / BErD is only blocked, not banned, so he's free to make a reasonable argument as to why he should get unblocked, if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only opinions one is likely to get in 22 minutes are those who have this page watchlisted. This may be a cross-section of you, but not of the community. And how would the community have been damaged by a full discussion before the block, given the age of the incidents complained of? Kablammo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe every user in wikipedia should be notified of every possible decision under discussion, so that we can actually get full input from "the community". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22 minutes from notice to the editor until indefblock is hardly adequate.

Do you really contend that it is?Kablammo (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if some real admins had weighed in, instead of the usual denizens of this dungeon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that he's "mates" with certain 'respected' and 'influencial' editors. This would not otherwise normally be tolerated. Wikipedia is (meant to be) a serious project. Jokers are for the schoolyard. AD 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost. Who are we talking about? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, The Fat Man... AD 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How you might quietly unblock with a note in the log, "no consensus yet"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus, boys, focus. We're talking about 1) what brought you (Eagles247) to this matter and why didn't you read TFM's talk page, and 2) why isn't Pedro blocked for calling The Fat Man a "clever prick"? And in general, we're talking about why a small subset of people who hang out at ANI make decisions to indef a user in 22 minutes with little discussion, no homework, and no knowledge of the situation or the editor in question. Or, as Gwen Gale says, how long it's going to take Eagles247 to figure out how to undo the bad block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I was part of the BErD blocking discussion, and I saw TFM's post on WR about how fun it was to mess with Wikipedia. I was a little frustrated, but an admin assured everyone prior that there was a legitimate reason for the alt. account. I have Tele... 's talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed TFM's "u r dumb" comment to his page. I investigated into TFM's return, but failed to notice his recent block. 2) Dunno, probably not that severe of a personal attack 3) I did my homework on TFM, thank you 4) Gwen never said whether she was for or against the block, but rather she didn't agree with the process (like many others, including you, here). I'm not going to unblock unless consensus can be reached here. There's no need for TFM to troll here when he is perfectly able to request unblock on his talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good block, and if Fat/BErD really cares about it, he can post a reasonable unblock request. What Pedro said is more a comment on behavior. Calling people "dumb" is a personal attack, a hundred times worse than metaphorical comments about body parts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we're clear that it's ok to call people pricks on Wiki; Baseball, if I call you a prick, will I be blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'd recognize that you're just needling me. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sandy, can't say I'm surprised to see you defending this editor here. If you're so concerned about the lack of discussion here and the supposedly early block without properly understanding the situation. I fail to understand how you could have supported Gimmetrow's unblock (after countless unblock requests being declined by a number of admins, and without any discussion at all. I suggest anyone who does want to do homework on this read User_talk:Gimmetrow#What_do_you_think_you.27re_doing.3F. As to Pedro's behaviour, while highly improper, it's not relevant to this, you're making that mistake again, of thinking that the actions of certain users (specifically admins) justify trolling by others. As to what brought Eagles to this matter, I again fail to see the relevance. Also, saying the edits are stale is a poor excuse, and that the fat man had been unblock after some of them even more so, considering the circumstances of the unblock. It seems like most users here support a block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you again fail to see any relevance, or that you still haven't understood that Gimme's unblock was proper. Hang in there, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just take this down a couple of notches please? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be from "prick" to just "dick", or just how would we go down a notch from the typical discourse acceptable at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The fact that Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today is the answer to the question, "What has he done lately?", never mind the socking he got away with (for awhile). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see SG here, as she is usually a voice of reason. However, this editor has clearly stated their intention to troll Wikipedia and disrupt our project. Instead of being given clear reasoning for unblock, we've been rudely ordered to "do our homework" and "stop asking dumb questions". I did my homework, and I see an editor who has been trolling our project, quite plainly and deliberately. Insulting the admins/editors that comment here isn't going to help anything, rather the opposite. AD 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles, the next time you bring thoughts of a block to ANI, wait a little longer for the consensus you seek. As for Pedro, I think he's a bright shining, helium-spewing star of wiki-love :D Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, well thats fine so. Wiki love for the admin. Eagle getts 'a little frustrated' reading off site, comes back to wiki, goes through the contribs, plucks out a few from a while back, calls for a lynching, blocks, closes discussion. Job done. Hmm. Could I log in tomorrow or next week and find myself blocked for a combination of things scattered, days, weeks, whatever ago? Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for misunderstanding the timeline, Ceoil. Appreciate it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ceoil got the timeline exactly right. Just what are you trying to prove here, Eagles? You read some very stale diffs, an offsite old post, and indeffed an editor based on that and one current and already resolved misunderstanding, after 22 minutes of discussion. If you'd like to make a name for yourself as a new admin, this isn't the best way to go about doing so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep saying this until maybe you read it: Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today, and only retracted it after the lightbulb went on and he realized he might not escape his own self-constructed noose this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're so right, Sandy. You're always right. New admins are different than older ones. His four previous indef blocks were mistakes. In fact, TFM isn't a troll, but a constructive user who has never joked on Wikipedia. </sarcasm> What you are missing in all this is the fact that the BErD incident happened months ago, not yesterday. I've told you all of my "motives" for the block, and yet you choose to ignore them and judge me based on your ignorance to any opposing side. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles, that is a response fit for a child. Wasn't one of Fat Man's blocks for using the word "douchebaggery"? How is that worse than "prick"? Thank you for confessing that you merely blocked him because he had been previously blocked; great adminning there. In fact, you reblocked him for stale diffs already discussed. You're impressing me more by the minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is sarcasm anymore helpful than what is no more an irritated response to self-righteous insults? AD 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is a simplified and biased hyperbole. "Calls for lynching", really. This is a website, not 17th century New England. AD 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwen: Got it, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. Enough is enough, this user has wasted too much community time. --Elonka 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What a perfectly strange thing to say; I don't see TFM wasting anyone's time here-- looks like this is the Eagles247/Baseball Bugs show. Did you perchance review any of the history? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The guy had a chance to come here and explain himself, and instead he hanged himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Accusing everyone who disagrees with you (most of the users in this discussion) of not properly reviewing the situation (when they have) isn't very helpful. Those looking at the history may also want to look at your history with this user. I understand you get a laugh out of following The Fat Man's trolling on various sites? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I spent some time looking through the user's entire history: His block log, his contribs over the last month, and other edits going back years. Is he 100% a drag on the project? No. Has he done anything particularly helpful lately? Not that I can see. Is he disruptive? Definitely. Mostly his edits over the last month have involved leaving insults on talkpages, and posting numerous bizarre questions at various Reference Desk pages, like, "What would happen if scientists blew up the moon?", "Do Filipinos worship chicken bones," "Why do American football coaches dress so sloppily," and "What are the worst American accents in movies?" These kinds of things are not helpful to the project. TFM may have done some good work on Wikipedia in the past, but more recently his actions seem designed to disrupt, and "for the lulz". That is why I am supporting the idea of a permanent ban. Enough is enough. Let's get rid of him and get back to work. --Elonka 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block If we're voting... I've yet to see a single argument that shows TFM is a net positive to our project - only insulting, sarcastic and unpleasant remarks to those who are supporting a block. And yet, I've seen, through diffs here and my own research, that he is unfortunately a net negative currently. So with regret, this is my position. AD 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock: You shouldn't block someone for something said on WR, nor should you block someone for comments made nearly one month ago. This whole episode was a spontaneous reaction (perhaps to what was read on WR) by Eagles247. There was no need for this discussion or block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're way off the mark. He called someone "dumb" just today, which demonstrates he's learned nothing from having escaped from previous blocks. And he wasn't blocked for WR, just that WR alerted the admin to the user bragging about having escaped 4 blocks, which merited further review of Fat/BErD's situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) You've seen it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock Secret ^account 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block of Pedro for calling The Fat Man a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Also, check out today's featured article. How appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a vote on how many editors agree with Pedro's assessment of Fat/BErD's behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, now you're trolling, and boring at that. Do you read arb cases? Consensus doesn't overrule wiki pillars, and civility is supposed to be a pillar, and is supposed to be upheld by admins. If a gazillion editors agree with Pedro (they don't), that doesn't make it OK for him to call TFM a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. OK, how about if we recommend to block Pedro for an appropriate length, like maybe 5 minutes? Or maybe 10, in order to appease the poor, innocent, aggrieved indefee. Never mind, I see they already took action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Pedro will just cause unneeded drama, yes his behavior should have been better, but the last thing we need is OMG Drama and lose valuable contributers. We already lost several in the past month, including our FA leader. I left a message on Fat Man's talk page in language he understand. Secret ^account 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe we should all just calm down and have a civil chat over a nice cup of tea Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, let's have kiddie kool-ade, while an editor is unjustly blocked and called a prick by an admin. And goodness, let's not cause any drama, for heavens sake, this is ANI !!! Aren't we here because of Eagle247's drama and isn't that the purpose of his thread to begin with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If Pedro does it over and over, and creates a sock to do it also, then your argument will have some merit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block, per TFM's trolling in this very discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock. I can't see anything in his recent history to justify a block, not even a short one, unless I'm overlooking something. I think the dumb comment was meant as a joke. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes it okay if it's a joke? And what exactly is funny about his edits? You're aware that The Fat Man's humour has included the mocking of mentally disabled people in the past? As to the recent behaviour comment, it is clear from the older behaviour that this is an ongoing problem, it is clear from the (albeit minimal) recent behaviour that this is still ongoing. It's logical to conclude this isn't going to stop (TFM has made at least two promises in the past to stop his trolling. Also making a comment saying he would stop his disruption at ANI, and then making comments like this) see here, a comment from the last admin who unblocked (this comment was prior to comments like this. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Kingpin, your dislike of The Fat Man is well known, but you really shouldn't make up stories about him mocking mentally disabled people in the past. That's not nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no dislike of TFM as a person, it's his edits I have issue with. Such as this mocking of mentally disabled people. I fail to see how that is not mocking mentally disabled people, maybe you could explain? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  These are jokes, Kingpin. I honestly don't see that comment as harmful, and the "U R dumb" thing was nothing. He has a particular sense of humour that maybe you either love or hate, but he doesn't mean any harm. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody has explained to me how this is funny, or this for that matter, and I fail to see how anybody could find them funny, or how attempts at humour justify attacking other editors. As to him not meaning any harm, he's clearly aware that he is trolling, and clearly wants to continue doing so (as evidenced by asking for a "trolling allowance", and making sarcastic promises to stop) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Kingpin: these comments are insulting to people who have intellectual disabilities, and offensive to people of good will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock per SlimVirgin. Kablammo (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock, Slim has it right, we don't block users based on stale diffs and reading something old offsite we don't like. This was admin drama, nothing more. SandyGeorgia 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block I'll agree that nothing recent is in and of itself worthy of a block, but there has been various amounts of trolling from this account for too long. AniMate 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock I think the comments made (in bad taste) were over and done, things said in the past are sometimes best left in the past...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And what makes you think these comments will not be re-made by TFM in the future (e.g. not leaving them in the past)? Considering one of these comments were from yesterday (just over 24 hours). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because our fundamental principle is WP:AGF...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a user who has been trolling for years. And seems to be incapable of stopping. One year ago he promised to stop, and continued, one month ago he promised to stop and continued. Of course, he later claims that both of those promises were sarcastic. So what exactly makes you think it will stop this time? what is different? AGF only stretches so far. A user who has been trolling this site for years? No, I think it's fair to say they will keep trolling it for years if we let them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block - issues about his behavior clearly needs some more discussion, perhaps on a more personal level on his talkpage, allowing input and understanding from the blockee. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I ask this in good faith because I don't see the answer above in this wall of text, but how is an editor who has admitted to being another indef blocked trolling editor still allowed to edit here in the first place? Blocks are for editors, not accounts. Am I missing something? Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block - for unrepentant attacks on everyone's integrity, and especially for having socked and been allowed to get away with it. He should have been indef'd and banned at that time. The community's generosity towards Fat/BErD was met by a metaphorical "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should never have been unblocked in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock of the Portly One. Honestly the drama that surrounds his Wideness is a product of over-reactions to his rather innocuous funning. People who are offended by him would do well to simply ignore his harmless carry-on rather than initiating major dramafests here at ANI. Crafty (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block, he's had plenty of chances to contribute usefully and he apparently still doesn't get it. Nakon 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock the Fat Man, per the FAC Lady and the Slim one. Ferrylodge concurs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it takes a special kind of talent (or perhaps a special kind of talent) to make such a complete and utter mess of indeffing a user who so blatantly deserves it. The mess is clear enough (ANI / 22 minutes / no clear consensus / indef block by person bringing the matter to ANI / ?????), but so is the fact that the user is clearly not a net benefit to the project. Between the abusive sock account and the general manner he continues to communicate, quite apart from whatever lies further in the past, enough is enough. Site ban, and refer to WP:STANDARDOFFER. Rd232 ^talk 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't agree more. This block was handled horribly, but the outcome is probably right. AniMate 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block The Fat Man is a troll. We block trolls. I don't know why some users are leaping to the defense of such an obvious troll. I'm all for a little genuine levity and humor once in a while, that is not what I see here, I see blatant, deliberate trolling. I'm sure he is loving all the noise generated here by those who insist on defending his trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reality check: As long as I've been aware of TFM here, it has been clear to me that he is a capable editor, for example, making the Ima Hogg article not only a Featured Article, but also working hard to make it so on the WP:Main Page as an April Fool article. That is creative talent that should not be thrown away unnecessarily. Having said that, however, that isn't a reason for unnecessary disposal of an worthy, although I would welcome comments from him, on the basis that "you may be good, but unless others agree with you, you are on your own". I live in hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs) 02:05, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per above. Unfortunately. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock What has gotten up with ANI lately? Geez, it's like a swarm of hornets landed and made everyone into ban-hammers. Let's go through this in order. First off, the original reason given for the creation of this discussion was a comment made by the user on Wikipedia Review, which is clearly not relevant to actions on Wikipedia and makes me doubt Eagles' understanding of how policy works here. Then, the edits that were mentioned. This is a rather silly comment, but when did dumb become a curse word? Besides, the fact that the user's actions seem to often be rather sarcastic to me. This question was made in reference to the user reading Religion in the Philippines and not seeing anything about chicken bones written in there. Maybe a silly question, true, but nothing bad. Calling someone silly is bannable now? And this is the most ridiculous one of all. This edit was made in response to this section being created. Either the two of them have a joking relationship, which is what it looks like, or Mike R's comment was completely out of line. It's one or the other. The other ones are about the previous block, which doesn't apply to this one. So, what are we left with? Oh, right, nothing. This is ridiculous. Silverseren^C 03:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef; shoulda-coulda stuck last time... but *no* we had to endure moar shite. Jack Merridew 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef block His edit history speaks for itself. Each separate action could doubtless be justified by a skilled wikilawyer, although so far noone has managed to do this very convincingly. The combined effect and intent, however, seems clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block per Baseball Bugs. --John (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What I don't understand is why any admins would spend so much time trying to find a reason to ban an editor with a contrary sense of humor but who is otherwise harmless as opposed to helping out here, where there is evidence presented of editors who serially violate WP's more serious policies like NPOV and NPA. Before editors like the Fat Man get blocked, the more serious violators of WP's policies need to be dealt with. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclosure request. Could users commenting here to support an unblock please state if they are Wikipedia Review contributors. (We'll assume block supporters aren't, but if any are, please state as well.) Rd232 ^talk 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock He hasn't done anything recently even remotely warranting an indefinite block. Sure, he's done crap in the past, but he should have been blocked then if it was such a big deal. If he's really the horrible troll you all think he is, he'll do something in the future warranting an indef block and you can block him then. He should be kept on a relatively tight leash due to past incidents, but this is really ridiculous. Activities on WR are irrelevant to this discussion. I do not comment there, and I do not care about what the people there do. This thread is by far the most disruption he's managed to cause recently, and that's far more the responsibility of the admin than of him.--Dycedarg ж 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block There seems to be a school of thought around here, espoused by those I call the Incivility League, that it is OK to cleverly impugn people's integrity, writing, etc. so long as you don't use a slightly-expanded Carlineque list of specific words. I can't agree with that. If it was meant to be insulting, and it had the effect of being insulting, than what difference does it make if it used a vulgarity or not? Form over substance is a bad idea. TFM should stay blocked until he promises to cut it out, and if he breaches that promise, should quickly and non controversially be blocked again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block until he starts acting like an adult human being again. --Conti|✉ 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock per Silverseren and per "you need to get a sense of humor and stop taking yourself so serious". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block This user cannot even communicate in this very discussion properly, let alone the frequent disruption he causes elsewhere. Yes, he's made some good contributions in the past. But he is simply not worth the time and effort taken to deal with his utterly unnecessary nonsense. He doesn't want to take Wikipedia seriously, so I see no reason why he should continue editing here until and unless he does. As an aside, I wholly disagree with the absurd notion that he has to start swearing and cursing before it should be constitued as "real disruption", so to speak. --Dorsal Axe 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block Making some good contributions much of the time doesn't entitle you to troll the rest of the time. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is new at some point, but this editor is neither new nor making mistakes. His responses in the thread up above indicate to me that he thinks the project is a joke and that we don't deserve his respect. The impression I get is that he doesn't care if he's blocked or not. And on top of that, it appears he has created at least TWO sockpuppets for purposes of disruptive trolling in the recent past. One of them is Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) and the other is WatchingWales (talk · contribs), as he himself states [38]. He shows no indication he will stop this behavior, even taunting the community with more "jokes" in the thread above. This is behavior detrimental to building an encyclopedia and is well into WP:DISRUPT territory. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock Per Stephan Schulz and Silverseren and per the fact that humour should not automatically be equated with trolling. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block: Having a particular sense of humor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to disrupt the project in various ways over a long period of time. Kansan (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [39] and [40]. Can we agree now that he is just here for the lulz now? I don't care how good of an editor he was two years ago, he doesn't want to be here anymore. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block He's just taking the piss at this point. HalfShadow 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously support block: a block-evading troll is indeffed, and instead of collapsing and not feeding the trolls, we waste everyone's time? Way to give trolls what they want, guys. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro blocked and unblocked

Motion to close

This discussion is done, people have said what they wanted to say, fights broke out and were resolved; It's time to close this. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if this doesn't stop soon people are going to start hugging and that just gets creepy. HalfShadow 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a motion to close the Pedro thread, but there isn't any consensus on Fat Man block or unblock for that matter so I oppose a full closing of the thread for now. Secret ^account 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There was no consensus to block to begin with, and therefore there does not need to be consensus to unblock. And despite what one editor says above, The Fat Man has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the past month, including work on BLPs. He should be unblocked immediately. Kablammo (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. This section was opened less 8 hours ago, and the block has been in place even shorter. Keep it open until it is actually decided. AniMate 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the section about Pedro. Ban discussions run at least 24 hours. So will this discussion.--Chaser (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a block review, not a ban discussion. But yes, there's no reason to close the discussion...other than to restart it in a way where all of the noise, personal attacks, etc. are stamped out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the banning policy, if the community decides not to overturn the indefinite block he will be considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Ergo, this is a ban discussion.--Dycedarg ж 08:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The discussion should continue. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - I disagree with user Dycedarg's comment - this discussion is not to confirm the indef and ergo a ban discussion - this is a discussion to see if there is support or not for the user to be presently indefinitely blocked (this does not mean forever} whilst he considers his recent contributions and the community opines the best way to progress so that he can edit more constructively or at least so as issues like this do not continue to arise. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General observation

As a general matter (not at all limited to this block and in fact I've raised it before, but very relevant here), there is a lack of clarity to some basic issues concerning blocking and unblocking policy that is surprising, given that the issues have arisen many times in the now 10 years of the project. One of these may be very relevant here: Suppose Administrator A blocks User:X, and there is about an even split of opinion on ANI about whether X should be unblocked (so, no consensus either way). Does this mean that X should remain blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block) or that X should be unblocked (because unblocked is the default and there is no consensus to keep the block in place)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own take is that, given this was brought here for review, if there is no consensus for that block, then there should be no block (getting there by unblocking if need be). Doesn't seem to matter if the block has already been made or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the opposite way. The administrative action has already been taken, and admins are entitled to some deference in how they use their tools. The discussion is regarding a proposed unblock, and needs consensus to succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what the person immediately above me (As at 12:27 on the 7th of December 2010 UTC) said. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be unreasonable for a sock and a disruptive troll to stay blocked unless and until he makes an unblock request, and then that request can be considered on its merits? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive trolling" is in the eye of the beholder in many cases. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd position Wehwalt. Admins are not entitled to any special "deference", and it's distasteful even to suggest that they are. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be consensus for a block, or to uphold a block. The result should not depend on who took action first, who got here first, or how the issue was framed. And deference to "discretion" gives the personal judgments or whims of administrators the force of law. Admins serve a ministerial role, to apply standards, not create them. And those standards should be consistently applied. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the point: The first post in this multi-part section is by an admin looking for consensus to block. The admin did not wait until consensus developed, but imposed a block soon after the thread started. The issue here is whether there is consensus to block. There is not. Kablammo (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not like some contributors to one of the previous headings; I will not insult people's understanding, or their intelligence, however cleverly fashioned. The people who have just posted their views are all intelligent, thoughtful, experienced editors. And yet they profoundly disagree. Regardless of who is right, shouldn't this be resolved? I will add that NYB is in a much better position (hint, hint) to aid in the resolution than I.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wehwalt: If I review a situation, and decide a block is not appropriate, can I post that opinion somewhere (the editor's talk page maybe), and then other admins must show deference to my opinion, and gain consensus on ANI before they can override my opinion and block? If so, then I disagree (as it then becomes a race to dispense with fact finding and lock in one's opinion first), but at least it would be consistent. If not, why not?

  An admin should only be blocking people if they think they will have consensus to do so, and the default in the case of a lack of consensus should be an unblock (or, better yet, compromise and negotiation that can lead to a consensus). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Floquenbeam's last sentence seems to sum the answer to the query quite well. I would add that if this seems to lack clarity in the eyes of some, then I'd suggest that this is a good time to get up to speed...this is a piece of cake compared to the disputes and queries that are going to arise in the future, both near and distant. In those cases, I don't think even the most experienced users are going to have any easy answers to assist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Newyorkbrad's question: a sufficiently substantive "no consensus" discussion should override any individual admin decision. This is a community-edited encyclopedia, and if an admin can't persuade the community about what they did/wish to do, then it shouldn't be done. Private information which cannot/should not be discussed onwiki may complicate things, but that's what Arbcom's for. Rd232 ^talk 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A complicating factor here, is if a disruptive editor has the support of other disruptive editors, does that count towards community "consensus". Sheer number of voices either way isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of community consensus, especially when some are stating obvious untruths or have long block logs themselves. I think most of the people participating in this discussion are acting in good faith, but there do seem to be a few who are jumping in for no other reason than that they enjoy giving the pot a good stir. --Elonka 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God knows there's cliquism on the wiki, but who decides if votes should be discounted because of it? --Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just discount input because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even in the above discussion, an admin seems to be causing a rift by wanting another website to shape what happens on this website; unless you have good evidence to show for a breach of our site policies, there's nothing to justify the need for this. Users should disclose their involvement (if any) in a dispute - that certainly plays some role - and that might extend to another website. But that's as far as it goes. Categorically stating that anyone who edits on Wikipedia should disclose if they've edited Wikipedia Review is a bit silly. It wouldn't be much of a project if every single thing was simple, easy and exactly how you wanted it. Ncmvocalist (talk) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cliquism, where there is good reason to suspect it may cause discussion not to represent the wider community's view, needs to be identified as far as possible. Only with the benefit of that disclosure can the weight of argument (WP:NOTAVOTE) be determined by a neutral observer. As to the argument about external websites: we shouldn't police activity on external websites, but nor we should ignore information relevant to policing our own merely because it originates externally. Rd232 ^talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well either you have some reason to have a suspicion, or you don't; you are not here to be police, prosecution, judge and jury. Allowing strong unsubstantiated personal opinions/assumptions to prejudice the way administration occurs on Wikipedia is precisely what impedes genuine resolution on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some genuine reason why being a Wikipedia Review participant is relevant to this discussion, it really is not appropriate to require any editor to disclose that information, nor is it relevant to what is happening here. And in saying this, I note that I am not a participant on WR and I don't believe I have ever interacted with the editor in question - I might have possibly in 2008, when I was asking many ArbCom candidates some questions, but I honestly don't recall. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? Fat Man is a participant in WikipediaReview, as are some of the editors commenting here (as you would expect in the circumstances). That is sufficient grounds for asking for disclosure, in order to properly evaluate how representative this discussion is of the community's view. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not sufficient grounds; your understanding is fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia Community is diverse, and each member will have memberships to or participation in many other websites, organisations, and so on, or might not have any at all; listing which of these may "potentially" have any effect on the project is limitless and outside of our scope, capacity, and resources, and it poses a far more significant rift within our own Wikipedia community as we start defining Wikipedia based on individuals who are exclusively signed up here and here only. What each editor would need to disclose is their level of involvement, if any, and it's up to them to state if it's not total involvement and why. Merely being a participant is insufficient; it's being a participant and the extent of interaction or activity with the user in question, and in some circumstances, how they became aware of this discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can disclose I'm a (somewhat inactive) member of Amnesty International. So what? Am I likely to meet people there who are likely to have a very particular view of FatMan's indeffing, and are they likely to turn up here and comment? The point is fundamentally that discussions must reflect the community's view; but since the entire community cannot participate in any given discussion, we have to make sure that the sample of users participating isn't biased. This shouldn't really be a tricky concept. it's the same concept as that behind WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS (neither of which policies seems to apply here, but the reasoning for the policies' existence does). Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have difficulty understanding simple messages, so I'll try to be clearer one more time. The policies exist to say that MEAT and CANVASS behavior is prohibited; they do not say that anyone who is registered on another website can be excluded from the Community on your unsubstantiated say-so. So, unless you can provide an actual basis for bias from members of that website, this information is not relevant or required at this time and there is no reason for those users to be excluded from the Community. As you have not produced any actual basis for requiring this info, no one needs to comply with your disclosure requests; in line with policy, all they might need to do is state their level of involvement (if any) and that will address relevant issues of bias. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL. "difficulty understanding simple messages" - yes indeed, considering that you're agreeing with me - state their level of involvement includes involvement offsite. You would (I presume) hardly object to a disclosure request if WR was a private mail server like EEML, so why should it be different because it's a website? Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor is registered on Wikipedia Review and has not had any involvement with the editor in question, they do not need to disclose all of that exhaustively - your request for disclosure seems to expect all of that, but that info isn't actually necessary: such an editor could say they are uninvolved. This incident has been complicated enough; requiring disclosure about whether or not each editor is registered to another particular website (that doesn't have a CANVASS/MEAT issues that you are actually aware of) is just adding more unnecessary complication. Aka, the undue focus you're putting on Wikipedia Review (or EEML, or any other specific website/mailing list/organisation/etc) is not helpful. So in the future, a more helpful disclosure request would be neutral and broad (eg; "Please state your level of involvement (if any).") instead of unduly focussed on a single website. Do you understand yet? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request was aimed at "Wikipedia Review contributors". Implicitly (we'd hope for common sense, but...) that was meant for active contributors who've engaged with Fat Man at WR, or who otherwise have engaged enough at WR to feel some kind of tribal affinity (a phenomenon which isn't overly hard to observe from reading it). The point is of course, as I keep saying, to clarify what you might call "involvement", though I preferred to phrase it in terms of commenting editors not reflecting the wider community view, because "involvement" suggests their views are invalid, irrelevant, or ignorable, and I neither said nor implied any such thing. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to force users to declare their interest in WR. For example, I have an account at WR (only posted once or twice a year ago), and I haven't read anything since. Does this discount my opinion on my own block? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam: The second move advantage is something which we haven't been able to solve. I'll grant your "no block" proposal, if by the same token, my refusal to unblock then becomes an admin decision that it's wheel warring to reverse.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the "second move advantage" something that needs to be solved. Second move advantage means it's in the blocking admin's interest to make sure they're doing the right thing, and make sure they're going to have consensus. First move advantage means it's in their best interest to act quickly.

Wheel warring refers to repeating an action you know another admin disagrees with. Like BRD for admins. I can only assume it was defined the way it is in recognition of the advantages of having a second mover advantage over a first mover advantage. Unblocking someone that has been refused a previous unblock request isn't a repetition of an action. (That said, I can think of very few instances where I would unilaterally unblock after a previous unblock request was declined.)

But a deal I will make is for us to discourage making controversial second move unblocks without consensus, if we also strongly discourage making controversial first move blocks without prior consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. But this is getting increasingly out of scope for ANI. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the damage is done because of a block which is not having consensus, Wikipedia hasn't designed its processes so as to maximise that damage. Sometimes an abrupt unblock becomes the means to address the harm caused by an abrupt block. An abrupt unblock doesn't become necessary where a block has gained the actual required consensus...so it's a bit of a non-issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that 5 times and I still don't get it. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had some bad news today. I came home and stared at the wall for a couple of hours feeling like shit. Then I picked up the laptop and stumbled into this, and have spent the last couple of hours chuckling and laughing out loud at his insight and wit. Some people have trouble with irony, so don't get what's going on here. There is no consensus. Unblock him. Anthony (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Anthony. I hope you feel more cheerful soon. Yes, there is value in the way humor boosts morale and reduces stress. Lacking a consensus for the block, how about reducing it to time served and remind the blockee not to carry a good thing too far. Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Anthony (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So, I just read through the above discussion - and my first thought is that That's a good 30 minutes of my life that I'm never getting back. If Fat Man agrees not to troll anymore, he should be unblocked with all speed. But not until then. And trouts for the lot of you for carrying on like this. There may be some sort of encyclopedia that needs work, if memory serves... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly no consensus for or against this block. Newyorkbrad's question needs answering: in this situation do we default to block or unblock? Defaulting to block smells a bit off to me. Anthony (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way. The manner of the block is off-putting, but the conduct probably justified the block. I note also that TFM has not edited since being blocked - I'm hesitant to unblock until we have a request, all things being equal. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you, Ultraexactzz, but TFM has promised not to troll twice already in the past (see Kingpin's diffs somewhere in here), and has never made good on his promises. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't so much interested in more discussion about the merits of the block. It's pretty clear there's no consensus on that. The question that began this thread was what do we default to when there is no clear consensus? Anthony (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The default position is the one existing immediately before the matter was raised; TFMWNCB being not blocked in this instance. Blocking is a function exercised by an admin on behalf of the community, by means either of a directly expressed consensus or that by which the community entrusted them with the tools. As Brad pondered, once it is evident that no consensus exists for the new status then the old one must be resumed. Oh, and whilst I am pontificating - to Wehwalt: It is the other way round - the admin defers to the community. Every. Single. Time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It seems pretty clear that the answer to Newyorkbrad's question is that we default to unblock, because our default position is that "anybody can edit"; if we default the other way, surely we're modifying that tagline (and the rest of our attitude/positioning) to something other than that. It's similar, i reckon, to the default in an AfD being "keep", because with the lack of consensus the opinion of notability outweighs that of non-notability; here, with no consensus the ability to edit outweighs the other. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the NFL, when an official rules a play a certain way (i.e. an incomplete pass), the head coaches have the option to challenge the play if they deem it incorrect. The official goes in for a instant replay review, and there has to be indisputable evidence that the call should be reversed. Just a thought, though I doubt Wikipedia is for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who are so keen on unblocking Fat/BErD should be compelled to assume responsibility for constantly monitoring its activities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer :) Anthony (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dontcha think that's a bit petty, Bugs? We all monitor; even if he is unblocked, as i think he ought to be, with his record, and assuming and giving benefit of doubt, it won't be long till he trolls again, and is blocked *with* process. Then we'll spend a minute or two picking up the pieces, and moving on. Meantime, i'll help, Anthony. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi

I should clarify that instead of "ones" I should have said "admins". Is it petty? Well, he's got two indef'd socks. How petty is that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Bugs; i posted, noticed the time, realised that i was late for an appointment, and left. I also apologise twofold, for perhaps not being clear, and for probably misinterpreting you. I read your post as a sort of sour grapes thing ~ "Well, go ahead and unblock, but i'm not helping" ~ which i'm sure was not your intent. All i meant was that while i agree taht socks and trolling are not petty, because of the circumstances of the block, the large gentleman should be unblocked (according to default, as i see it), until he unambiguously trolls or socks; then Pow! Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking a look at his recent comments on his talkpage.[41] Seems pretty unambiguous to me, that he is not taking things seriously. --Elonka 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am glad you can all agree that any appearances of trolling or "bad behaviour" shall be a blockable offense. Beware what you ask for. There are more than a couple editors in this thread who could be blocked for trolling, and I don't just mean Pedro. If you allow no tolerance for others' personality quirks, then you should expect none for your own. Personally, I find it highly distasteful to see admins using blocks to force editors to agree with the admin's interpretation of policy, when that interpretation is disputed. Again, beware what you ask for, because if that's the culture you promote, someday, someone will do it to you. (I, for instance, often notice editors repeating misinformation on ANI. I find such behaviour substantially contrary to civil discourse, and I think it should be subject to sanctions.) Finally, let me remind you all that after TFM was unblocked the last time (by me), his edits have been watched (by me), and he has behaved within the constraints of the unblock as far as I have observed. So TFM should not be blocked anew for old behaviour. The recent edit that people seem upset about happened while I was away, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it was the result of a wrong edit by User:TeleComNasSprVen, and TFM refactored prior to the block, so if that's the basis for the block, then it's a pretty thin reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but editors get banned when there is a community view that they are a net detriment to the project. Sometimes a trivial incident might cause the community to re-examine the situation, and determine that a previous decision to give an editor another chance was simply wrong. Any given discussion always has an element of randomness. We have to be careful not to keep having the same discussion over and over until by random chance the editor is booted out, but it isn't illegitimate per se to revisit a prior decision when it wasn't clear cut. Rd232 ^talk 12:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the problem is that behavior and reputation is cumulative. If every incident was taken in pure isolation, its likely that no one would think that any one of the hundreds of disruptive events done by TFM would be, of its own accord, grounds for blocking. In situations where we must judge a user on the totality of his contributions, positive and negative, there is going to be a difference of opinion as to how much is "enough". There is no bright line limit of the number of trollish, disruptive events are required before a user is blocked, and there is no bright line of the ratio of positive contributions to disruptions that the community believes "forgives" a person of their problems. Instead, there are going to be differing opinions, which is fine. Reasonable people may analyze the same situation and reach differing conclusions. That's why, in cases like this (see my comments below) where a user is being blocked for a pattern of small behaviors rather than a single, grossly disruptive event like vandalism or edit warring or abject racist screed or something like that, the discussion must be allowed to run its natural course before a decision is reached. Since this is one where reasonable people may possibly disagree, it is appropriate to see if enough do before proceeding, rather than shooting from the hip and seeing after the fact what people thought of it. --Jayron32 15:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the time of the last block a month ago, I repeatedly encouraged people to start a discussion to review TFM's behaviour then and decide what was appropriate. People chose not to do that. Now that rehabilitation is in process, it seems rather counter-productive to now review TFM's past behavior, as if nothing had changed. But that's fine; precedent is now firmly established for future reviews of difficult editors. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This suggests that the Fat Man troll of yore is the same as the Fat Man troll of just yesterday. It's not like he's drawn some line in the sand and put his nonsense behind him, it continues. Maybe you see rehabilitation, but I don't have any patience for a troll like this; it's not like he needs to learn anything, he needs to make a simple and straightforward decision to stop being an arse, which he clearly hasn't. Enough already. Rd232 ^talk 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh hey, Gimmetoo; didn't see you there. I note you only warned me and not Baseball Bugs as well. Must be swell to be able to cherry-pick targets like that. HalfShadow 21:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • BB's edits there ([42] [43] [44] [45] [46]) don't seem to me to be disruptive, but if you think they are, you might want to rethink your own edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And yet you look right past this while at the same time giving me hell for the post he's replying to. Nice one. How's that bucket holding up? HalfShadow 00:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that in general, in situations where a very recent block is being discussed, or a new block is being proposed, the result of anything less than clear support for the block (whether that be no-consensus or consensus in opposition) the user in question should be unblocked. However, this singular situation is muddied by the fact that some admins have jumped the gun on the block. There may have developed a consensus to block, indeed given the general trend of the situation BEFORE the gun was jumped, it looked to be heading that way. However, once the discussion process was short-circuited, it generated instant sympathy for the blocked user and resulted in a muddying of the waters. Now, it may have arisen, had the discussion been let run for a day or so, that consensus would have led him to not be blocked, or it may have not. But the action of short-circuiting the discussion has led to a muddying of the waters regarding the block. It is unclear which objections are to a) blocking TFM at all b) blocking TFM before the discussion was done c) General anti-admin sentiment. In the future, regardless of how this turns out, this should be a lesson to let the community discussion take its course. If no iminent harm is currently coming to article text (such as edit warring or vandalism), block and ban discussions can afford the proper time for users to deliberate. This did not happen in this case, and we now have megabytes of bullshit because of that. --Jayron32 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown of opinions

Based just on the comments made in the introduction and "Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef" section, here a quick summary of each editors opinion (based on quick skimming by me, please please re-check and update (template at User:Kingpin13/TFM)), some users who commented here are not included, as their opinion was not made clear, or they were apparently neutral:

This is mainly because of the claims that there is a very clear case of no consensus, which I don't believe there is necessarily. Of course, strength of arguments should also be considered. Personally I feel the arguments presented for blocking are stronger, but since I myself support a block, I may be bias. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't really be possible to feel that the arguments favoring a block are stronger than those against one without personally supporting that conclusion (and vice versa of course). If reaching a conclusion makes you biased then the only unbiased people are the ones who don't know which side has the better arguments - and they're not much help either. 87.254.87.2 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, while y'all are talking, someone might want to check out User:Cowl head. No edits, no contributions, yet the account exists and User:Bad edits r dumb (as I understand it a sock of The Fat Man) has taken the time to place a welcome template on its talk page. Possible set up for use as our suspect's next sock? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Cowl head was created at 8.56 on 28 Sep, and welcomed by Fat Man's User:Bad edits r dumb account at 8.57 (with edit summary "HI COWL HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"), despite having no contributions or deleted contributions. If someone can explain to me how that's kosher, I'd like to hear it. PS Bear in mind this ANI thread of 28 Sep. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all of the above discussion, this is my breakdown of the declared positions. Please feel free to correct this summary. There seems to be no consensus. If that is the case, the above discussion leans strongly towards default to unblock. Anthony (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Timotheus Canens and Aiken drum from the "block" column because I couldn't find their comments, and Secret, because their last position seems to be: "I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock." Anthony (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note, "T. Canens" and "Timotheus Canens" are the same person, and Aiken drum's sig appears as "AD", if I remember correctly; search the wikitext for Aiken drum. I'll compare ours and my summary in more depth in a second) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Kingpin13/TFM/Comparison - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just one question: since when did we need consensus to block a block-evading sockpuppet? That's policy, not a matter requiring additional consensus. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cowlhead is now blocked as an obvious sock , and it is alleged that the user Big Brother of the Party is also a sock, and is likewise now indef'd; and on this page, he evaded his block with an IP address, which could be an impostor, of course, but I think that's a wrap, folks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother of The Party is a sock of Baseball Fanatic, not TFMWNBC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Headlights, Batman! That's at least my second major gaffe of the day. Time for a short break. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a fairly disruptive editor. He has a strong POV on various issues, often seems not to understand policy, and is a serial reverter. He was blocked 11 times between 2007 and 2009 for edit warring, including one indefinite block. Nowadays he reverts up to 3RR, then stops to avoid a block.

The problem is that he immediately deletes all posts from his talk page, which means it's difficult for others to see the pattern of complaints about him. I know editors have broad leeway on their talk pages, but this has reached the point of being disruptive. Looking through the history, [47] there seems to be one warning after another, all removed instantly. Should we require him to leave messages in place for a minimum period—say, two weeks? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, I have left a 3RR note on his talkpage today as he reverted at Jimmy Wales three times without any discussion at all. He just deleted it immediately and left me a template when I had only a single revert to the Jimmy Wales article, clearly misusing the template completely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you know that 3RR is a bright line rather than an allowance, so have you reported this editor to the 3RR page? There are folks there who are presumably adept at seeing gaming of the restriction. LHvU (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He made three reverts without a single word of discussion, and then when I warned him about it he left me a warning, I imagine some administrators would have blocked but I didn't make a report there. I would have immediately if he had reverted after my warning. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV appears to indicate that this is a pattern, and I am suggesting (I was using my LHvU account just above) that such behaviour may get more traction if reported to the 3RR board. As for your example, a single or infrequent incident may not be sufficient to draw a sanction and the removal of a warning is taken as evidence it had been read. The subsequent action of templating you is not appropriate, but again it is more serious if it can be shown as part of a pattern of disruptive/dismissive behaviours (recent, or ongoing per SV's commentary about the block history from 2007 - 09). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did prepare a report for 3RR, showing three reverts on the 4th and three on the 6th at Jimmy Wales, but I ended up not posting it. The point about the talk page is that, when you encounter problems with him, you look at his talk page and there's no indication that others are having similar problems, because he blanks after each post. If he were required to leave the posts in place, it might give him pause for thought before causing another editor to feel the same way. And it would make it easier for admins to track just how troublesome he's being. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent AN/I complaint from another editor about the talk-page issue (among other things) here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an issue to be dealt with via a well-prepared RfC/U. QuackGuru does deal with a large number of COI-laden fringe editors, so it's no wonder they get into disputes. Fences&Windows 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U would be fine, but I would strongly support a requirement that he/she not delete anything from his talk page in the interim. The latitude given to users in this regard is clearly being abused. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be a departure from normal Wikipedia practice. It has long been held that deleting any message from one's own talk page is permitted at any time; a user talk page is intended as a tool for communicating with a user, not as a record of warnings, punishments, or scarlet letters. If a user has a history of disruptive conduct then there are appropriate processes for dealing with that (RfC/U, per F&W, falls into this category, as would reports of recurring edit warring to AN/EW), but demanding that he retain a list of transgressions on his talk page for all to see isn't one of them. +TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any rule that requires either retaining anything in particular on one's talk page (beyond certain notices), nor that the user have an archival process set up. The page's history is effectively the archive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if we particularly wanted a convenient record, someone could create one out of the history (and perhaps someone might choose to, as an illustration, if another RFC is put in place). But while I'm aware of the extra hassle QG's practice imposes on the editors that are communicating with him, I'm not sure that he's really doing anything "wrong" or that this board should be handling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that, as you say, talk pages are for communicating, and constantly blanking is hindering that. They're not intended solely for communicating with the editor; it that were the case, we could just use email. There's an assumption of community communication, even if the editor is allowed to control it to a large extent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way back when, I was told that just zapping stuff from my talk page was extremely impolite, even though not technically against the rules. It seems that that sentiment has slid quite a bit since then, but it still turns up. Maybe there should be some more formal rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The practice used to be (don't know whether it was written down) that you could do what you wanted with your talk page, so long as you weren't removing warnings too quickly that admins might need to see. A point would arrive where that was deemed disruptive, and an admin would arrive to restore them. Over time we've allowed more leeway, but I still think QuackGuru is on the wrong side of wherever the line is, because he effectively has no talk page. You post there, and it disappears, and reconstructing the thing from the history would be a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around for about as long as you have, SV, and I don't recall that ever being our usual practice. For as long as I can remember, we've been telling new admins who come to AN/I complaining that their warnings are being erased to quit edit warring on user's talk pages, and accept that the deletion of a message can be considered an acknowledgement that it was read. If an editor doesn't wish to engage in informal dispute resolution on his own talk page, there's no way to compel him to. It's up to the complainant to escalate to a higher level if there are unresolved issues requiring administrator intervention. User talk pages are for communication with that user, not with any hypothetical admins who might happen by in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If user talk pages were only for communication with that user, we wouldn't need them. We could just e-mail instead. The reason people often insist that issues be posted to talk pages, and not privately, is precisely because the community reads and to some extent has a stake in what goes on, which is why we don't delete user talk as a rule. He's not removing his own posts, but other people's. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, this issue comes again so soon? Not two days ago I said on this page: ...WP:BLANKING states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." I've always felt that users should be permitted to remove comments they really don't want on their page, but routinely removing all comments, instead of archiving, seems counter to the communicative purpose of a user talk page, and in practice often has a certain chilling effect on discussion. If someone agrees with that, perhaps they could suggest (at the appropriate talk page) some kind of clarificatory amendment to the policy. ... PS TenOfAllTrades, if a user talk page is like email, it's not like 1-to-1 email, it's like a discussion list with many viewers, even if the conversation is only between 2 people. Either of those people deleting emails from everyone's inbox because they've been read is about as helpful as deleting talk messages. Rd232 ^talk 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TAIT, you are describing a fairly recent (past few years or so) development. Further back, users were not allowed to remove warnings from their talkpages. That caused enough useless drama that the practice gradually shifted to the idea that if a user removes a warning, that means they saw the warning, so it can be used against them. So practice in that area has been fluid. Obviously in some cases, keeping the conversations visible for a while helps manage ongoing disruption. So now we're seeing a situation (see the thing with Editor182 last night e.g.) where users can remove notices unless they get a formal restriction to leave the conversations up. An alternative way to manage the disruption would be to ban the user completely, so if they prefer that to getting a talkpage restriction, it can probably be worked out. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that while QuackGuru may technically be allowed to empty his talkpage and respond in edit summaries, it is part of a greater pattern of edit warring, deliberate misunderstanding of others, and POV pushing. We've now been in discussion for >1 week at vertebral artery dissection about how much weight to lend to isolated reports about deaths from chiropractic. I have provided two arguments (both based on WP:WEIGHT) that there reports are too infrequent. QuackGuru has managed not to address these despite repeated requests, and continues to insert "his content", including unrelated article text that was removed for legitimate reasons[48].

I see a general pattern of WP:POINT, and I'm getting a bit weary (on the VAD article) of having to edit under fire. JFW | T@lk 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QG has done this for a long time, and it has the effect of "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors". Recreating the content of his talk page would be a real pain, IOW he's creating an obstruction to the process of figuring out what he's up to, and that's just plain an abuse of the right to delete content on one's talk page. He may have the "right" to do it, but that doesn't make it "right". The talk page is intended for real communication, but that is made impossible when he only responds in short edit summaries that often don't really address the matter, and are definitely not a real conversation, as is necessary for true collaboration. He's not a collaborative editor but a solo loose canon and often makes edits of controversial material that is under discussion, well knowing the discussion isn't finished (because he is making comments). He makes edits and claims "consensus" in the edit summary when no other editor has even hinted that there is a consensus or that the discussion is finished. It's a pattern that's been going on for years. I often stay away from such discussions because I know he can tie us up for literally months on small details. He'll make comments that show he's playing IDHT and he doesn't really respond to other's concerns in a constructive way. I AGF by assuming he's not taking his medicine. That's the BEST interpretation I can give this matter. His block log speaks for itself. He's given an unusually long leash for some reason and it needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree on this - every interaction I've had with QuackGuru has been a pure contest of wills. He has a predefined idea of how things should be, and he doesn't respond to comments made by others: he simply repeats his points with an adamant insistence that they are obvious universal truths, and gets progressively more angry if he can't get his way. If wikipedia is serious about being a consensus system, then something has to be done about editors like QG - consensus discussions are almost impossible where he is active on a page.

I don't know what causes these problems. Sometimes I suspect there's an ESL issue - his language structure (on those relatively rare occasions where he types a full sentence) reminds me of some of the speech patterns I've seen in immigrants from eastern Europe - but other times I think it's an intentional tactic (or at least a very deep resistance to accepting any sort of compromise). If it were up to me, I'd suggest mandatory mentorship, because the only way QG is going to get past this is to have someone sit down and teach him the basics of civil, communicative discourse. Is there anyone who would be willing to do that, and any way to convince QG that he needs to accept it? --Ludwigs2 08:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the behavioral issues at the mentioned articles are sufficient to justify some sort of administrative action, there's really no need to try to get him on the talk page thing. If it is long-standing policy/practice to let users rule their talk pages as they will, this isn't the forum to try to change that. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only so you know, User_talk:Editor182 has lately been put on a very tight talk page archiving (no blanking) restriction as a condition for unblocking. Admin sanctions like this are ok so long as they can be appealed at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I absolutely agree that there are behavioral issues but I don't agree that there is a need to change talk page requirements here; I think it's downright wrong. If you can't communicate with the editor after more than one attempt, then that's what dispute resolution exists for; it's pure laziness if what is happening is that we're looking for ways to avoid it. If what is being alleged is that an editor is removing the original post and just retaining his reply (which could easily mislead users regarding what was originally said - especially if an editor is pretending to summarise what was said), then that's a separate problem altogether, and it's not permissible under policy to begin with. And hypothetically, for dodgy restrictions, you'd better hope that editors under such restrictions don't appeal. Hypothetically, if those restrictions are still in place, it's purely to encourage a new editor to be more responsive; hypothetically, should they dispute it after behaving, they will get assistance to have it overturned through whatever means necessary - and the outcome won't be a mere 'inconvenience' anymore, especially if particular administrators are trying to find ways to unilaterally impose sanctions in a manner that they have previously been warned about. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, this is why it's so very important to let such an editor know they can always appeal at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the appeal would not be limited to ANI if this has been an issue before - even more so if it was with the same administrator. It's just a hypothetical caution to administrators who are in that position. That it is allowed on the odd occasion does not mean it is acceptable or going to necessarily be OK in the future. I say necessarily OK because I recognise that there are very rare times where circumstances are100% exactly the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • And to address another point that I missed in my above comment, the reason email is not used for general Wikipedia communication is because we have no access whatsoever to those emails - not because of inconvenience. In the case of Wikipedia, we have access to what an user has said by way of the user talk history (especially for discussions which are not visible via archives). I'm surprised that some experienced administrators still don't get that. If that's too difficult, then it simply means you're either too lazy or need to brush up on your skills. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. Admins are volunteers, and their time is a limited resource, routinely searching laboriously through a user's talk history in case there's something there they should know is impractical. It is not reasonable to allow a handful of editors to both attain lesser scrutiny and inhibit dispute resolution through excessively rapid removal of talk discussions. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to broadly agree with this. If an editor isn't stirring up many warnings and such, I don't think anyone much cares if they blank their talk page, but when there are many warnings and other worries, I think blanking wastes a lot of time and isn't fair to other volunteer editors. In some ways I guess this can also be taken as a civility thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and for some periods he couldn't even use the excuse of meaningful edit summaries as responses to the comments he was deleting. See this period, for example. I can see no reason for this, other than being deliberately disruptive. David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The priority is in favour of editors having broad leeway about what happens in their userspace; it's not in favour of the handful of administrators who are refusing to take the time to investigate incidents properly. Issues are justified by diffs, not archives, so the history is exactly where you ought to be going to in any event, while editors also have limited time and may not be interested in trusting a bot or spending the time archiving themselves; it is in no way a requirement when registering on Wikipedia. In other words, I don't see any handful of editors attaining less scrutiny; they're exercising a privillege which was afforded to them by the much wider Community. What I see is a handful of administrators who are not doing what they are supposed to do. That a talk page exists for discussion does not mean that you can force them to discuss what you want in the way that you want at the time you want. Your failure, Rd232, to understand this was what led you to harass Bidgee on her talk page (and edit-war over it); you don't have the right to insist that someone talk to you, and that's why your WQA against Bidgee ended up as a boomerang. That there are situations where editors should respond to avoid dispute resolution and involuntary outcomes does not justify what is being pushed for in this venue (or what you were essentially asking for in that WQA). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Many editors routinely delete rather than archive, as history is always available, which is not the case with emails, so SV's argument that we might as well email if we don't archive fails. We do not routinely assume bad faith and say it must be because they wish to avoid scrutiny. It is not "'part of a pattern of disruptive behavior" to do something specifically permitted by policy; I am disturbed that there are people voicing such a view; I suggest the entire question of removing posts be taken out of this discussion; while some may find it a bit more tedious to go through history than to go through archives, it is not in any sense a negative thing to do. I refer you to, for example, User talk:Tony Sidaway "A note about archiving" - are we to broaden this discussion to also castigate Tony and others who routinely remove rather than archive? If so, I suggest the debate belongs on the relevant policy page. If not, then cease mentioning it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• User talk blanking is an issue? Really? The history tab for QG's user talk is pretty easy to click and every warning QG has ever received is in plain sight in that history. If QG prefers a blank his user talk page, what's that to us? If there are perceived issues with the user's edits or personal interactions, that's something to discuss. But trying to control how a Wikipedian choses to organize their communications in user space is not, in my opinion, anything more than a needlessly punitive game. jps (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that many editors routinely delete rather than archive.Users are recommended to archive their user talkpages. A minimal number do not archive and when you combine this users non archiving with his immediate removal of any comment placed there you do have an issue especially when there are warnings being added, it is impossible to discuss anything on his userpage, and discussion and being open to discussion is part of the normal, needed ,everyday workings or the wiki, one place it is not available is this users talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A recommendation is not a command. WP:BLANKING makes it clear in the guideline that users are well-within acceptable practices to remove notices and warnings from their user talk pages. People who have QG in their sights, including you, seem to want to continually approach him on his user talk page with template notices. This is a form of WP:Wikihounding, which is a behavior I have seen you do to me as well (which is why I asked you not to post on my talkpage any more, and I thank you for stopping the problematic behavior). In short, I'd be more willing to accept that this was a problem if someone actually showed some evidence that discussion was necessary on his talkpage. Instead, all I seem to be seeing is people whining about the fact that he doesn't want you guys templating him. If you've got a problem with QG, there are dispute resolution ideas available that include ways to discuss these matters outside of his talkpage. jps (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just read this and I didn't realize what it was about as you didn't provide any links and I didn't recognize you, but its User:ScienceApologist, you changed your name. Here is a link to the issue you are referring to for the log in case anyone wonders in future. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's been wikihounding of QG, that should also be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been circa 40 messages on QG's talk page since the beginning of November (roughly one a day), on a variety of issues, most by Ocaasi, but all told from 6 or 7 different editors. each message was either a request for discussion, a notification of some proceeding, or a plea to refrain from aggressive editing behavior (e.g. blanket reverts). Each was deleted without comment, or with some dismissive edit summary (he even took to writing his edit summaries upside-down and backwards at one point - neat css trick, I suppose). That does not strike me as wiki-hounding, but rather as fairly desperate attempts to get an editor to communicate and cooperate. please note for comparison that I got over 30 posts to my talk page over a 2-day period around the 25th of October (almost 60 posts over that week), and that was not considered wiki-hounding when I took the matter to ANI.

At any rate, this discussion has gotten sidetracked. I'm tired of QG's behavior, so the proper approach now is to open an RFC/U and settle this issue there. I don't know the procedure for doing that, so if someone wants to point me in the right direction 'll get on it, or if someone starts the proceedings themselves I will second it gladly. leave a note in my talk (I promise not to delete it. ) --Ludwigs2 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out, so it doesn't get forgotten, that there was also this recent WQA thread about QuackGuru, that also recommended an RfC/U. As for RfC/U itself, the information on it is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty now is that, because he blanks his talk page after each edit, it'll take some work to reconstruct who's been complaining about what, so that a comprehensive RfC can be posted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I always believe that it's better to start small on things like this - rather than overwhelming people with uber-comprehensive diffs just give a good overview with a small selection of appropriate examples. it can be added to as time goes on, if needed. Let me read up on the process and see if I can get something working later today. --Ludwigs2 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've been going over the RfC/U material, and I am beginning to think that it is not really worth the effort. QuackGuru did not respond to the previous RfC/U on him in 2007 (he did not post to the page at all), he did not respond to the Wikiquette I opened about him a couple of months ago, and neither case seems to have had any impact on his behavior. I see no reason to believe that he will deign to respond to a second RfC/U. Since I have no interest in building a new discussion just to be ignored by the person being discussed, I think it will be more effective to start up a community ban discussion, which (one assumes) will at least get his attention enough to guarantee his participation. I assume it would be best to start that over at wp:AN, so unless there are any objections to my starting that proceeding over the next couple of hours, I will do that there. --Ludwigs2 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archiving

• Some editing that is normally allowed may be restricted if the editing causes disruption on Wikipedia. We recently had a discussion where a user was restricted from blanking their talk page. I believe such a restriction might be appropriate here. If the blanking is being done to frustrate accountability, to obfuscate evidence of wrongdoing, to antagonize other users, or to dodge blocks by making it hard to see an accumulation of warnings, those may be valid grounds. Rather than holding a long talk-shop RFC on this subject, which is already pretty obvious, could somebody uninvolved in conflicts with the user please check their talk page history and give a summary of what they see? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked nicely here. Let's wait for a response. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely well put, Jehochman. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the editor reverting all posts, even nice ones. My preliminary look shows that he was previously topic banned from Chiropractic articles and there was some activity in regards to Pseudoscience. The block log speaks for itself. He doesn't seem to like having content disputes discussed in his user talk. Though this has also meant that warnings and concerns (which there are a lot of) have also been reverted. I don't agree that you should be skipping dispute resolution; resolving the allegations of POV pushing are more important than how convenient it is to access talk page records. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty simple. The editor appears to be behaving disruptively, getting into disputes and refusing to carry on civil discussions. Ignoring warnings. Hiding warnings in an effort to muddy the view. This points to a lengthy or permanent block for disruptive editing, if all else fails. There have been plenty of warnings and prior blocks. WP:BURO. It does not seem that the facts of the matter are in dispute, so I don't see the need for dispute resolution. I see the need for plain talk, possibly backed up with editing restrictions. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (after ec) On the contrary; discussing content disputes should properly be carried out on the appropriate article talk page in preference to user talk; and if he's removing "even nice (posts) its clear its how he cleans up his talk page; if here were "hiding warnings" he'd be leaving the nice ones and removing the warnings, which by the way I have also seen and which is also allowable. None of this is blockworthy or even warning-worthy. If he fails to discuss edits on article talk pages, if he edit wars, those are indeed warning and or block worthy items, but I am deeply distressed to see his method of handling his talk page posts being discussed as a problem when it is so clearly within policy. Again I ask, are you going to issue a long block to Tony Sideaway and others who also remove "all posts, even nice ones"? Is this supported in policy? No, and no. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KC, I beg to differ. You reveal that you haven't been involved with QG lately and therefore you are speaking from ignorance. Your intentions are good, but in this case are misguided and not really addressing the concerns that have been mentioned. It's nice to speak of hypotheticals and not changing the way we do things, but the realities right now demand an exception be made to stop his disruptions. Topic bans on a number of articles should be made, and a (temporary?) ban against blanking his talk page for a period of time, including complete removal of its history, which he frequently has done. He runs in circles on article talk pages. Discussion there doesn't help because he just makes edits in spite of objections and claims consensus where there is none and uses reverting all the time. Appeals and warnings on his talk page (since nothing works on article talk pages) are deleted with no visible change in his behavior. His block log is huge, but his methods of disruption are so complicated that it's often hard to pin him down to a particularly grossly blockable offense, but his behavior is still very disruptive and his lack of communication removes an important possibility for helping him and dealing with him. I suggest you start editing and discussing on those pages for awhile and you'll see what's happening. THEN you'll be able to speak with more authority. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things: I'm worried about a slippery slope, and disagree that we must make an exception - indeed, I find exceptions of convenience are the most dangerous; none of his other actions, which are indeed of concern and of which you may call me as ignorant as you like have any bearing on this trend towards becoming more controlling as regards user talk pages; and Removal of his history? He's not an admin, how was this accomplished? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! It's his user page, not his talk page, that gets the history scrubbed regularly by admins. I'll strike that above. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, thanks, that makes more sense now. I knew I must be missing something. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I find that collaborating with QG is easier in the classical wiki sense. He makes a lot of edits to article space. Some of these edits get reverted and sometimes he reverts. I have not had a problem getting to a consensus with him when we've disagreed (and normally we get to a consensus with a lot less hemming and hawing than is typical of Wikipedia's interminable discussions — a characteristic of QG's style that I actually find admirable). jps (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My polite request is still sitting there. Let's see what the response will be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of users who've been here for long enough seem to take heed of RfC/Us - such users don't pay as much regard to comments made individually at various points in time, but do sometimes pay attention to the Community's calls in DR (aka a RfC/U). It may turn out that he isn't responsive to the concerns, it may turn out that he is; I think this talk page thing is the least serious issue, and when confronted about each of the major issues and the views of the Community, at least we know exactly what has prompted the need for sanctions which are a bit more...final...if it comes to that. It also gives the Community the opportunity to endorse the parts which are respected, OK or constructive contributions, while it gives it the opportunity to specify each of the present issues - his not so constructive contributions at this point in time. It also gives him the ability to supply evidence of hounding if it is ongoing. We're not suggesting process for the sake of process when dispute resolution was enacted, or a process that should be skipped; we're suggesting resolving issues through the means available and if all else fails, involuntary outcomes or arbitration. If an editor has been here for this long and if there are such issues, and a RfC/U has not been filed, then that needs to be addressed - that will be the record. If he doesn't respond in the way you're hoping and then you do something stupid.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion happens to be a part of DR.... Unfortunately a community wide RfC/U would be even more disruptive and timewasting and would only bring even more uninvolved individuals who would make more uninformed comments based on hypotheticals and policies, but not his actual behavior, as we've already seen in this thread. It is the involved editors who know what's going on. All we need is for a courageous admin to take action. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru was back in 2007; it would have to be Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru 2. The context of the previous RFC/U was very different, but the overall feel is familiar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I blank my talk page after I receive a message and I would like to explain why. There are many reasons, actually. First, for context, I hate having a talk page. I recognize that it is a needed feature, but 90% of the messages are just a complete waste of time. Bogus warnings, false accusations, vandalism, or duplication or notifications of article talk discussions that I already have watchlisted. And I particularly hate the intrusive notification of your new message. It is like a ringing telephone - and I have the ringers turned off most of the time at my house. I am not one of Pavlov's dogs. OK more specifically, I blank my talk page

1. so that the messenger will know I saw their message

2. so I won't have to keep looking at it and keep investing energy in something from the past. I am here in an effort to improve the encyclopedia generally and individual articles in particular. The place to discuss things is in article talk pages or wikipedia project pages, unless the subject of the discussion is the editor.

3. To avoid wikidrama. Every message is treated the same - it's reverted. No possibility of drama. Look, I did the whole wikidrama thing and it sucks. My goal now is dispassionate editing.

4. I am not here for social networking. The whole talk page back and forth barnstar social networking side of wikipedia is something that holds no interest for me.

So please, if the editor in question is being disruptive somewhere, sanction for that, but not for blanking his talk page, which is clearly allowed under our current policies. Dlabtot (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the issue here. Technically it isn't the blanking that's the primary issue, but that the blanking is part of his pattern of disruption, IOW he uses it in a disruptive manner. THAT'S why we even mention it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate, the use of a broom is usually a good thing and allowed, but if it is frequently used as a weapon, the user may be requested or required to stop wielding the broom. That's the problem here. QG is misusing an otherwise neutral right. That's disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would generally agree that a user should be allowed to remove material from the user's own talkpage, in this case I agree with others above who argue against blanking without archiving. Sifting through page history and various diffs can be an inordinate burden, not just an inconvenience. Please correct me if I'm wrong: in some responses above there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what User Talk is for, perhaps out of ownership issues arising from common/accepted usage. The guidelines for User talk page describe it well enough as "a way of helping other editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working" -- therefore, "it is a mistake to think of user pages as a homepage." Also from User talk page # Blanking: "There is no need to keep [comments, notices, etc] on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." [my emphasis in bold] As it stands now the guideline allows for exception so why not exercise that in this case? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Dlabtot here. Doing something well within policy cannot be "part of a pattern of disruption" as following policy is not disruptive. The history is there; if we sanction any editor for blanking we must therefore change policy or we are guilty of capriciously ignoring policy when convenient to suit ourselves and our convenience. I realize you disagree; my view remains firm, however. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we need to have much stronger evidence that the talk page blanking is part of the problem than what is presented here if we are to claim that there is an exception to usual Wikipedia practice. "It makes it hard for those of us who want to see QG sanctioned to convince the uninvolved administrators he's a bad egg when he maintains a scrupulously clean talk page." seems like a very poor argument. If you want to convince others that there is a problem, link to diffs. "I want it to be easier to visually show everybody how many notices he's gotten." is not a motivation, stated or unstated, we should even give the impression of accommodating. jps (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue with QG blanking his talk page. I also understand his frustration when questionable sources are used. Am patrolling some of the same lemmata as QuackGuru and his reverts have been appropriate. Had he not made them, I would have. Chartinael (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page blanking can't possibly be an issue here, because even I, having encountered QG just a few times, know very well what the problems with this editor is. I have to say that I don't disagree with many of the points he makes, but I do see that he sometimes irritates other users in the way he goes about defending his points. Count Iblis (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponsiveness of QuackGuru

Even though SlimVirgin notified QG of this thread, he is demonstrating his lack of willingness to communicate about a problem which he knows is bothering many editors. His silence here, while he has continued to edit elsewhere, speaks volumes. This is quite the very literal demonstration of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His silence while continuing to edit could just be evidence that he's mulling over his options. WP:AGF, please. jps (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least he hasn't removed the last few posts from his talk page, so there may be progress. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Even though I have explained over and over that his IPA for the article Robin Thicke is incorrect, why it is incorrect, and tried to compromise, this user keeps using incorrect IPA. See also our discussion on his talk page. (I'm sorry, but I don't understand how to notice him of this discussion.) Aikclaes (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can understand your frustration, and I am sure you are acting in good faith, you seem to have breached WP:3RR yourself. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, and therefore the correct action is to revert once only with an explanation and then to take the issue to the talk page to get views from other interested editors. This approach is explained in detail at WP:BRD. For now, your best bet is to stop making edits to the page, but to clearly explain your case on the talk page, and see what response you get, both from Kwamikagami and from other users. Once a consensus if formed, the chosen version can be implemented and enforced.--Korruski^Talk 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do this. Sorry for using the term vandalism incorrectly. Aikclaes (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned comment added by Aikclaes (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. the user has now been informed of the discussion.--Korruski^Talk 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I came here as we are having an argument for a while me and Kwami, but though Kwami called me or my arguments all sorts of names he did not bully me, which other administrators have done in similar circumstances. This comment is here for what ever it is worth, Aikclaes did he issue threats of blocks, other administrators are prone to do that, Kwami has not done that once to me, you are lucky to have him in the ring, you could have worse opponents, I have not looked at the issue, will you please come up with diffs.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently others have had a different experience[49].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be any basis for administrator intervention here. User talk:Kwamikagami#IPA for Thicke shows that Aikclaes has tried to convince Kwami that their change to the IPA at Robin Thicke is not appropriate, but Kwami has replied very politely and in extreme detail, and the discussion is a model of good technique. I have no opinion on what the correct IPA is, but Kwami spends a lot of time doing this work and in the absence of any reason to believe otherwise, it is likely that Kwami's choice is correct, or at least, not wrong. Presumably somewhere like WT:IPA for English would be the next step, in order to obtain more IPA opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Obvious troll is obvious, indeed

• Boomtube (talk · contribs)

Can someone bag and tag the obvious troll/sock? Whoever this is made an amusingly clumsy attempt to get me into trouble, see User talk:Tarc#mail received and the history of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden to see a comment that I took the liberty of blanking. You could probly get some mileage by running a CU on this guy and one of both of Overturn deletion to censure Tarc! (talk · contribs) & Overturn and censure Tarc (talk · contribs), if so inclined. Tarc (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Yes, might be worth opening an SPI. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The latter two are stale, and CU wouldn't help, so it would have to rely upon behavioural editing; that said, the usernames do not fill me with confidence as to good faith. Nuke them. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Only a bit over 3 months old; I thought CU went a bit further back than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if the others are stale (and I agree that they might not be), a CU might well flush out something fishy ;) Can anyone think of a friend of CW's who's socked or skated close to canvasing issues? Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Now now, Jack, I'm sure it's Nobody we know. Reyk _YO! 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It would have to be someone who didn't realize that their disruption would drive traffic to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Of course it could be a detractor of CW's, but I'm the only known sock who's commented critically in his direction... and *I* supported the notion of a CU. And it's not me; I've not socked in longer than most editors have been on this project. Cheers, Moby Dick 02:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, it could be someone who has found from experience that RFCs are completely ineffectual and has a major bug up their ass about Tarc. So yeah... We'll see when and if the CU results come in. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it was something I said. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Tonyeason is possibly the same person as Boomtube. Definitely someone's sock anyway. Reyk _YO! 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great... I guess it's only a matter of time before Steve Grogan pops up as well. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least Grogan would pop up after a hit, and not go turtle at the sight of a D. Yes, I'm still bitter about Super bowl XX. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes.... it was 0 for 6 before they pulled him wasn't it? Poor Tony. I guess the 46 would have scared me back then too, though. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other socks associated with Boomtube, and the other accounts are  Stale. –MuZemike 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{discussion top|Closing this now as [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]]. This is a duplicate discussion of an existing one at [[WP:VPP]]. If you have something to add, please comment there and not here. There's no need to bifurcate the discussion into two areas, one discussion on the same topic is fine, thanks. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)}}

• Issue: - There is a conflict of opinions brewing hereon my talk page about how many and which wikiprojects have the right to tag an article as being within their scope.
• Background: - I was planning on doing a content drive with US related articles and was tagging the FA articles (I was going to follow that with A class and GA) in an effort to identify which articles fall under the US scope and then I was going to try and advertise to the 200+ projects and 2000+ users that we should all try and build up that number. User:Imzadi1979 accused me of Cherry picking articles before I was done. In the ensuing conversation I was told by User:Rschen7754 that I could not put the WPUS banner on any WP:USRD articles and then warned me about my use of AWB for these types of conentious edits as well as the rate at which I was doing them. I have in the past tried to work with this project but they want zero interferance or input from other projects and any suggestions are met with disdain and contempt. Any effort to edit one of "their" articles is met with almost instant comment. In the past they clearly voiced their opinion that the projects were seperate and there was no connection and as such the USRD banner and the WPUS banner are mutually exclusive. It is my understanding that a project cannot claim this type of ownership over articles and tell another project that they cannot tag "their" articles. And, since the projects are mutually exclusive except that they both pertain to US topics they shouldn't be allowed to run off other projects or edits (they have a history of both). They feel as though any project or editor that treads on their turf is just trying to push them out and take over.
• Determination needed: - Can someone clarify which of our viewpoints is correct (or if maybe where both wrong) before this escalates? --Kumioko (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried early-stage dispute resolution? This doesn't seem like it needs to be on AN/I. access_denied (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Given the history I doubt that would do much good. It was going to end up here eventually so I figured we may as well get it overwith. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? You should always remember to assume good faith with other editors and assume that communcation will be successful. I still think you should try WQA first. access_denied (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether Kumioko's proceeding to tag articles with WP:AWB is controversial. --Rschen7754 05:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AWB: "Don't do anything controversial with it. " People have clearly expressed opposition to this, making his actions controversial. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the articles should be tagged, Kumiko cannot use AWB to tag the articles until the dispute is resolved. AWB is not to be used to further your side of the dispute. --Rschen7754 05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors had a problem, you and Imzadi and both regarding USRD projects. There was some conversation a while ago about multiple US related projects tagging the same projects but since then it has been repeatedly clarified that aside from being related to US they are all mutually exclusive and operate independently of one another. The Barack Obama article is a prime example. There are piles of projects and all have a right to help in maintaining and improving the article. Who am I to say that one project shouldn't tag it because a similar but unrelated project has a tag on it. And just because one or 2 editors say its contreversial doesn't make it so. Add a WikiProject banner to an article is not controversial. --Kumioko (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is because people have expressed objections to what you are doing. --Rschen7754 05:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that still doesn't make it contentious. I could say I don't want people adding infoboxes to the Biographys in my watchlist but that wouldn't make it right. Just because 1 or 2 editors don't want another project to touch their articles doesn't mean they should or can. --Kumioko (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not doing it with WP:AWB. AWB should not be used to edit war. --Rschen7754 05:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the orange box above this page when you edit: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." you have only informed Rschen that hes being discussed, why not Imzadi? --Admrboltz (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder but its there. --Kumioko (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four minutes after I posted this message. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hit save and was typing replys here so I think my computer got stuck and took a minute to save. Do you have any opinion about the discussion? --Kumioko (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI isnt the correct location for this discussion for one, but I do believe you are cherry picking. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the Cherry picking thing. That problem is easily solved, I will just tag them all since they do fall in the scope of US. It unfortunately does pretty much eliminate being able to do any kind of content drive for a very long time since the articles are scattered across over 200 projects but Ill work on that. Just for future info where should an incident of a project enforcing unallowed "ownership" of articles to a point were they revert other editors and projects actions on the grounds that it is already tagged by their project? As well as statements that any editor can instantly stop AWB from being used by saying any edit is controversial? Both of the latter questions seem like this would be the place but I admit I don't completely know. --Kumioko (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this matter belongs here. Since it is here, I'll just offer a few comments. I have the USRD FAs on my watchlist in addition to the articles I actively edit. I saw Kumioko tag the article California State Route 78 saying he was adding the WPUS banner and tagging it as a county, using AWB. A little while later, I saw Capitol Loop similarly tagged. I looked at his contributions because I was curious about the situation given the incorrect edit summary. He hadn't edited in about 20 minutes at that point, and all of the articles were just Featured Articles . I asked him on his talk page about this. The reason being he had previously invited USRD to collaborate with WPUS. As a result of that discussion, he said that WPUS wouldn't be tagging the USRD articles. His reply earlier today was that he was only tagging FA, A and GA articles, which is cherry-picking in my opinion. Honestly, I don't care what Kumioko does with WPUS. I don't agree with projects tagging upper-tier articles that they don't actually work with. That's claiming credit and padding the project's stats in my mind. Others might see it differently, and that's fine. I don't see a reason for this project to tag the aricles that it's tagging, but that's not my concern. I do see a reason for Kumioko to to disengage in dealing with USRD since his actions have caused controversy with members of the project and have not been welcomed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I completely think this issue should be here because it pertains to a project enforcing ownership over articles to a degree that no outside editors are allowed. Ok the reason I stopped was because I was driving home. I do admit though that I forgot to take off the bit about US counties from the summery and that was an acccidental mistake. Other than that the edit summery is correct. I stated above the reason I was tagging those was so I could do a content collaboration to build up more GA and better articles relating to US topics. I'm not trying to claim credit or padding anything. WPUS was basically dead for a couple years and I just catching up for lost time. Plus right now in order to determine what articles fall in US scope (FA class for example) one needs to mine through over 200 projects. I am trying to give visibility of those at a single level. As far as the Cherry picking thing perhaps that's what it could be called but I did this partially so I wouldn't agrivate the USRD project because of their rather unfriendly dealings with outsiders. I wish I could completely disengage from the project but the problem is that we have large overlaps in scope so we need to work to get along. If USRD doesn't want to collaborate with WPUS and the other projects thats fine but they don't have the power to tell the other projects they can't touch their articles. --Kumioko (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict, take 4) By definition though USRD is the nexus of WPUS (the US part) and WP:HWY (highways, the roads in the name is a historical accident). One edit to the USRD banner and the articles can be sent into your project's assessment categories. There would be no need to add addition project banners, but WPUS would inherit the USRD classifications (which are stricter for assessing quality than most wikiprojects) and/or importance levels. If that would appease you, I can have one of the appropriate admin members of the project edit the banner template and have at it. USRD doesn't WP:OWN the articles, anyone is free to edit them, but it is the project that is the most active in doing so. If you will, USRD's reputation is built on the quality of the articles it edits, so we take some pride in that. What I don't like is the implication that your actions in all of this new tagging is to create statistics on the quality of the articles when the project has not been active in dealing with them. Tagging only the FA/A/GAs as you said you were going to do inflates your numbers in those categories.
      On another note, your edit count numbers seem abnormally high for an account without a bot flag. I suggest that before it gets you into trouble, consider creating a bot account and having it approved for the banner tagging. I'm not accusing you of breaking policy, I'm saying that as a gut instinct as I don't know what the policy on that is exactly. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a WikiProject may tag whatever articles they wish to include under their purview. That's all it means and it doesn't mean that they are "claiming credit" for the article in any way. Yworo (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate or acceptable if I were to put a message stating something to the effect that that articles are tagged to allow a complete picture of the articles in US scope and that the project didn't get most of them to that status? --Kumioko (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflit, take four) It does mean something when the Project then brags about how many FAs it has, and it tagged the article after it went through FAC and was shepherded through that rigorous process by editors from another project. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the nub of the matter, clearly. WikiProjects can tag what they like; it isn't WP:OWN or credit-taking. Even FAs need maintenance, and any projects tagging them after successful FAC may potentially help with that. What's bad is appearing to take credit for work a project hasn't done. Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was inappropriately closed. The conversation in the village pump is completely different. --Kumioko (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC) {{discussion bottom}}[reply]

What administrative action is needed here? This is better discussed at the village pump, whether that's in the existing thread or a new one. the wub "?!" 09:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia has actual, written advice on how to deal with exactly this situation. You'll find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. It says, "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner."

If that's not plain enough for you, then leave a note at the guideline's talk page or at WT:COUNCIL, and we'll talk about ways to re-write it so that it cannot possibly be misunderstood, even by people who are trying really, really hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely back in July. Regardless of whether that block was correct, circumstances have changed, and I hope that an uninvolved admin will take a look. The blocking admin is still a bit active, though retired, and is not eager to revisit the matter.

In a nutshell, the issue involved what "tag" to slap on an uploaded image. Zsero wanted to use Tag A rather than Tag B, but consensus was that Tag B seemed more appropriate. Zsero objected to Tag B, because it said that the image was copyrighted whereas Tag A did not make that claim. Anyway, the changed circumstances are that (1) after Zsero was blocked Tag A was deleted and is therefore no longer available, and (2) today Tag B was changed at my request so that it no longer says that the image is copyrighted but rather clarifies that we may be merely assuming that copyright exists.[50]

So, in view of these two changed circumstances, the reason for a continuation of the block is removed in my opinion, and I think a lifetime ban would be punitive for this reason. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication that this user wants to return and would know they were unblocked? Have you been in contact with them? Grandmasterka 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed him and asked him to post to his talk page if he is still interested in contributing to Wikipedia.--Chaser (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not at all involved in this case previously, but have reviewed the block in question. I should note that Zsero was not blocked for having an opinion about the status of the image or the tags in question. He was blocked for being disruptive. All editors at Wikipedia have opinions, and no one is blocked for having them, nor is anyone blocked for expressing the opinions. What they are blocked for is acting disruptively, which is what Zsero did. Regardless of whether or not the specific tags in question have been changed, what concerns me is that, in the case of future differences of opinion, if Zsero would act similarly to how he acted during his LAST difference of opinion. I would oppose unblocking unless the user in question can clearly show that he understands why his behavior led to his block, and how he plans to change his behavior if unblocked. --Jayron32 07:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question above, I doubt that the user will want to immediately jump back into Wikipedia, but the opportunity should be open in my opinion, and after awhile I wouldn't be surprised to see the user jump back in. The controversy that led to his block is now totally moot and cannot recur. I might add that until today Wikipedia was falsely claiming that various images are copyrighted even though Wikipedia is unsure about that; this is why Zsero removed the tag, not because of any pattern of disruption AFAIK (the user's blocks during the year 2010 were all in relation to these tags). I don't see that a confession or even a desire to edit Wikipedia is necessary here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate on where exactly Wikipedia has been "falsely claiming hat various images are copyrighted even though Wikipedia is unsure about that"? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was Zsero's contention at his talk page, and my contention here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblock until/unless the user is ready/available to talk on-wiki. (I am uninvolved and have also reviewed some of the circumstances here.) That said, I don't agree with Jayron32's last sentence; I think such a requirement is too high in these circumstances. Copyright is a sensitive matter and I don't think it's fair to just put it down to a mere disruptive way of having different opinion. The user made some valid points during his block; it's that I am a bit uneasy about just granting an unblock in this case. Rather than expecting the user to file the appeal by himself in a way that is going to satisfy these concerns, I think what's needed is for him to edit so that we can ask him questions on his user talk and assist him with understanding how Wikipedia works. No amount of help pages are going to help in this case; what is needed is discussion with the blocked user. Should the user not return by the end of this ANI discussion, or should this request not be successful, then a link to this discussion (from the archives) should be added to the user's talk so that others know that this has been looked into already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock User talk:Fastily#Unblock request. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Zsero was disruptive on a variety of other issues, too, ranging from Chabad to gaffa tape. Jack Merridew 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - wait until Zsero asks to be unblocked. The reason for the block was how Zsero behaved. If he wants to be unblocked, he should show penitence, and ask to be unblocked. The unblock request here is the complete opposite; it is not made by him, and it by implication suggests that the circumstances of the ban were at fault, not Zsero.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per what Toddy1 says. If the user himself asks for an unblock, then it could be considered. In general, I don't think it's a good practice to unblock someone who hasn't asked to be unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Baseball Bugs. WAYNESLAM 00:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Let sleeping editors be. If he's unblocked and happens to discover it, he could surmise his behavior was okay after all, that we're arbitrary in blocking and unblocking. He needs to initiate the process himself. - KrakatoaKatie 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can someone monitor this article, the IP is edit warring with Mercy and calling him/her nasty names, they just called Mercy a retard which is offensive, I think this IP needs a block to get their attention--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a source which proves that clemency was offered on August 11, 1999. Not September 11, 1999. The source also proves that Oscar refused clemency. Despite this, Mercy11 keeps reverting the source and claiming that Oscar was not offered clemency. This is false. What's the problem? I'm just trying to add correct information. Read the source if you don't believe me.

http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm

--70.127.202.197 (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you called him a retard thats the problem, it was uncivil you should have stopped and went to the talkpage -Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are incivility concerns, and I have spoken to the contributor about that. However, the incident occurred before your final warning. While the tone following that final warning still could use improvement, the "retard" comment has not been repeated. I don't think a block would be appropriate. In terms of edit warring, it's hard to see what's going on, since Mercy has been reverting without comment, but now that you've opened a discussion at the talk page perhaps conversation will follow, if the IP's source is for some reason in dispute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok but if you read the edit summaries, 70.127 has insulted mercy in all his edit summaries, and then he taunted him on his talk page saying he couldn't block, but we will wait and see how things go Moonriddengirl --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mercy has again reverted without explanation, here, I've made sure that s/he is aware of this thread and asked for participation either at the article's talk page or here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE ANONYMOUS user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This matter is not about when clemency was or was not granted, but about uncivility by the anonymous user. An encyclopedia cannot be built if you are dealing with uncivil people, as the anonymouns user has demonstrated to be. The sockpuppet anonymous user (first anonymous at 72.186.98.71 and then annonymous at 70.127.202.197) violated Wikipedia WP:CIVILITY policy. My reverts violated no policy.

The history of violations by this annonymous user (who may quite well be a sockpuppet of a real registered user as well) goes like this:

72.186.98.71 at "White Eagle (robbery)":

"You're a moron" --- HERE

"You're an idiot" --- HERE

"You're an idiot", again --- HERE

72.186.98.71, then showed up as 70.127.202.197 (locations 12 mi away from each other) at "Oscar López Rivera" as follows:

"I already did[,] you moronic radical twit" --- HHERE

"Here's your sources, you radical nutcase" --- HHERE

"Not gonna happen, retard." --- HHERE

"You are a major retard." --- HHERE

The anonymous user continued the offensive, personal attacks even after I contacted user at the anonymous page in question HERE. The user changed IP addresses immediately after this to the 70.127.202.197 address and has not abandoned that IP address since.

If we check the dates and times of the above edits, the offenses and personal attacks had no other intention than to disrupt the harmonious building of the encyclopedia. The attacks were deliberate, premeditated, repeated and, to this moment, unremorseful. They harmed the building of the encyclopedia by being disruptive as they were also intended to garnish moments of glory and delight for the offending user at the expense of the intention of producing personal harm. This anonymous user should not be allowed such significant levels of disruption to the encyclopedia.

The user should not only be blocked at the 2 IP addresses, but the 2 articles in question should be locked until such time as civil editors can look into the validity of the anonymous user's alleged corrections of fact. A 30-day lock should be granted given the current and upcoming holidays.

Again, the anonyoums user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This is not a matter of the article having an error of fact on the date of the presidential clemency; this is about uncivility by the anonymous user, and we should not lket the user fool us into thinking this is about anything else but that. An encyclopedia cannot be built if anonymous users are holding a gun to your head while arguing about an alleged matter of fact. The actions of the anonymous user are a violation of policy, and it should be dealt with accordingly: and prevent further changes to the article by anyone who is not a registered user.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Civility is important, but we have processes for handling problems with it. If somebody is aggressive in a way that you think is detrimental to the project, you need to seek assistance, per WP:NPA. Blanket reversions of unblocked contributors because you find them incivil is a kind of vigilante justice that's not supported by any policy. There's no doubt that this IP's behavior has crossed the line, particularly as you point out that it has persisted across two IPs. Blocks are not punative, but preventative, however. If the behavior continues, a block will be certainly be forthcoming. But there is no exception for reverting rude people at Wikipedia:Edit warring. It's also important to provide an accurate edit summary. If you haven't looked into the content, your edit summary should make that clear, rather than implying that yours was the "last good version." And you have now not only reverted the IP, but reverted this edit by presumably an uninvolved editor (User:Quazgaa) with a summary reading, "Issues regarding this article are under currently discussion at the ANI board." The article isn't locked. Is there substantive reason to revert User:Quazgaa? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is "NO", and I went back into the article to undo my revert of Quazgaa's edits but I see the anonymous user in question had already reverted them - as well as his own. The longer answer is that my intention was not to revert Quazgaa: I was reverting the Anonymous User's comments when I got an Edit Conflict, due to Quazgaa's concurrent edit. Thus I reverted both - it seemed like the right thing to do at the moment, and as a note to Quazgaa and any potential future editors I also entered, at the time of my double undo, a note into the article's Talk Page HERE that the matter was being discussed in this forum, and hopefully put on hold other editors' potential changes. I don't claim to be perfect, and maybe some might consider my double undo wrongful action, but the record shows that the anonymous user started the controversy and continues, still unremoseful, to disrupt the encyclopedia by dragging additional Wikipedia resources into something that shouldn't have been. We cannot build an encyclopedia when an editor insists in having his persistent and unremoseful uncivility condoned by this forum. This is disruptive. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Nobody is condoning the behavior. It was flatly, unacceptably incivil. There's no justification for speaking to others that way on Wikipedia, and if it continues there will certainly be sanctions. That said, it is best to deal with incivility through the means set out at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The article makes it clear that Clinton made the clemency offer in AUGUST 1999, NOT September 1999. It also makes it clear that Oscar refused the clemency offer. Despite this, Mercy11 ignores the source and continues to insist that the offer was made in September 1999 and that Oscar was not even offered clemency. My behavior is not polite but that doesn't give Mercy11 the right to ignore the fact that the article proves that clemency was offered in August, NOT September and that Oscar WAS offered clemency. --70.127.202.197 (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please read this link, Moonriddengirl and Mercy11.

http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm

Sorry I couldn't get here earlier, It seems Both parties are involved in edit warring and are to blame, Mercy shouldn't have edit warred neither should have the IP even though your edit is correct you don't edit war to get it kept. the IP is also to blame for incivil behaviour even though you stopped when I warned you, you haven't apologised to Mercy and you adamently have refused to when asked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lerdthenerd is quite right about edit warring, 70.127.202.197. If somebody reverts your improvements to the article, you should follow the procedure at dispute resolution. It may seem to add a bit of extra headache, but as this shows in the long run it has the potential to save quite a bit more. It's worth taking the time to discuss differences to avoid larger distractions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]