Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts WP:AN WP:ANB For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

• Moved from WP:ANI and restoring archived material. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Archive search for McCready
• Arbcom punts issue back to community

---

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

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [4] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [5] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [6]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [7]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [8] and Virtual Steve [9] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [10]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant discussion should be at [11] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [12]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[13], including with an IP[14][15] (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[16]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• FloNight [18] [19]
• MastCell [20]
• David Ruben [21]
• FeloniousMonk [22]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [23])
• Jim62sch [24]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [25])
• Friday [26]
• Jefffire [27]
• Arthur Rubin [28]

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

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

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)

Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Summary

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

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

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

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

I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Brilliant,_fabulous). It seems to me that McCready is still obsessive about pseudoscience topics and I am not comfortable with lifting the topic ban as it's close to impossible to keep a lid on those topics already. I've modified my opinion from above because in looking through the archives I find a fair bit of evidence of previous ban evasion and other nonsense (including recently editing in this area without the ban being lifted); that is not a good sign. This may be a case of "give a dog a bad name" but I really do think that these articles are better off without McCready's input. I don't think it's a problem necessarily of whether he can make properly neutral edits to this content, it's what happens when anyone disputes his edits that causes the problem. I think the WP:TIGERS are best kept in their cages on this one.

The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)

Richard Dawkins (8)

Ubiquitin (8)

Osteochondritis dissecans (7)

Talk:Water fluoridation (7)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)

Missy Higgins (6)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)

Fiat money (5)

PubMed (5)

Lee Myung-bak (5)

Karl Kruszelnicki (5)

User talk:Collectonian (5)

Silicosis (4)

Antireligion 4)

Meningitis (4)

New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

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

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

And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan ^T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)

Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read WP:COI. Members of X profession may edit articles on X topic as long as they're not POV-pushing, and no admin ever found that I was. However, if you're right about there being a "matter of record", I'm sure you can email me the diff(s) off-wiki, right? And if you can't, I'll take your silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Here are the numbers:

1. Guy who is adamant that the "ban" stays until Guy judges I have done enough editing

2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy

3.. Sandstein – withdrew from discussion on grounds I didn’t provide links (since it’s all on my talkpage which I’ve referred to multiple times … has obviously not made himself aware of the issue

4. Elen of the Roads – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,

6. SlimVirgin – an if statement does not support Middle8 and Guy

7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

10. Brangifer says supported in past when he used a different wikiname, doesn’t comment on now - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

11. The Hand That Feeds - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

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

• You are showing, once again, your combative nature, excessive tendency to personalise and factionalise disputes, and fierce determination to edit these articles. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Mccready, you will not go back to the topics you are banned from, otherwise I will block you. Understood? The community ban is still in place until such time as it is formally revoked. There is no consensus for doing so here and indeed a plethora of solid arguments have been put forward for keeping it in place. Moreschi (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin, that's a pretty deceptive summary. The point is that we are all against you editing in the area of your topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now blocked for 100 hours for ignoring the topic ban by editing at chiropractic education. Moreschi (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Predictable, I guess. I hold by my original thought that what we need to see is evidence of the ability to engage in civil debate with people he disagrees with. As I read it, the main problem was that he kept flying off the handle every time someone disagreed with him. I can see why, fringe-pushers are incredibly vexatious and persistent, but losing your temper has never fixed that yet and is unlikely to start any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• OK, will do. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural note

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

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

User	Type	Sanction (quoted verbatim)	Special Enforcement Details	Expiration Date
Mccready	Topic ban	Mccready is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed.	Community sanction imposed at this discussion, which occurred on 7 May, 2008	Indefinite

Did you want to do the honours Ed? Once this is done we can mark this thread as closed and continue on as normal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per what was said here, I used the {{edit protected}} template on the unblock request talk page, but it was declined. Can we please keep this section from archiving so we can actually get consensus on the matter?— Dædαlus ^Contribs

As I commented intimated at the archived thread, this is a solution in search of a problem (or a solution to a problem that occurs very rarely). The template gives admins an idiot-proof code segment to copy and paste, so they won't get the parameter wrong. Those that do should be trouted =) –xeno^talk 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say that in the archived thread. What you said was that it shouldn't such a big deal to bring to this noticeboard, and that I should just request it through {{editprotected}}. You also asked for an instance when it happened, which I provided. What precisely you said can be seen below:

It seems just to be adding some alternate names for the parameter? No big deal - should've just been proposed thru the {{edit protected}} imo. Has this ever actually been a problem, though? The unblock template even gives us a idiot-proof copy and pastable code segment... –xenotalk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you need to read between the lines =) –xeno^talk 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to alter the coding to allow for errors, rather than alter the coding to make the user aware of their errors. Further, it is beneficial to the blockee to know why they are blocked, and there won't always be someone around to spot a misuse of the template.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish this to be archived until others comment on the issue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the need for this, but I do thank you for the suggestion Daedalus. It's never really bothered me. I'd say post another section on the talk page just suggesting the code change. Maybe you'll get more comments from people who actually pay particular attention to templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

From the RFAR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree, and tend to support a community topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support siteban or topic ban. Either/or, it seems six of one, yadayada. Auntie E. 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per Aunt Entropy, with perhaps a slight preference for a siteban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Done. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support extention to indefinite - relatively uncontrovertial imo, for exactly the reasons that it was imposed in the first place. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef. Pcap ping 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also support indef topic ban. We don't need advocacy SPAs on whatever topic.  Sandstein  18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support long-overdue site or topic ban. Skinwalker (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite block, per Jehochman, Ale_jrb & Sandstein. Maybe I'm getting cranky in my old age (or because I am spending a lot of my waking hours looking after a 2 year-old), but when someone gets a one-year topic ban & fails to change for the better afterwards then nothing will convince her/him to play nice with the rest of Wikipedia. Let the user find another outlet for her/his energies or advocacy. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support outright indefinite topic ban, effective immediately. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban - the editor refuses to drop the stick, apparently, so we have to take the stick away somehow. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Let me just say that most of the support come from involved editors, and I invite the non-involded admin to carefully review the situation, and in particular my edits since Dec 17, before taking action. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of it comes from uninvolved people and I've seen nobody support your return to editing that article. Sanctions which fail to affect the behaviour of the sanctioned editor have a tendency to be extended, that seems to be what people above are saying. Unsurprisingly I agree. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Guy. Of the accounts currently involved in the discussion on Talk:Cold fusion, only Enric Naval has posted both here & there; of the parties involved in the RfAr case, only Jehochman was involved both here & there. I'd also like to point out that when Pcarbonn was topic-banned from this article, she/he practically stopped contributing to Wikipedia (she/he made some edits to her/his monobook.js file), & as Guy pointed out above returned to the Cold fusion article -- without ever venturing into another subject area. in other words, I don't see any evidence that this editor has tried to figure out how to work within the rules of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He says "I find this decision unjust and unfounded, and a harbinger of great danger for Wikipedia, its editors, and its readers." And note his userpage where he listed a number of "suppressed statements" and is crossing them off as he weasels them into the article. Chief among these is the pretence that the DoE 2004 report was much more ambivalent than it actually was, elevating comments from the body of the report above the headline conclusions, which were unchanged from the previous report and firmly against cold fusion. So, no, he has learned precisely nothing, in fact repudiates the outcome of the arbitration case, and is still on precisely the same mission. But he was not entirely absent during the topic ban - he went to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science to argue his case again. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also support indef topic ban, from pseudo-science topics broadly construed including all related meta-discussions, or siteban if that isn't practical. Sustained single-minded agenda editing should lead to blocks far more often and far more quickly than it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Damiens.rfc block review. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Administrators have any right to edit through a protection template as User:Blueboy96 has done here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that it was all right ... in fact, I was just getting ready to go back to add a source I missed. Besides, if the information is reliably sourced, what's the problem? Blueboy96 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to do that and as an administrator you should realize that. What special right do you think you can ignore the discussion that other people have contributed and wasted their time typing when you come along and don't bother even commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should revert your addition and go to the talkpage like everybody else and outline your desired addition and add the edit request template and see what other involved editors have to say about it, your rising above process like that takes away all reason for anyone to bother. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During this discussion User Blue Boy went back to the article ignoring my comments and made another edit through the protection template. Is this correct or is it a joke? Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboy96, admins aren't supereditors; the sysop bit doesn't give you any more editorial rights than mere mortals. If you're making uncontroversial changes, it should be easy to gain consensus on the talk page. If you're making controversial changes, you have no business doing that on a protected article. I'm pretty confident this is written on a policy page somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: WP:PREFER. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As far as I was aware, if an article is fully protected, admins shouldn't be making content edits through protection. Edits should be limited to obvious and trivial fixes and fulfilling talk page requests that appear to have consensus. --Onorem♠Dil 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought that it was noncontroversial to merely expand that he was fired ... just rolled back and heading to the talk page. Blueboy96 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already resolved...and I'm fine if this is the last comment since drama sucks...but I think another question worth asking is why was editing through full protection even an option? I asked the protecting admin, who appears to be offline now...but don't see in the history what brought the protection on. Am I missing something in oversighted or deleted revisions or something? --Onorem♠Dil 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's more the case that the software only has three settings: everyone edit, autoconfirmed edit, or admins edit. That's how it was designed. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently blocked BilCat (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation. While I initially set the block to 12 hours, I reduced it to 3 hours shortly afterwards on the grounds that Bill is an editor in good standing. While the block should now have expired, Bill is finding that he is still blocked and receives a message stating that he's been autoblocked. When I try to manually lift the block I get a message saying that the block has expired. Does anyone know what's going wrong here, and if so can they please (urgently) rectify it. Please note that Ajh1492 (talk · contribs), who I also blocked for 12 hours but reduced to 3 for the same edit war may also be affected. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick, you need to look through the list of active blocks to find the autoblock. What I do is list the last 500 blocks and then do Ctl-F to search the list for the name of the blocked user. You can then lift the autoblock as all should be well..... Which si exactly what I did. The block log is at Special:BlockList but I always follow the link from the header in the users block log. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocks for the underlying ip are for a maximum of 24 hours, so any sanction reduction to less than that period needs to effect the autoblock. The easiest way would be to perform an unblock of the account, which brings up the "remove autoblock" option, unblock the ip also, and then reblock the account for the new tariff which creates a fresh autoblock. As long as there are explanations given in the summary then the block log makes clear all the reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not an admin, but a few days ago I was aware of an ArbCom case regarding climate change and article probation. I was going to comment on it, but I can no longer find the two cases in the requests. Have the cases closed? Could anybody provide me with a background on how this conflict started, or some links to Wikipedia pages that would help? Either here or on my talkpage would be fine, but I would like as concise a summary as possible. The issue is that I think global warming is currently accelerating, but I would need to work on this more before the information could be included into more articles, as I am trying to provide the "bigger picture" to the current state of this issue. Please direct me to the appropriate discussions. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here where MBIsanz closed both applications as rejected at around 2300 on January 5th. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change where a discussion was recently held resulting in community sanctions being levelled on articles related to climate change. --TS 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a single IP user, but I need to report this: A brazilian user IP 201.0.202.118, who is vandalizing Lula, o filho do Brasil was banned 3 months in Portuguese Wikipedia by multiple registrations/accounts and vandalism (his accounts are banned forever). He uses sock puppets here and there, and he is vandalizing lots of pages there. He is like "radical communist", only edits political pages. He must be banned here too. Please, punish him and his multiple accounts and IPs. 189.4.240.56 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the maps on Wikipedia are useless, because the location they are showing, shows no other reference points, so they are meaningless for determining where the location is, it might as well just be an isolated point or dot with nothing else around it, which is what these maps are. They may look nice, but most people want a map to find out where something is, in relation to something else, like where they might be located, and where the map location is in relation to where they are located. For example the map of Coto De Caza, has no reference points at all. To find out where it is, you'd have to cross reference it with a second map, and if you have to do that, why would you even waste time with the wikipedia map?
Then the author says, if you want to make a comment, go to his "talk page". Except the words "talk page" aren't a link, and you can't find the "talk page" unless you want to spend an hour looking for the needle in the haystack. I know this because I looked for it and couldn't find it and didn't have 15 minutes to spend, trying to find the link to "make a comment" on this useless "map". Its not a map, its just a picture.

Thank you, Barbara Mau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.65.219 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the map is User:Shereth; once you are at his user page (where it says, "You may pester him with questions or requests for assistance on his talk page", which I assume is what you refer to), just click on the 'talk' tab at the top of the page to access his talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except it says 'discussion', not talk, and I guess people sometimes can't make the connection. --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tab of Shereth's talk page? It is labelled 'talk' when I look at it (all talk page tabs are labelled 'talk' for me). Perhaps it is a quirk in the software somewhere? But thanks for pointing that out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me as an anon all talk page tabs (whether articles' or users') are all labelled clearly "discussion", not "talk". Maybe you're using a particular skin or a particular localization? 80.135.18.144 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a side-effect of Friendly. It changes discussion to talk.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the guidelines for editors creating user pages for other editors, eg User:Scienceofficer which was just created. Sure, we create talk pages to welcome new users, but I always though of user pages as pages to be created only by the user. I'm probably wrong but couldn't find any guidance. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is the WP:UP#OWN section of WP:UP: "In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your user page, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." Personally I think that WP:UP#OWN makes it clear that creating user pages for other users is not advisable, unless done so with their permission or to add a sock tag or similar. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion also. I'll ask the editor, who I am sure is acting in good faith, to stop. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I turn my userpage on? Where are the selections so that I can choose one? MoodFreak (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to User:MoodFreak and add whatever you want to be displayed on your user-page into the edit box. Any subsequent questions of this nature are better directed to our help desk, please open a section there if you need any further help. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin take action on this please? This MFD has been open since December 21st, 2009. It appears to be a no consensus keep to me, but I would feel more comfortable if an admin had a look. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it, but with a different result than you came up with. The article has now been deleted. However....would one of you "big kid" admins please un-screw my formatting and make sure I've done all the necessaries? This is my first admin closure of an XfD (yeah, I know) and I'm apparently crap with hatnotes and the like. I'm going over the instructions on closing one, but....Look, I'm just a little insecure about these things, hm?  :) (Seriously, though--someone double-check me, please. This really is my first closure.) GJC 05:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's why I asked for an admin to have a look as I am not good yet with determining consensus.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I approached the situation with a little MORE caution simply because I started from your conclusion--the "delete" votes seemed to have a bit more policy behind them, and one of the main "KEEP"s was the user himself. But it was good to consider that someone else had read consensus differently--I think you did fine, actually. GJC 06:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, good close. Just for future reference, my only advice would be not to bother saying "always open for deletion review"--every deletion is technically open to DRV, but the system works best when it's rare, so the default assumption should be that an XFD close is final. Just some friendly advice, though--carry on closing. Chick Bowen 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, another editor came along and fixed it.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can one or several administrators please deal with this? There is a ridiculously large backlog that has been there for about the past week. Thank you! Insorak ♫ talk 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if 128.174.251.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is really a bot and if so whose? It's been blocked twice today. I've asked Cobi as it may well be his. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that has to be Cobi's, or some terrible co-incidence. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin should check the latest edits of this user, who is on tagging spree on all the articles, I edit, and all the artices he think belong to my caste! Amusing for me, but surely not for wikipedia. Kindly have a look. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean his image taggings, those that I've checked seem all soundly argued and legitimate. Sorry, nothing we can do to avoid this kind of legitimate scrutiny; those images need cleanup. (However, I have advised him to avoid multiple automated notifications to uploaders, as per a recent discussion we had elsewhere showing that this may have a somewhat aggravating effect.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at WT:RFA#Unchecking the box, an RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Your collective input is desired. -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed in the past few months that every time you click on a coordinate, you get the nearest street address? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to require intervention from users with the sysop user-right: it belongs at WP:VPT, I think. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't even know that that existed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; it's quite an interesting page, I keep it on my watchlist :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a quote I came across as a usenet sig:

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

— Oliver Wendell Holmes

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

It's worse than that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An aside: apparently, and incredibly, the English Wikipedia does not have an article on communicating vessels. There are reasonably good articles on German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias (and several more, if you follow the interwiki links), with very pretty pictures (and a rather nice counterexample picture on the Dutch wiki). The Italian Wikipedia has even an article on Stevin's Law, which apparently nobody on English wikipedia has ever heard about. And then they say that Wikipedia is full, and all basic topics are actually covered -- eh? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: the Italian Wikipedia even has an article on the Hydrostatic Paradox! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this link for the original context of the quotation. Chick Bowen 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or this. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite old but was on the ANI talk page. Feel free to archive straight away... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

urgent need for admin help at juice plus talk page

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

The talk page is not the place to put this. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it "resolved" and "stale" – it's a bit too late for anyone to do anything now! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]