Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) at 15:26, 23 January 2010 (→Requesting topic ban or extended block of User:Likebox: Repeated bumping of topics is Not Recommended.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages: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.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

GoRight

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

GoRight is still indef blocked. This thread seems to have brought no consensus as to any unblock. He has taken down his latest unblock request which was neither declined nor accepted, discussion will carry on at his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The most recent General Sanction. Violation of agreements post-block/discussion and consensus are more easily dealt with that fresh issues. Perhaps deal with the user for violating the sanctions already imposed rather than requesting more, if it's appropriate. I see he is already violating promises he made post blocking? SGGH 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In good faith; seeing if there are any remaining previously uninvolved editors/admins who can see if there is disruption, or if parties of contrasting viewpoints are getting oversensitive over the actions of others? It may be that an RfC might be more appropriate for getting views. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I reckon we're running short of active admins he's not dragged into one dispute or another. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Any disruptive editor may claim that they are raising valid points. When the community at large does not agree, the editor must change, or risk being excluded. I never quoted you; I summarized your actions, which are more significant than your statements. You are acting in a way that creates the strong appearance that you're out to prevent sanctions on other disruptive editors, especially those who agree with your anti-established-science POV. This is not at all helpful behavior. Jehochman 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"I never quoted you; I summarized your actions, which are more significant than your statements." - No, you actually imputed motive and intent to my actions which is what I object to. I object because they are not even close to my reasons for speaking up for Pcarbonn. I would have thought my reasons were obvious given my history, but just to clarify here let me briefly explain for those who may not be familiar with my history.

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

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

That's typical WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is not a tug-of-war between proponents and opponents of a given POV. We expect all editors to strive for NPOV. In particular, if a minority POV editor is unable to recognize due weight, he can become disruptive. It's not the job of majority POV editors to over and over and over again restore proper balance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To recognize that multiple points of view exist and that some enjoy a majority and others are relegated to a minority is not indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, it is indicative of reality. When those points of view are in conflict on a contentious topic it is unrealistic to expect that there will be no friction. There will be. But it is not in the best interests of the project to eliminate that friction by wholesale removing all editors who hold or champion the minority points of view. Doing so risks making Misplaced Pages a mouthpiece for the majority point of view rather than the neutral point of view. --GoRight (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Since they start excessively wikilawyering, and being disruptive. With that said, I have no comment on the merits of any block. Ale_Jrb 14:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in unrestricted free speech. I was just expressing my opinion is a tautology that any editor can claim at any time to justify any post. When GoRight posts a long screed of irrelevant material or rules lawyering in an apparent effort to derail imposition of community sanctions, that is not acceptable. Jehochman 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems problematic. How can one be accused of an "effort to derail imposition of community sanctions"? GoRight is part of the community, is he not? If the idea around sanctions is reaching a community consensus (and it is), then everyone's views must be respected in the process of reaching that consensus. JPatterson (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is here is how to define "irrelevant". Since you and GoRight had an exactly opposite opinion on the Pcarbonn situation I find it a bit bizarre that now you call the points he made "irrelevant material".  Dr. Loosmark  14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

With all due respect to my good friend Mathsci, this issue was never "discussed at length" and THAT is the problem. Bannings should be serious matters and they deserve serious debate. --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read what MastCell wrote. You are simply wasting time here at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read what he wrote, and replied to his reply. I am wasting no one's time, BTW. Just ignore me if you don't think a more thorough review of JzG's assertions is warranted. The same is true of everyone else calling for my head here. If I attract no additional support with my comments they will simply be archived into oblivion with no harm done. Or is that somehow incorrect? --GoRight (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, I am inclined to agree with Guy. Perhaps a community topic ban from any dispute resolution proceedings to which GoRight is not a party, including all discussions about the sanctions of other editors, would help?  Sandstein  16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

MastCell's well reasoned and constructive admonition occurred after GoRight's PCarbon defense on which this current request for action is based. GoRight would do well to follow his advice. We would do well to give him the chance to do soJPatterson (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point there is no "community consensus" for a topic ban.  Dr. Loosmark  16:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. You and GoRight are voicing your own personal opinions, which seem to be against consensus. ArbCom examined in detail Pcarbonn's editing patterns and his advocacy. These have not changed since his return from the one year ban. There is no need endlessly to repeat the arguments given in the old ArbCom case, unless of course the intention is to wear other users out. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

True, I am voicing my personal opinion, whois opinion are you voicing? Anyway I think you misunderstood my comment, what i meant is that I am totally against a "community topic ban from any dispute resolution proceedings for GoRight" as proposed by Sandstein above. Pcarbonn ban is another matter (for the record I don't support that one either).  Dr. Loosmark  17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom was elected to decide things like this and I would agree that what was decided by them in great detail one year ago has not changed. In that particular case, it does not benefit the articles to have a confirmed advocate like Pcarbonn editing.

As for GoRight, I think he is gaming the system far too much and wasting too many people's time. If he were to calm down, this would solve many problems and this kind of discussion would not be necessary. However, every few days some new bone of contention arises with the attendant drama spread across several wikipedia pages. I don't think that this can continue since it seems quite counter-productive. Mathsci (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The campaigning to block editors who have opinions that don't comport with majority views here is dismaying. Jehochman has been particularly active in silencing people. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As has Pot, kettle, black. JPatterson (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the first half of CoM's statement adds a great deal (although it could use a bit less assertion and a bit more reasoning, but your mileage may vary) the second on the other hand, is a personal broadside. I'd like a bit more than an instance or two of nosy behavior and stubbornness before a MYOB topic ban. RFC/U may be a better angle.--Tznkai (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

To enumerate the complaints here: GoRight is allegedly gaming the system, wikilawyering, and revisiting issues that already have consensus. GoRight is a verbose guy that tends to rub people the wrong way, which is why this is far from the first community discussion about him. But being annoying or verbose when having good faith discussions about a community ban doesn't seem like a reason to be banned himself unless his behavior is obviously disruptive for no good reason. Can someone provide diffs of the allegedly disruptive behavior? Oren0 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Guy, I think you need to follow the WP:RFC/U to WP:RFAR pathway to get your concerns resolved. This thread is not heading toward any sort of consensus. Jehochman 18:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a chat with a couple of people and see if we can think of ways to avoid it, since I think it would end up as a shit fight. As to this thread, feel free to archive it, you're right it's going nowhere good. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Feel free to restore your block. A knot needs to be unraveled one thread at a time. Start with the most disruptive editor and work your way down the list until a proper editing environment is restored. Jehochman 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, in my defense I had already agreed to drop the issue once it was closed by a neutral voice yesterday (although I have responded to posts on the subpage). This thread today was NOT started by me. --GoRight (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to exclusively edit non-controversial topics for a while? The best thing you could do to help the climate change controversy would be to walk away. If "the other side" then runs amok, that would establish beyond any doubt the need to restrict or ban them, a result you are unlikely to ever achieve through your present course of actions. Jehochman 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(to Jehochman - and Viridae) I really am not sure that restoring the block is appropriate, since the taint of silence the critics, and then claim unanimous support will remain. I was considering whether imposing WP:AGF on GoRight might be an option - that they are to assume that actions that they disagree with have the consensus required and that after posting their objections they should not pursue the matter. GoRight is not permitted to take the matter to any other venue, may not refer to it in other matters or subsequently (unless their objection is addressed in such a way to invite response by a concerned party). This allows them to post their comments, once, and for the rest of the community to decide if there is any value in the content or that it should be ignored. Thoughts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The locus here (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) appears to be conduct matters concerning the editors of science articles. Would a ban on commenting on that area work? I don't think it's necessary to lose GoRight's voice on content or ban him from editing science articles or participating in content disputes. He only seems to go overboard on conduct matters. --TS 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I appreciate your intent here, but the proposed result would be similar to what JzG wants to achieve on Cold Fusion ... eliminating the friction by eliminating one side of the debate (and no I do not constitute the whole of the other side of the climate change debate). For this reason this would become a self-fulfilling prophecy in some sense with a predictable outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplement to the above: specific diffs, for the diff-oriented. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris, I've tried being friendly with GoRight, but he's just not listening. My block finger is getting that itchy feeling. Shall we get evil and vote on the merits of a block, or should we start an WP:RFC/U, or go straight to WP:RFAR? Jehochman 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My working hypothesis for some time has been that GoRight very much wants an arbcom case on global warming. A better solution in my view would be for the admin corps to "grow a pair," to use the common phrase, and enforce existing policy as reiterated by the general sanctions on climate change that recently were put into place. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but personally I'm getting tired of the endless drama here. It's obvious by now that there's no consensus on what, if anything, should be done here. An RfC/U would just prolong the agony and provide yet more oppotunities for grandstanding by all sides. The latest issues would probably not be caught by the existing climate change probation, so that is not a panacea either. My advice: since the community plainly hasn't been able to resolve this satisfactorily, take it to RFAR, file a narrowly focused case specifically concerning GoRight and let the ArbCom deal with it. In short, please take this somewhere where it will be resolved rather than grinding on as a perpetual and very tiresome drama-fest. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the soapboxing and ultimate lack of resolution which would emerge from an RfC/U would benefit the community. Similarly, based on GoRight's conduct in the Abd arbitration case, I doubt that an arbitration would be helpful either. Allowing the status quo to stand for the couple of months it will take to use these processes is...suboptimal. (The lone worthwhile effect of that ongoing arbitration process is that it sucked the time and attention of some disruptive editors over to RfAr and away from article space, but I don't think we should rely on that as a general practice.) Both processes are, frankly, time-consuming and highly unpleasant drama magnets — though perhaps the new ArbCom isn't yet as burnt out and will engage in more effective clerking and case management than the last one did.

As Boris aptly notes, we already have a community-endorsed framework for efficiently and effectively dealing with tendentious, unproductive, and persistently uncollegial conduct on climate change articles. The community has clearly stated its expectations here, and all that is required is suitable admin enforcement. (That said, I am well aware of GoRight's persistent habit of claiming that admins are 'involved' and unable to caution or sanction him or his associates, and I sympathize with admins who might wish to avoid the hassle.) If GoRight wishes to challenge any sanctions imposed under the extant probation, then he is welcome to appeal to ArbCom; there is no need for administrators to, effectively, ask permission of ArbCom to use powers already granted them by the probation. It is worth noting that a previous iteration of a climate change RfAr was pre-empted by the establishment of the climate change probation; I would tend to argue that in the absence of a stated opinion to the contrary, the rejection of that RfAr constitutes a de facto endorsement of the probation by the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My reading of their comments suggested to me that it was rather more explicit than that; I think they actively encouraged us to try and make it work. It's very similar to the outcome imposed by other arbitration cases, after all, and in cases where there is long-standing disagreement outside Misplaced Pages it's hard to see what other mechanism will effectively manage the battle when it is inevitably brought here. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

yes. I agree. The Arbs firmly endorsed the probation and battelground and TE editing like GoRight's has not place here. They really must stop before they get reblocked. Spartaz 08:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight Blocked

I have blocked GoRight (talk · contribs) indefinitely again. For myself, I do not see any need for more interminable fisking noticeboard threads like this one or this one, but editors are generally free to spend their time as it pleases them. Please do not lift this block absent robust discussion here or with me. I do not anticipate being unavailable for more than a day or so for the foreseeable future, and my email is enabled. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be lying if I said I was either surprised or regretful. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Um, can you point to a specific action edit or comment, preferably more than one, since the above discussion started that precipitated this block? I am really not going to get into a debate here, but there was no consensus for a indef block - possibly a narrow one against? - and other methods of limiting the disruption were ongoing, albeit sluggishly. Defaulting to the one sanction that had been disregarded because there is an apparent lack of progress on the alternatives is not sustainable, in my opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• 2/0 has explained the reasons at User talk:GoRight#Blocked (2). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think it would be reasonable to expect LHVU to have done due diligence by reading the block notice on GR's talk page before bposting here William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I had. The question remains, what has GoRight done subsequent to the discussion above - where consensus appears to be against a block? To make it simpler, why has 2/0 gone against readily apparent consensus? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

LHVU raises a valid point - there is not a consensus here for a block. There was, however, a consensus that something would be needed sooner rather than later. I started preparing this sanction because GoRight had reached my threshold for snide condescension, apparent preference for argumentative disputation at the expense of collaborative discussion, grandstanding and playing the martyr, and general just plain rudeness and lack of consideration for the time, effort, and feelings of other volunteers in what of their contributions I read in the topic area of climate change. It was only in the course of assuring myself that I would not be acting on a biased subset of information that I found the Pcarbonn banning issue (I have not edited Cold fusion for quite some time), but the pattern is familiar like an old sock left in the rain. I hasten to reiterate that the diffs provided in the blocking rationale are, as stated, merely a sample to illustrate the range of problematic behaviours this editor exhibits. Call it skipping straight to the phase wherein is argued that, because a steel wire cannot support even a single heavy thespian, the Golden Gate bridge is clearly a figment of imagination phase of the proceedings, omitting the your description is not detailed enough phase. I left off encourages and abets disruption from others, especially new editors, as this behaviour does not seem to have come up in the last week (some questionable and not necessarily productive advice, though). You may be assured that I examined the context of each of the examples provided. In a number of cases they are merely making things worse and are not the first one to disrupt or distract from the focus of a particular thread. This is still disruptive, and the percentage of cases where GoRight's involvement has the apparent effect of actually hastening amicable resolution or even of fully exploring the available solution space is vanishingly small.

The level of disingenuousness and the obdurate refusal to get the point evinced in GoRight's block appeal do not give me cause to doubt my original analysis. I would not stand in the way of a robust consensus that a topic ban from climate change, broadly construed, or some similar sanction would be a better solution, but the disruption does not appear to be limited to a single topic area. In the interests of allowing GoRight to participate, such a discussion should probably be undertaken at their talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that something needs doing to limit the disruption created by GoRight's tenacious (mendacious, even) argumentative style - which is why I proposed above that they be restricted to posting a single "against consensus" comment in discussions where they hold the minority view. It is also unfortunate that the discussion toward agreeing the type of restriction had petered out, since no proposed solution was gaining sufficient traction. My concern is that an indef block without a continuing discussion toward a consensus, without recent examples of continuing behaviour sufficient of itself to draw the sanction, and one that appears to contradict the consensus previously formed, is itself going to be controversial - sufficient even that an inclined sysop could reverse it procedurally. Since 2/0 has given their rationale, then it beholds us to support or otherwise (and quickly!) so that it might not be overturned on a technicality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting for the record that 'on a technicality' is never a valid reason to undo another editor's (or admin's) actions. If one cannot present a cogent argument which justifies a course of action in terms of how it will benefit the project, one should not take that action. Period. Misplaced Pages is neither a court of law nor a mindless bureaucracy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a valid reason; if policy is misapplied or misinterpreted, in good faith, then that action may be undone immediately (per WP:BRD and WP:WHEEL) to restore the status quo - even if the action is apparently the right result, and subsequently affirmed. Such an revert, the undoing of a good faith and possibly beneficial action because it did not follow policy, is most surely on a technicality. I am quite surprised that this is an issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea, but please don't try it. That way madness lies. If somebody does the right thing, don't ask him to come back to dot the eyes and cross the tees. --TS 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I retaliated, pre-emptively. 2/0 could have invoked WP:IAR, but didn't. At least there is only this discussion about the block, and everthing else is about the appropriate subject. I got it right... (ish). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support pending GoRight agreeing to a restriction that addresses the concerns raised regarding tendacious opposition and commentary where there is an existing consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the issues raised in the original section. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Months ago, after Jed (surname withhold) was banned from Cold fusion, GoRight raised all of sort of technicalities to contest the ban, saying that Jed was being treated unfairly, etc. GoRight never addresed the actual reason for the ban: that Jed was an unrepentant POV pusher who had posted that he came back to wikipedia just to annoy us and also posted that he had no intention of helping to write the article (yeah, Jed actually wrote that, no, I'm not going to go through 35 pages of archives to locate the diff). I see that during all this time GoRight has been doing the same in other topics, raising procedural points with no regard to what actually improves the encyclopedia and its content. This is not one isolated obfuscation over one issue on an otherwise good contributor, this is a long term behaviour of disruption. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hummmm, all the opposses here are from banned people or from people who are or have been in danger of getting banned? Are they opposing because they have looked at the merits of the case and found them lacking, or because they are afraid that they might one day find themselves in the same place? Am I supporting because I have looked at the merits of the case or because he managed to really really pissed me off? Nope, it's because he tried to get in the way of a clear community ban, not by stating his own viewpoint, but by raising all sort of procedural objections and off-topic stuff. He has made an offer to restrict himself at some certain discussions but it's too narrow for my liking. In the cold fusion case he made lots of noise at my user talk page, at the article's talk page and the arbcom case on cold fusion, and he kept restoring edits of editors while he was still disputing the ban that had already been laid on them. This offer is in the right path, but it's still too narrow for my liking. Specifically, in his offer doesn't address any of the misbehaviour pointed out in User_talk:GoRight#Blocked_.282.29, snd he's not even acknowledging any misbehaviour, and he's not making any promise that he won't waste again the time of other editors, or make more sarcastic remarks, or wikilawyer, etc. Pcarbonn's ban discussion was just the straw that broke the camel's back, and his offer only covers this narrow area. GoRight needs to make a meaningful promise that he will stop wasting other editor's time and that he will behave way more civilly and much less sarcastically, or we'll just be back here in a short time. He can remain blocked until he makes the adequate promise. Prior experience has taught me that, once he is unblocked, he will claim that he didn't promise X or Y and that this means that he can keep doing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And now he makes veiled threats about bad things happening to other editors if things don't go to his convenience "(...) I am under no obligation to offer anything and am still free to appeal this block at arbcom. That, however, could be a roll of the dice for all involved so is not a matter to be taken lightly. (...)" and when I point it out he dismisses my comment as pointy and unhelpful ...... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed GoRight maintains faith in others and wiki principles in the face of those who chose to ignore them with prejudiced attack. An indefinite block is abusive for an editor who openly discusses concerns and has shown productive reform for good Misplaced Pages ways. The block itself is not helping wiki and is creating a disruption, it should be removed and folks should move on.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, though not surprised. GoRight should know by now that "unrepentant POV pushers" are only allowed on the "good" side of a contentious topic. Perhaps, instead of altering behavior, GoRight should instead alter his POV, flip sides to the other side of the GW debate, and within a month I'm sure he'd be lauded as a gallant defender of the wiki. ATren (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Expressing views in a AN/I process should not be actionable. Also, since consensus was not reached above, this block seems unwarranted. JPatterson (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know why we're listing these opinions under bullet points, but obviously GoRight should be required to conform to community norms before he is unblock him. Oh wait, didn't he agree to do that when he was indefinitely blocked by another administrator just a couple of weeks ago? How many last chances does he get? --TS 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't help but think of being arrested for "resisting arrest" - I once told 2/0 that he is too biased to be overseeing the global warming related articles, and this selective vision of his even more proof of that statement. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support (but why are we !voting anyway?). Viridae blocked GoRight indefinitely not long ago because of exactly the same problems. At some point you just have to say "enough is enough" and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Indefinite is not permanent: at this point, the difference between "indefblock+request to 'agreeing to a restriction that addresses the concerns raised regarding tendacious opposition and commentary where there is an existing consensus'" (as LVHU puts it) and the "community sanctions" previously discussed, is not that great. There is a long-term pattern of problematic behaviour, and at this point the editor in question needs to muster enough self-awareness and self-control to agree not to continue in the same vein, and then to stick to that promise reasonably well. Rd232 01:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Second ATren. This whole thing has the very ugly appearance of gang-style suppression of opposing viewpoints. It appears to me that GR's recent behaviour, probably beginning with the setup of our new cowboy climate change court, has indeed been less than perfect, but GR has endured a great deal of bullying in the past to get to this point, and he has further demonstrated that he is able to restrain himself once he calms down. GR is a valuable editor here, just as an opposition is a valuable component of a democratic parliament. An indefinite block is proposed without even an appeal to ArbComm??? C'mon guys... I respectfully suggest to the admins involved here: calm down, and reconsider. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not about what he thinks, it's about what he does, which is to waste vast amounts of people's time. Looking at his talk page he seems to be prepared to accept a restriction on fisking, whihc may be an acceptable resolution. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW... ah, Opposed? I think that the block should be (preferably self-)overturned. I can understand and sympathize with the apparent frustrations with excessive process here, but short circuiting that by taking action like this is even worse. I should also note that I wouldn't have bothered with this, but I found some of GoRight's point son his own talk page to be quite persuasive. There's obviously some interpersonal issues mixed in with all of this as well, which should hardly be surprising considering the depth and breadth of the ongoing content dispute(s) which are tied to all of this. That actually makes it more important not to make hasty personal decisions on the issue, in the sort of governance environment here at en.wiki. There's obviously plenty of interest surrounding all of this, so unblock and work the issues out (succinct answer: blocking isn't for punishment)
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 08:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  Keeping GR from wasting other peoples time with wikilawyering and not getting it is clearly preventative, not punitive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  I don't doubt that you believe that, but I've gotta tell you (and 2/0) that this appears to be punitive. Like I said above, I fully expect that there are many of you involved in this who are frustrated. It's easy to loose site of perspective when that happens. All I'm saying is that, from my perspective, and with quite limited involvement in any of this, that the appearances don't currently look to great here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 08:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose, per what Atren said above. --mark nutley (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Trying to see both sides of this, I don't think I can accept that GoRight's style of communication is disruptive in itself. I say this largely because I notice that quite a few on the other side of this debate are themselves quite abrupt, yet no disruption seems to be noted. The concern is that this suggests a heckler's veto, where the disruption is created not by GoRight but those responding. What bothers me is also that, while I'd like to see even-handed treatment, I know I couldn't bring myself to start pushing for sanctions against every impolite user in this area. One recent example I've seen is User:Ratel. I don't know this editor and as such am reluctant to make an example of them, but see very recently this, this, this, this, this. Why is this not a concern? Basically because no one is complaining. I gather that what concerns editors about GoRight is not chiefly his style of communication, but that he's seen as a POV pusher of some sort. What does this mean? Perhaps that he spends too much time disputing and not enough time building. In that case the tone he adopts could play a role, and then perhaps at some point there could be sanctions, with encouragement that he become involved in content building. I'm just not convinced: I think to block someone without examining context should require that the users' battles are without any merit at all. Otherwise, that's why we have dispute resolution. Defending bad editors should most certainly not be a cause for banning, even if it is a cause for ignoring. Either way I don't understand why more than a topic ban has been proposed, and I don't understand the trend to require consensus not to have a community ban. Mackan79 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  You've hit part of the problem here, but it goes further. For quite a while, there has been uneven treatment of the skeptic POV on climate change articles. You raised Ratel - he has an unquestioned POV on this debate, and he pushes it regularly and forcefully, often uncivilly. But nobody sanctions him, because he's on the "good" side of the debate. I can point out half a dozen others on these pages who have routinely behaved worse than GoRight, in support of the AGW POV, and they never get sanctioned.

  So, the reasonable editor may ask, why don't editors report these abuses on the pro-GW side? Answer: we do. But it goes nowhere, because tendentious activity on the pro-GW side is viewed as defending the wiki against those bad old global warming deniers. Never mind that many of the complaints only tangentially involve the science -- my involvement has been strictly on GW-related BLPs -- we all get painted with the same brush. When we raise issues formally, we get shot down - "wikilawyering" is usually the charge.

  It comes down to this, then: opposing POVs are welcome here, as long as they keep quiet and let the "good" POV dictate the decisions. If they edit war against the "good" POV editors, they're blocked. If they complain formally, they're topic banned for disruptive "wikilawyering". They have one option: sit back and accept whatever the "good" POV pushers decide.

  (and for what it's worth, I am completely uninterested in the GW debate) ATren (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. As I said earlier, elsewhere, this has been going on for years. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with LHVU, TS (particularly) and Stephan. Mackan79, I think, is wrong, and has failed to follow GR's contributions thouroughly, or even understand the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If I've misunderstood the problem, I've done my best to lay out what it could be. It seems that others refer to a problem without clearly saying what it is. To indefinitely block someone, it's my strong opinion that someone should be able to articulate what he is doing wrong. This should be the case for his sake, for those reviewing, and for those trying to figure out what it means for them. Mackan79 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support GoRight is a pebble in the shoe for too many serious editors. To Mackan79 above, I apologize if my interpersonal skills are lacking. I blame my parents. ► RATEL ◄ 12:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• By the way GoRight has advertised this bulleted list of comments as a "vote" on his user talk page and predictably all his fans are coming here. I want all administrators to be absolutely clear, that this editor has been indefinitely blocked twice in two weeks, and was unblocked the first time after giving assurances which he then proceeded to blatantly break within days of being unblocked. --TS 12:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian punishments do not work, and the appearance here is that of people who, indeed, have been more concerned with GoRight's positions as an editor, rather than GoRight's actions here. Collect (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• How did this become a vote? I thought that these discussions were supposed to consider the merits of the case — not be a vote carried out at the explicit direction of the blocked individual. I would hope that no administrator mistakenly overturns this block on the basis of a flash mob. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• comment by User:Abd made in circumvention of Arbcom restriction removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Good — Mark this as resolved. 2/0 has made an excellent rationale on utalk:GR and any who've missed it, should go find it. GR:WP:Standard offer. Consider asking to be allowed to SUL and go do something useful for 6 months. If he militates from his talk page, lock him off it. Jack Merridew 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Good block an interminable time-sink of a POV pusher that refuses to modify behavior over a long span of time, warnings and blocks? This isn't about punishing that editor. It's about relieving editors who behave themselves from endless tendentiousness and pseud-science advocacy with a political bent. Standard offer.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue was never going to be resolved by a vote, and listing opinions in bullet points has only encouraged GoRight to describe this discussion as a vote and to send people here to vote (or "!vote" as he so quaintly puts it).

At issue here is an editor who has made a career of engaging in disputes in an unproductive and timewasting way. This culminated in Viridae blocking him indefinitely on January 4th, two weeks ago today. GoRight was unblocked when he promised to "be more constructive". His first edits after coming from the block were not promising: disingenuous wrangling, participation in an edit war, not one but two accusations of stalking and harassment. But he seemed to settle down later that day, January 7th. However, this improvement didn't last, and now he's been indefinitely blocked by an entirely separate administrator, 2over0, for pretty much the same kind of timewasting behavior and corrosive accusations of bad faith.

Endorsed by LessHeard vanU and several other administrators, 2/0 has proposed that we consider a proper sanction under which GoRight might be able to edit in a non-disruptive manner. And this is where we stand. No amount of voting and finger-pointing will change that. We should hold a sober and Misplaced Pages-like discussion about this serious problem, not line up in partisan groups for and against. Not to put down bullet-points of "votes" or even "!votes", whatever those might be, not to make vague adumbrations at shady Cabals out to get an innocent editor simply because of his unpopular views, but to recognise that there is a problem and it must be resolved here. --TS 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, per ATRen & others upthread. The issue appears to be other editors offended by GR's sometimes-abrasive style. He is a valuable & committed editor, and it's a mistake to sanction or ban based on personality and ideology. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have an abrasive style too, and I have managed to stay unblocked. The reasons for the block were explained at User_talk:GoRight#Blocked_.282.29, and being abrasive has nothing to do with this. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I should note that I am a global warming skeptic. If I am not mistaken, this mean that GoRight and I share the same POV. If I were trying to promote my own POV then I would be supporting an unblock of GoRight. So please stop claiming that "they" are just trying to suppress editors with a certain POV, or that editors with a given POV are given more leniency. GoRight has a behaviour problem, and Atren's comment is wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so where have you edited in support of your skeptic POV on the GW pages? I don't recall any edits on these pages, pro or con, so unless I've missed something, your block avoidance is completely irrelevant to my comment. Feel free to prove me wrong with diffs demonstrating where you've opposed the currently enforced POV on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking an editor whether he has pushed his point of view in his Misplaced Pages editing? --TS 20:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tony, as shocked as you appear to be, POV pushing occurs on these pages and has been occurring for years. That's why, for example, skeptic bios have tenuous links to Exxon and other boogeymen, sourced to partisan organizations and blogs. I can remember one prominent pro-GW editor who edit-warred to include 40-year old life-on-Mars speculation in a skeptic's BLP, with the explicitly stated goal that he wanted to embarrass that skeptic. You are more than welcome to blind your eyes and scream "lalala", but it doesn't change the reality.

Now as to my question to Enric, I specifically asked if he edited in a way that would support his skeptic POV; that may include, for example, removing such blog-sourced criticisms from bios, or some similar action that opposes the pro-GW POV but which is fully in line with Misplaced Pages policy. Why is such a question taboo? He's the one asserting a position, that my point was invalid because HE wasn't blocked; I simply asked if he'd ever edited the GW pages in opposition to the prevailing POV there.

So, Eric, will you please answer this simple question? ATren (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never edited the GW articles because I have a very strong opinion on the topic and I don't want my blood pressure to rise too much. Aka, I think that the IPCC is a bunch of clueless politically-correct wankers, the hockey stick graph is a bunch of bull that has been proven wrong, Greenpeace ought to go do something that is actually useful for the planet like saving whales, instead of peddling science that is useless for the future of the planet because it's so flawed, computer models can't make any accurate prediction, WMC is 100% wrong in any scientific issue related to GW, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. I have edited one or two articles in the fringes of GW topics, but I have purposefully avoided the main articles because of my strong opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then your example is in no way applicable to my point, which is that those who edit in opposition to the current POV on the GW articles have no recourse but to accept that which is dictated by the other side. If they report bad behavior, they're wikilawyering; if they respond in kind, they're topic banned. Acceptance of the prevailing POV is the only option, even if it is skewed towards the proponent side. ATren (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Atren, you are mixing my statements a bit..... I'll restate by separate:

• Tillman said that GoRight was blocked for being abrasive, and I am proof that editors don't get blocked just because of being abrasive. The has the actual reasons for the block. Being abrasive was not one of the reasons for the block.
• I'm asking that GoRight is blocked in spite of sharing his POV, thus falsifying your statement that "unrepentant POV pushers" are allowed in the "good" side of a topic. For me GoRight is already in the "good" side. My support to GoRight's block has nothing to do with him having one POV or another, it's all about his disruptive continuous unrepentant behaviour. Idem for your other statement, I am one of those "bad old global warming deniers" and I am against the "good" POV, I am not a "good" POV pusher, yet I am asking for GoRight's block. You are painting this a black and white dispute with a group of editors sharing a certain POV trying to silence the editors with the opposite POV. If such is the case, then why a person with my POV is in that side of the dispute? If the situation you are painting was correct, then I would have to be shouting against the oppresion of the GW cabal. Yet here I am, asking that a GW eskeptic like me is getting blocked. In short: this is not, and never was, an attempt to silence any POV. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Enric, I never said that others couldn't have reasons to ban GoRight -- in fact, didn't you and GoRight disagree extensively on Cold Fusion, and wouldn't that give you a reason to want GoRight banned independently of his stance on the debate? In any case, my argument includes GoRight but is not specific to GoRight; I've seen other editors on those pages who were either baited into blockable misbehavior, or charged with wikilawyering for raising legitimate issues. Look at the next section on this page, where JPatterson got similar treatment. GoRight is one data point of many. ATren (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You should apply Occam's razor to your theory and realize that GoRight has given plenty of reasons for getting himself blocked, and that those reasons have nothing to do with complicated theories on "good" POV pushers.

P.D.: this would mean that patterson's is a separate case with its own circumstances, that the issues raised by those editors are less legitimate than you think them to be, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Far far too often in the above the "skeptic side" (which includes ATren, despite his protestations to the contrary) have asserted bias in the GW articles, POV, etc. They are wrong. The GW articles are almost entirely NPOV; within the scientific articles they lean somewhat too much towards including minor skeptic talking points, but we are indulgent. The reason they survive as they are is not due to a shadowy cabal of "warmists" but because they largely reflect the scientific view of the subject, so their content is defensible and defended. And since I've just been accused of being a shill for the coal industry I'm obviously not biased William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a GW skeptic. You, however, are clearly a proponent. ATren (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I, and I suspect everyone else, will judge you by your edits, not your protestations. It is amusing, however, that you felt entirely free to question EN's assertion that he was a skeptic, but object strongly when anyone questions your own declared balance. RC is, of course, neutral on the science; but as that says, I'm not a member of RC any more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote to EN - I never questioned whether he was a skeptic, only whether he edited the GW pages. Please strike your misinterpretation. As for RC, if you are no longer a member, why are you still on the contributors' page? And of course, even if you're not a current member, you were a member -- if a former member of a skeptic blog started editing here, would you consider him neutral? Even if he'd quit more than 2 years ago? I don't think so.

As for my supposed "skepticism" - there are two possible reasons why you would have this image of me: either (1) I really am a skeptic, or (2) you are so involved in this topic that you look upon any moderate view as skeptical. And FWIW, I obviously know which it is, and I also know how you've reacted to me, which makes me wonder how many others you've mislabeled. ATren (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re WMC: When people disagree about whether there's any bias in an article, I've found they may be looking at different criteria, for instance tone versus the amount of space given to opposing views. One article I recently started working on, however, Climate change denial, was clearly biased. Look through the old version of the lead, here, and consider that it 1.) adopts a pejorative in saying that "denial campaigns have been promoted," 2.) attributes the phrase not just to ExxonMobil, but "companies like ExxonMobil" (emphasis added), 3.) emphasizes journalistic use of the phrase, 4.) omits criticism of the phrase, 5.) completely misrepresents the last source, found here. I will note that Ling.Nut and I were able to fix all of these without much problem, and of course we're talking about GoRight here. But look then at the last issues he has been discussing. On Jim Inhofe he says the lead shouldn't be so specific about Inhofe's positions. I see there a statement that Inhofe is known for his "general opposition to LGBT rights"; whether GoRight is correct in full, clearly it is at least somewhat problematic to present someone's position as opposition to rights (I might propose "general opposition to the recognition of LGBT rights," or "the movement for LGBT rights" as other options, though quite likely those saying it should not be summarized in the lead are correct). The previous article was Ian Plimer, where GoRight argued against including a section on a televised debate. See the section here. Again here, clearly at least the last sentence fails NPOV (Plimer's opponent saying Plimer didn't do well), and it has now been removed. On Richard Lindzen GoRight argues against material relating to skepticism of the health risks of smoking; when I look at the current paragraph I disagree, but when I look at a version from a couple of weeks ago I can see the need to complain. The question I have is whether these kinds of issues would be improved if editors like GoRight were not highlighting them and pushing for improvement. Perhaps the articles directly on the science don't need improvement, but the articles on the political controversies (including the BLPs) seem to need quite some work as part of an ongoing two-way struggle. Mackan79 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Could be. Without accepting your point, I'll note that it is a subtlety that those claiming a pro-GW POV have failed to articulate above. I've generally been more interested in the science articles. You are, however, entirely incorreect to say that the new version of CCD is better; removing "denial campaigns have been promoted," was a step away from NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think GoRight has behavioral traits, like a lot of editors, that can be a problem if you really want them to be (I don't say this of people who make personal attacks, but I'm not seeing that here). If the long-term goal is to end up with a group of hyper vigilant policy wonks editing these pages I'd say fine, but I'm a little skeptical that that is where this is going. If it's not his discussion style, as some are saying, then it seems to be that he disagrees with the majority too much. But who thinks he's doing this just to cause a stir, and not out of real disagreement? If it's the latter then I would think the strongest option is to ignore, not to block. It's odd to me when people seem to think a consensus model requires that people don't speak up where they disagree with something in good faith. Close the discussions if necessary, sanction someone for specific things that are not allowed (forum shopping, or misrepresenting discussions for example), but we shouldn't need to ban people just because they are insistent on a minority viewpoint. Mackan79 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But who thinks he's doing this just to cause a stir, and not out of real disagreement? Without expressing an opinion on either of these alternatives, I wish to note that they are not mutually exclusive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think GR's behavior reflects his stated intentions and concerns. (Tag teaming POVs, biting newcomers and processes abusing Misplaced Pages principles in the project.) It could be a mutually inclusive waste, where GR is taking on many and the result is then to become a central target. 00:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "time wasting" argument is central to this case. I wonder if one of those (perhaps 2/0 or TS) who have made this argument could expand on this a bit. I am sympathetic to the view that admins are volunteers and have a lot on their plate. What I don't get though is what exactly GR has done to waste their time. It seems at first blush that unless GR is filing frivolous complaints, the only time expended is in responding to his arguments in various forums. The disconnect for me there is that if he were not making valid points, no response would be required and so no time would be wasted (ok, so it does take a little time to read his post), and if on the other hand he is making valid (or at least reasonable) points, how can responding to them be a waste of time? JPatterson (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight himself expands amply on this question, by way of demonstration. Bear in mind that this discussion was originally a 1,000-word treatise tacked on to an already decided matter on this page.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/GoRight_on_Pcarbonn

By the time I budded it off to its own page it had reached about 10kb in size. At GoRight's last comment there it was around 32kb of completely redundant, extraneous argumentation about an affair that was done and dusted before he chose to intervene. --TS 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On the question of frivolous complaints, see GoRight's filings at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. There comes a point where even the most patient administrator will say "this guy is taking the piss." --TS 00:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I know this shouldn't technically be a vote, but honestly, this is starting to look a little abusive. Things like this put a bad taste in peoples mouth regarding Misplaced Pages. GoRight is one of the editors here that is trying to prevent Misplaced Pages from becoming the joke that it is sadly becoming.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 16:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons already mentioned. GoRight seems just to be gaming the system. Mathsci (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So why did Tony Sidaways remove the bolding from support and oppose statements? I'm sort of used to this wikilawyering and suppression of democracy, but this is rather blatant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"suppression of democracy" -------> Misplaced Pages is not a democracy -------> Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it was obviously a poll/vote, and while certain people are happy to ignore the opinions of others, this was obviously edited to make it look less like a poll was occuring for one simple reason - Abd is allowed to comment on polls. But hey, if we can make it not look like a poll then we can ban Abd right? Honestly, you act like people don't poll on these pages all the time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

consensus discussions are not polls and are not votes, even if they look like one..... They can still be closed against the majority if the arguments of the minority are good enough and they are well based in policy. Seriously, it's all at the "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" link that I posted right above, I don't have to repeat it here. And I just noticed that Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Community_discussions_and_polls is even more clear in this aspect.

The root problem here is that Abd's arbcomm restriction prevented him from "discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party", but it allowed him to comment at polls. An already closed AE thread said that, looking at the arb comments and the spirit of the ruling, XfDs discussions entered into the "polls" definition. There is a request for clarification going on about this topic, but it has been losing focus as the situation has kept moving. You could comment there and ask arbs to clarify (I already asked them to do that) But I expect that arbs will only agree to define "poll" inside the meaning of that specific ruling, and that they will refuse to start defining stuff that is out of the scope of a dispute that they are solving. I would love to start a very long discussion on this, but this stuff belongs to the talk pages of WT:CONSENSUS and WP:POLLING.

Since the "is this a poll or not" discussion has nothing to do with GoRight being blocked, I won't discuss this matter here anymore. If you want to discuss the "poll or not" thing then please do it where Abd is being discussed. The request for clarification that I linked above would be a good start. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So is that why the bolding was removed? As someone who is, so far, only reading this discussion & otherwise disinterested in the matter, I found the lack of bolding unusual & made my understanding this thread more difficult. I'm restoring it with a warning that removing the bolding because "this is not a vote" is disruptive & likely to make me sanction for being a jerk. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The block has remained for 4 days now ... I've read the discussions and it seems like the issues have become so loquciously mired that it is difficult to take home a simple lesson here. Is the indefinite block to prevent GoRight from intervening in others disputes like was done for Abd? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If GoRight's block is being upheld to prevent a disruptive waste of time by volunteers, then there must be an ipso facto assumption of bad faith in both GoRight and the other editors for investing their time. I consider my time well made in commenting on GoRight. I found little support for "time wasting" as a legitimate block, except for socks and vandals. Pursuing peaceful dispute resolution is civil. When absurd points are raised, there may be a concern if the editor continues after warning. I've seen little to suggest GoRight was being absurd or specifically warned for absurd points. GoRight's actions appear to have been sensible disputes in articles under probation scrutiny. There may have been other uncivil concerns for GoRight's style; however, do they really warrant an indefinite block? The normal method is to ignore an editor who makes distracting comments. Here, GoRight is blocked and given a significant amount of attention. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do have any comment on TS's concern regarding resurrecting cases that have been "closed"? I think at some point we all have to recognize that no process is perfect and not every perceived injustice can be overturned. PCarbon had other avenues of appeal open to them and that it seems to me would have been a better forum for GR to raise his concerns. And while I support the block being lifted, I don't see your WP:AWG argument. I don't think anyone has argued that it was GR's intent to waste time or that that was his motivation. JPatterson (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat34721, admin Viridae first blocked GoRight for "being a complete waste of time" without diffs. Then admin 2over0 goes on to provide many diffs and blocks GoRight "For this wanton disrespect for the time and efforts of others" among other reasons . 2over0 apears to have applied an elaborated and veiled translation on Viridae's intentions. Both these blocks intended to cure time issues by GoRights contributions, which were being considered disruptive (like a vandal). GoRight's intentions to waste others time has not been established, it seems to be a bad faith assumption on the blockers part. I can appreciate why there is little discussion on these "time wasting" claims for GoRight's block, there is simply little support for this argument in wikipedia guidance and policy. If there were, nearly all new comers would be bitten hard. There are simply editors who have little patience and those that have great patience. Here, the impatient ones get bored, creatively elaborate on "problematic" concerns and punish the messenger (of policing Misplaced Pages principles) as an interesting and productive effort for their time. Said simply, attention deficit leads to disruptions. (This pattern is seen time over time in the classroom too.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would urge you to read the essay at WP:COMPETENCE. While I think that few of us doubt GoRight's honest, heartfelt, enthusiastic, dedicated interest in improving Misplaced Pages, his approach to so doing frequently contravenes Misplaced Pages policy. It has made already-contentious areas significantly less comfortable to work in. After repeated offers of guidance, cautions, and warnings, it seems that he is unwilling or unable to change his approach in a manner compatible with Misplaced Pages's collegial, collaborative editing environment. Even after Viridae's previous indefinite block a couple of weeks ago – which ought to have caught the attention of any editor – he persisted in being combative and unpleasant. This isn't a failure on the part of editors to assume good faith. It is simply a frank assessment that despite GoRight's good faith efforts, he is unable to contribute in a net-positive way to the project. We ask him to take his leave, and wish him well in his future endeavours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points TenOfAllTrades; however, the diffs presented for a block show little support for them. There comes a point where well intended administrative actions can become a form of sophisticated harassment. When in doubt, I sugest going with your first hunch about the the editor (GoRight's) intentions. This editor simply wants the right thing, like thier name says. Righteousness can be rigidly annoying, hence ignore all rules and go by the gut. Also look again, there are a good few counted here that see GoRight's benefit to the project. Reforming is GoRight's way ... and I have faith the reformation will begin with the editor ... as how can an editor who wants the right thing do something wrong to start ... unless they are human and not perfectly competent? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose , and I offer apology for this unasked-for opinion. I appreciate the tenacious efforts of Go Right to present the opposing view in the various anthropogenic-global-warming-related articles. I lost the heart and the stomach to do so. Silencing dissent through administrative process has become a disturbing trend in this space, and goes to the very heart of what GoRight and other skeptics assert is happening at various institutions of higher learning. Some editors are aggravated by GoRight's antics, or claim that the system is being gamed. I put it to you that some of the very same editors who have commented in this space have been (from time to time) blocked for their various (perceived) misdeeds, and that their primary objection to GoRight's continued editing is philosophical, not procedural. Nightmote (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• I think the way forward to to forge an agreement that takes into account GoRight's right to avail himself of the processes and procedures available to all editors here while recognizing that the (over)use of these procedures can be a significant drain on valuable resources. My take on the consensus thus far is that most agree that the penalty/reward ratio for GR's involvement on various AN/ANI boards has been increasing of late. I would be interested in thoughts about how to reverse that trend short of the sledgehammer that is currently being used to solve the problem. JPatterson (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that part of the problem is the inability to park past grievances or accept the closure of any debate - rather like WP:NOPONY cited elsewhere. When every single argument rapidly degenerates into long rambling dissertations on the evil Misplaced Pages establishment's preference for overwhelming scientific consensus over FUD spread by powerful vested interests (oh, sorry, did I just give away my personal bias?) then it's very hard to make progress. Likewise when debate turns into WP:PANTO. I suggest we punt this to Misplaced Pages:BASC at least as a request for advice. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight commented here during the block. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that "closure" is not possible when the debate is ongoing. When the experts themselves cannot reach consensus, isn't it unreasonable to expect laymen to do so? Defense of the minority opinion is not only desirable, it is necessary for the presentation of balanced articles on current events. Even a casual glance at edit counts supports the position that GoRight hasn't been as distracting as is posited. Nightmote (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation Guy. My experience has been that rules are consistently misinterpreted and inconsistently applied - I guess that's alright in the name of "Misplaced Pages establishment's preference for overwhelming scientific consensus." I think I'm going to start claiming all my edits are backed by "overwhelming scientific consensus" - maybe then I won't have to worry about those pesky rules. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, but only because we're looking at it from different angles. Consider a point made in An Inconvenient Truth: if I recall the detail aright, a review of scientific review publications found 0% dissent from the view that global levels of CO2 and temperature are rising and that this is due to human activity. A review of popular press articles showed 53% dissent from that. It has become politically highly polarised in the US, with the right opposed to any action on climate change, but the US right is much further to the right than the generality of the developed world so this view is much more marginal outside the US; also I think Europeans are more inclined to believe scientists than politicians. I see a lot of parallels with the evolution debate, where evangelicals focus on "teach the controversy" whereas outside of the USA support for literal creationism drops off pretty sharply in Europe's predominantly Christian countries. So there is a tension between one group that sees it as a political issue and therefore wants to maximise exposure of every element of dispute and another that sees it as a scientific debate so naturally focuses on the near-unanimity on the scientific basis, combined with differences as to the prominence of those two schools of thought dependeing on where you happen to live. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What's deplorable about WP:NOPONY is discussions start off that way ... then progress to "don't waste our time" trying as in GoRight's case and then some form of harassment. This disruptive pattern of negativity must be directed to productive means. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

I second GoRight's motion to close . A productive outcome here is missing. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the unsourced BLP problem: it's up to administrators

A call to arms.

Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion#Prod changes depend on the attitude of administrators

Avanti! --TS 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about this - Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_way_forward_on_BLP_semiprotection_-_proposal as something which is using tools we have and might be acceptable overall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How about keyboards? I hope we don't actually start shooting each other over this. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:The cows want their milk back

I don't really know where to start here. At Cornwall and Pasty, the above user, originally using the IP 82.1.148.215 started removing all references to the UK and replacing them with "England". An old story and one that has been discussed many times. He was reverted by me and another user and a discussion was started at Talk:Pasty, during which this user continued to edit war. The edit war is one thing, and I've probably broken 3RR myself this evening in the confusion, but he also removed another user's talk page comment , and called me biased and disruptive . He also seems to have gone to my user page, picked the first-listed (completely unconnected) article I wrote and edited that in the same way twice .

This behaviour seems to be ongoing, and this user's talk page User talk:The cows want their milk back is full of other problems and violations. Any ideas what can be done? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just add, I've gone over 3 reverts too, but the editor in question appears to be a POV warrior, using both his account and IP (I think there's one or two other IP addresses too). Any admins who remember previous England/Cornwall/Scotland/United Kingdom disruption may be able to help. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the UK can be removed completely. Everybody knows where England is. It's a bit like saying "Europe, Earth, The Solar System" and whatnot. Cornwall, England is enough. There is even a good argument for saying, simply, Cornwall. --TS 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll appreciate that that's not really the point here, given the behaviour shown by the editor in question. The discussion would have raised a change to the consensus if one was desired by enough editors. There is a lot of feeling about this point and edit wars are common. This was a consensus reached over time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Saying "Cornwall, England" upsets the Cornish nationalists and leads to edit wars. Saying just "Cornwall" upsets the English nationalists, and leads to edit wars. The "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" formula was worked out as a compromise following previous edit wars, and has remained fairly stable for a long time (until, in fact, the editor in question turned up)> DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he is still doing it . How many times does he have to break 3RR before something is done here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

, . Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for sticking my oar in. My comment really was off-topic for the discussion. --TS 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He has now accused me of vandalism . Is this discussion in the wrong place or something? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He is now going through the articles I have worked on, doing exactly the same thing. , . This is starting to look like harrassment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind me sticking my nose in, It is a fact that cornwall is in England, if you are a nationalist or not it is true, and it is a far better term than 'United Kingdom', as not only is it a mouthful it is also a less specific reference. Its like writing European Union on there, its just too general. Theres no point crying over a Cornish Pasty Bret.

And PS, who's saying I'm a he? Stop making accusations. 82.1.148.215 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The ins and outs of the England/UK debate are not at issue here. The issue is your behaviour. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And also, they are not YOUR articles Bret, they belong to Misplaced Pages no matter who wrote them. You had not included a coutry in the information on that page, i was merely improving that article, as I am intitled to. 82.1.148.215 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said they were my articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Further edit-warring . Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong Bret, I have tried to add detailed, relevant, and correct information to articles. You have very biased views and continue to undo my edits so that the articles go back to having inadaquate and subtly biased information. I think I shall make a complaint about you. As an advanced User, could you please tell me how to do this? The cows want their milk back (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Add taunting and/or baiting to the list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Taunting? Baiting? I have entered information which i believe to be correct, and whether you are ignorant enough to see this as 'Taunting' is your choice. I asked you an honest question, and you refuse to help me. As a new user, I do not know a lot about how to do things on wikipedia, and the fact that you won't try to help is mean, lazy, and un-wikipedian. The cows want their milk back (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to rise to the bait. Maybe at some point, an admin will venture through here and actually do something about this. Having someone openly flaunt the rules on an admin notification page is a pretty sad state of affairs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring for 31 hrs - also blocked the ip. Vsmith (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How come the other two editors waging an edit war didn't get blocked Mr Smith? They would be User:Bretonbanquet and particularly User:DuncanHill. FootballPhil (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe repeatedly urging The Cows to use the talk page and discuss his proposed changes had something to do with it. That or we're not SPAs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation on TCWTMB and FootballPhil here. I've asked for checkuser, but probably it isn't even necessary in this case. Auntie E. (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just alerting everyone that the same pattern of unhelpful activity by this user has re-emerged, this time at Saint Piran's Flag and its talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have indef'ed the editor until they indicate an understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and acknowledge that there is one for the admittedly clunky use of "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" in related topics, which was a compromise which ended an edit war back in 2007. As someone involved in creating that consensus back then I suppose that I am involved historically, so I should be grateful for a review of my actions and rationale regarding the sanction - and also if someone still active in editing Cornwall project articles can find the discussion that lead to the consensus and place it on Tcwtmb's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussions awaiting closure at least 2 weeks

There are currently 21 deletion discussions which were opened, or relisted, more than 3 weeks ago, and are still open without having been relisted:

• Files for deletion - 1 discussion from December 29, File:Aleina Ramirez Gonzalez2.jpg
• Stub types for deletion - a total of 6 discussions, from December 11th till December 21st.
• Categories for discussion - a total of 14 discussions, from December 26th till December 30th.

It would be nice if someone could please help close all these discussions, or relist them if there is still no consensus about the result. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

They should not be relisted if they've been opened for that long. I'll look into them if no one else has after I finish with the item one header above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a discussion shouldn't be relisted just because it's been open for too long. In both FFD and CFD, discussions over a week old are less visable, which means that relisting a discussion in these processes will immediately make it more likely that users will comment or vote. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, deletion discussion should not remain open more than two weeks. If consensus hasn't formed by then, they should be closed as "no consensus". continuing to relist them only clogs an already clogged system. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: under what circumstances would you relist? (Declaration of interest: I nominated in a FFD which is overdue closing - is it okay for me to suggest that it be relisted? There are only two substantive comments on it, one each way, so seems to me it just needs someone to give it a casting vote.) --FormerIP (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility blocks

Now that I've returned and have really started to get involved on AN/I (never thought I would...) I've noticed that we don't really have a consistent response to blocking editors due to incivility and personal attacks.

I was wondering if administrators would find it valuable to have a new policy to clarify matters in regards to this area? I was thinking of creating a new policy proposal Misplaced Pages:Incivility blocks, which would set out what should be done before blocking an editor for egregious personal attacks, etc., a guide to the length of time for the block and other enforcable ways of preventing this sort of behaviour.

I think this would also be valuable because while conflicts about the content of articles are frequent, I've seen that these problems become much worse when another editor makes comments of a personal nature against the other editor, which the other editor takes um-bridge to and of course retaliates. This has become a much, much worse problem on a whole range of articles than when I last edited a few years ago. I do think that this problem needs to be tackled in a better way, and this is one way I'm proposing we do it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Does sound like a good idea to have a consistent response in place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not an admin, but I think this sounds like a genuinely good idea. Sometimes, much as I hate to say it, you just have to let it go, but I've seen some attacks which are quite egregious and nothing short of an assault on the character of the editor, which, obviously, does not make for a healthy environment in which to build an encyclopaedia. I think codifying it so there's a general standards that admins can refer to could provide useful guidance and, hopefully, deter attacks. It seems sensible to me to start with a block of around 24 hours for a single egregious attack where the editor doesn't have a history of such attacks with blocks getting longer, leading up to an indef where there's an obvious long term pattern. These could be complimented with community bans on interaction if required. Anything that shows that personal attacks will not be tolerated and that NPA is not just a hollow acronym that people throw around can only be a good thing if you ask me. HJMitchell You rang? 08:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

All right... well, I'll leave this here for other admins to have a chance to review before I start anything. But one thing that I'm also considering is whether such a thing would be better as a guideline or whether it should be a policy. After all, we already have the policy WP:NPA, so editors are aware that they shouldn't be doing this. A guideline would allow administrators enough leeway to use their commonsense, but to either know where the boundaries lie, or at least have a better idea when it's OK to block an editor. Thoughts? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• No policy will work unless it works in the case of Giano. Good luck with that... Guy (Help!) 12:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I missed something in my retirement. What does this mean? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Look over there for some background. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Er... someone want to give me the potted version? Sheesh - that's a wall of text and clicking on the related links leads me to a 2006 archived page with is greater than about 100K... I'm happy to be emailed if this is super controversial. I suspect that I missed everything while I was research about the USA PATRIOT Act. Not sure I've missed anything worthwhile though. Still, if this is going to get in the way of this proposal, any summary of the events might be helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Basically, there are 3 factions. Faction 1: Giano's lack of civility is a disruption and we must get rid of him. Faction 2: Giano is an excellent content editor and we must ignore much of his incivility in order to keep him at all costs. Faction 3: Giano is a great content editor, but that does not give him a pass on civility; however, we have no mechanism in place for vested contributors with civility issues and so Somebody Else is going to have to deal with this. Guy, would you agree with that explanation? GJC 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Spot on. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • That's basically the problem. What to do with people who don't get along with other editors, yet still make fantastic content contributions. On the one hand, this is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, so being "nice" should take a back seat to developing articles. On the other hand, this is a collaboration and anyone who can't cooperate with other people gets in the way of article development (nobody edits in a vacuum). It's like having a cat that catches mice but claws up your furniture. Do you put up with it? It depends on how bad your mice problem is, and how nice your furniture is. -- Atama頭 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
              • Well... the problem is that if many potentially and actually excellent contributors are offended and chased off by one excellent contributor, then it's a real problem. And if that "excellent" contributor needs to win article arguments by using incivility and personal attacks, I have to wonder whether the article is being skewed if that editor gains the upper hand through such a means. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • (ec) Um, it's a bit more complex than that -- but not much more. There's the issue that (from what I've seen) Giano has an acid tongue, & if he thinks you're a moron he'll tell you so quite bluntly. Then there's the issue that if he's put under restrictions, then the folk who hang around Misplaced Pages who find it too hard to contribute content, &/or find WikiGnoming too dull poke at him until he violates his restrictions. Lastly (& perhaps most importantly), there's the issue that even if Giano was permanently banned from Misplaced Pages, this problem would not be solved: most -- if not all -- Wikipedians in good standing don't respect every other Wikipedian in good standing. Or to put it in personal terms, I sincerely think there are a few Wikipedians whose best contribution to the project would not only be to leave it, but to get the fuck off the Internet. (And I'd be very surprised if there was no other established editor in good standing who did not feel the same way.) However, unlike Giano I'm content to ignore them because either (1) their behavior will eventually get them permanently banned from Misplaced Pages; or (2) they do enough valuable work that I can tolerate their presence. (It also helps if we work in different content areas.) In brief, if there was only one Giano, the Misplaced Pages community could handle that; but Giano is only the best-known example of a systemic problem which we haven't found a solution for, & may end up destroying the project. (And no, I don't know of a solution beyond being extra nice to people in inverse proportion to your desire that she/he FOADs.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • As the (Un)Official Giano Proponent Admin, I should point out there is the fourth viewpoint - that Giano's non article commentary and actions has been perceived to be anathema to "the powers that be" (them again, they nobbled my horse too!) and some people who think they are part of that grouping, or want to be part of that grouping, have proposed or enacted sanctions or made comments or opinionated, that are most charitably described as ill judged. There is now instances that when people ask for examples of situations within WP that require addressing that Giano is invoked - a totem rather than an editor who might have been dealt with more appropriately than when he first contributed outside of article space... Oh, and I fully understand that my comments and stance in this issue makes me part of the "Giano problem". There you go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) It's always been the problem. I have no idea how to fix it, but I am completely serious when I say that, in my view, if any proposal does not get Giano on side then it will fail. Any policy that attempts to judge interaction here by standards that Movie Mom would endorse is doomed before it even starts, we are not Conservapedia and thank God for that. As has been pointed out before, the last unforgivable swearword in England is stated to be a term of endearment in some parts of Australia. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Good thing I'm an Aussie then, huh? :P - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
                • (humor) Actually, no policy is really worth anything until someone proposes blocking Jimbo :) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Well, if the policy needs to get Giano "on side" (that's an Anglicism I don't recognize -- do you mean a policy that he can live with & gets him to act in a manner most of us consider productive?) perhaps we should invite him to discuss the matter. Only a complete misanthrope would decline an invitation to share his thoughts on the matter, & a complete misanthrope would not want anything to do with Misplaced Pages -- either to contribute content or to even read. ("People are stupid -- why do I want to participate in one more example of their stupidity?") -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • See on side. It's a cricketing term, only Australians, Indians, Pakistanis and Englishmen understand what we are talking about :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Great idea. The issue has been fought again and again here, at Arbcom, at RfCs, WQA, and via wheel wars. If we can actually agree on a procedureal policy (or an addition to WP:BLOCK) then hopefully we can at least have a consistent standard. It will be hard and people will have lots of opinions, but I think the consensus process can work well here. The fact that we have a policy could cut both ways. It could range all the way from "we don't do incivility blocks" to "civility is a 5P and should be vigorously enforced regardless of an editor's content contributions, including immediate blocks without warning for extreme cases." At least we'll know which it is, and a constructive discussion aimed at reaching agreement would be helpful. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I endorse this idea too. There ought to be a guideline to cover proper enforcement of the core civility policy. I suggest that it may be best to ignore the special issues related to Giano, as he is an exception.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Excellent idea. Having a specific page about this to discuss it and bring it all together will hopefully be constructive and a positive improvement to alternative past practices of double-standards. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a spot of irony. I'm going to have to put this on hold for about a week after proposing it, because I'm about to become a father (again) on Monday. But please, the more discussion here the better so I can work out what to put in the proposed policy. :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Best of luck for you, your SO, and your upcoming child.

Back on topic, for consideration, we've had (mostly my) essay Misplaced Pages:Civility warnings for about 10 months now. It has neither raised substantial objections nor been widely adopted, to date. But it may be useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I'm reading this, but so far this is an awesome summary of everything I've ever thought about NPA and civility issues on Misplaced Pages! I think if we could distill this guideline into a more concise set of steps or procedures then this might be the way forward on this one. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy drafting

OK... I read down to GJC's Giamo summary, and I feel that NPA is mandatory, no matter who you are... but I would like to comment on the original post that I would absolutely love to see slightly more strict civility blocking policy... I have had quite a few times that an incivil troll would stalk me through 4 or 5 blocks (12 hours, 1 day, 3 days, a week, 2 weeks, etc.) until I finally had to break down and yell at an admin to get them blocked (no offence said blocking admins) to get the offender indef'd... Sadly, I am falling asleep, but will be back tomorrow to read more (and George's essay), and give the second half of my 2 cents... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

George's essay is actually quite excellent and one of the best guides I've seen in de-escalation of disputes where personal attacks and incivility is occuring. I think that the policy should definitely refer to this essay, which allows us the leeway to make modifications to the essay as necessary, which can be used as a guideline for ways to warn. What the civility block policy can do is give a concrete procedure that guides an admin in starting the process of raising a civility warning, then to further warning escalations till finally it gets to the blocking stage. It has been suggested to me that we should also incorporate WP:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility, into its own policy but that gives further clarity on what to block for and how to block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Trolls can be blocked for trolling. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you are) the old days when admins would just do that are gone, these days blocking a self-evident troll for trolling will simply result in a month of wikilawyering and the descent of every user who has a grudge against any admin baying about the evil cabal. Better to ignore them. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Scope

I think we firstly need to clarify the scope of this policy. I think that at a minimum it needs to cover:

• What is a blockable offense. This is already spelled out in WP:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility. They are:
  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:OUTING
  3. WP:HARASS
  4. WP:DISRUPTION
• How many warnings, and how they should be delivered (i.e. to the talk page?) and the manner in which they are warned (refer to George's essay seems like the best way forward here).
• How long to block after warnings fail.
• If after block further violations occur, what do we do?

I'm also thinking that we need to spell out another blockable offense, which is somewhat related to both NPA and the disruption policy but doesn't quite fit with each of the policies. The behaviour I've been noticing is when an editor make comments that include the topic of conversation, but inter-splice it with complaints and personal comments about other editors. That really needs to be stopped, because if there's anything I've seen that derails conducive and collaborative editing, it's this sort of comment. This is because the other party often doesn't look at the facts that are presented and often focuses on the personal comments. The other editor then uses this to try to get the upper hand because they can then point to the fact that they have been discussing the topic, but really their language causes the other party to focus on the personal and often hurtful comments they have made.

What do people think? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Anything based on warning counts is an open invitation to gaming the system, either by placing vexatious warnings or by claiming that no action can be taken until the requester has brought forth two shrubberies and chopped down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, a fair point. But we really need some sort of way of knowing that the editor has at least been warned about their behaviour before we block, because we often need to consider either that they are a newbie or they are human and have just gotten involved in a topic they are passionate about. Obviously there is a good deal of commonsense to be used here, but it would be good to have some guidelines that admins can use when it comes to incivility. What do you suggest? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, warnings can be a useful indication about the individual, if interpreted with intelligence. Say X acts incivil, & receives a warning. If the warning is deleted & X continues without changing ways, an experienced Wikipedian will see the pattern. Or if X ignores the warning & continues without changing ways... Or if X changes ways & the behavior is no longer an issue, we'd be able to move on. The problem is that too many people want to be able to check off the boxes in order to handle troublemakers, which can be easily gamed. -- llywrch (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• If I can throw in a comment (I'm not an admin, but I am uppity ). I think that probably the best way to handle this is on the 'parking ticket' model: rigidly predefined, non-escalating, incontestable, and with literally no concern for context. so for example, say you all decide there should be a 24 hour block for a particular act of incivility: that means that anyone who commits that act of incivility gets a 24 hour block, period. It doesn't matter if they couched the incivility inside more topic-specific comments; doesn't matter how mild or severe the act was; doesn't matter if they are IPs or newbies or experienced editors; doesn't matter who their friends are or what anyone says; doesn't matter if it's the first offense or the tenth. they pay the 24 hour fine in full, and then everyone forgets about it. You don't even need to worry about warnings - just make the first civility block a person gets short (say 30 minutes), and have the first block template say "You've been blocked for this statement - ... - for 30 minutes as a warning. All future blocks for incivility will be 24 hours in duration. There is no mechanism for appeal." Nobody will like it - everyone hates parking tickets, that's a human universal - but as long as it's applied blindly and evenly everyone will put up with it, and it will be a very effective tool. --Ludwigs2 08:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I was considering something like that. A thirty minute block has merits. It's sort of like a shot across the bows of an attacker to let them know that we're serious. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment regarding biographies of living people

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this be put on WP:CENT? I know there's already a similar discussion up there, but this is more recent and broader in scope. ThemFromSpace 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, an RFC was likely the most appropriate route to go, thus I think CENT should be updated. NJA (t/c) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just throwing this out there: per my usual, I am willing to userfy any deleted article to allow it to be properly sourced. I'll check back after a short while to ensure the needful has been done. –xeno 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Gah! There's that phrase again! "the needful" - where does that come from?!? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, hold on. We have an article on it. Ignore me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That pleases me greatly. –xeno 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I ignore me all the time. I'm sure that's why I'm such a happy and level headed person. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I meant the existence of the article =] –xeno 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Oh, but that would have been the best put down ever. I laughed! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Userfication of an article that violates WP:BLP is in violation of WP:BLP. Woogee (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced non-controversial, non-negative articles do not violate WP:BLP. Fences&Windows 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the crux of the problem here, bud; no one really knows what is in all of these problematic articles. 50,000 wildcards that just simply need to be taken out of play rather than deliberated over one by one. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will naturally review the article for any glaring problems. –xeno 22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed. I'm no deletionist and I think we need to be very careful here about babies and bathwater but, as Tarc says, we have over 50,000 of these and I'd say it's better to nuke every last one of them than to leave just a single attack page or BLP containing defamatory information. BLPs aren't the only victims of libelous vandalism but it's a good place to start and I'm glad this is getting so much attentions now. HJMitchell You rang? 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never subscribed to the theory that the best way to save something is to destroy it. Abusing the tools to jump start a much needed discussion can be forgiven, even applauded, so long as the abuse stops once the community begins taking the issue seriously. Indiscriminate deletion is not the solution, and I think the RfC is showing that there is very little support for such a course of action no matter how big a hissyfit the usual suspects throw. In fact, deliberation over each article is what is needed, and much of what the PROD-like discussion is centred around. Resolute 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced non-controversial, non-negative articles do not violate WP:BLP If that were the case, the articles wouldn't be being deleted. Woogee (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you arriving late to this party? You might want to familiarize yourself with the recent events in this area. –xeno 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. I see I'm not the only one questioning your assertion. Woogee (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

including this User. Woogee (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does faith come into it at all? And I don't recall making any assertion. I offered to userfy any article summarily deleted to allow time for sourcing. –xeno 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your nasty comment to me is a clear example of bad faith assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. Woogee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What nasty comment? Someone can act entirely in good faith yet still be working with an incomplete picture of the situation. We are currently in a period of rapid upheaval. –xeno 23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

xeno, how does it make sense to offer to userify an article when nobody who needs it userified knows what its content is and whether it would be worth the trouble? DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This question is key, and it mystifies me. The best way to improve the enyclopedia is by building on its existing contents. If you can't see the content, you can't improve it, and you don't have a clue where to begin. Franamax (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@dgg - Isn't that kind of the point?- So that they can see for themselves if there is something of value there and source it? The alternative is having to duplicate work. –xeno 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: If anyone knows the answer to this question I posed at VPT, can they reply there. I am posting this request here, since I assume it would be of interest to other projects too. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice about a potential RFC/U

I (and others) would be interested in getting the opinions of others about the appropriateness of starting a RFC/U on an editor who hasn't edited for the last 8 days. He stopped the day after the preparation of the RFC/U began, and one of his last edits was this sandbox post that seems to acknowledge that some evaluation of his editing was in the works. We are pondering about whether going ahead would be unfair in that he is not (apparently) around to respond to the concerns. On the other hand, the problems with this editor are longstanding, have been identified by multiple editors/administrators, and the editor is somewhat inclined to take breaks and then return to exactly the same patterns weeks and months later; so perhaps it would be good to get feedback (for all) to try and forestall future frustration. The full hemming and hawing about this is here. Comments welcome.--Slp1 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR again

After long discussion in talk:Josip Broz Tito and in this project page: wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive587#User:DIREKTOR, user:DIREKTOR has yet bad behaviour very much. He is aggressive against who want only neutrality of various mattters because article Josip Broz Tito is tagged and I agree with users Sir Floyd, ShadowRanger, Andrea Fox2, Thewanderer, AP1929, Jeppiz and others who want contribute to neutrality but DIREKTOR is in permanent edit war in all Tito's articles related and accuses or insults other users who have different opinions! This is an example of this guy's insolenceand here in edit summary he accuses me of nonsense and spamming! Also here he has disruptive and hostile words! But he is not alone titoist around and probably I will request ARBCOM; what do you think? Moreover I assert to entire community: these titoist/communist guy's do not represent real mind of people in new Republics of ex Yugoslavia because communist nostalgics of dictator Broz are few individuals--ANTE RAKELA (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with sarcasm here. First, it actually doesn't seem to include you and I'm not a big fan of the gamesmanship those articles bring out. Second, it's from July so why bring it up now? Of course, I see the edit warring with you now occurring so that's my guess as to the reason. Here you are adding an unsourced paragraph about additional mass executions also being carried out later. I don't know if that's nonsense or spam but perhaps you could follow his advice here and "refrain from introducing controversial edits without prior discussion." Wouldn't that help? This name-calling certainly doesn't help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have notified Director of this discussion as required and if you wish to inform ARBCOM, I would suggest reading Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (well, this part is important) before continuing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion regarding BLP deletions

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion in lieu of a full case regarding the BLP deletions request. The text of the motion is as follows:

• That the core principles of the policy on biographies of living people—in particular, neutrality and verifiability—have been set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation as a mandate for all projects;
• That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included;
• That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;
• That Misplaced Pages, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and
• That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The Committee has determined that:

• The deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people.
• The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.
• The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon | 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Spam filter exception request

Please see Talk:Spheksophobia, as I have posted a comment there regarding a false positive in the spam filter. -- IRP ☎ 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee edit warring on protected policy page, now blocked; please review

No point in discussing this further here. Comments here -> Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:PROD_wheel_war - Alison 09:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

In the context of the current disputes about how to deal with unsourced WP:BLPs, the policy page Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently fully protected due to an edit war about whether to include language concerning BLPs. Today, Coffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, re-added the contested content with the edit summary: "The consensus has not and will not change, ArbCom passed a motion that tells admins to be BOLD about this. Therefore I'm being bold and putting this back here."

I asked Coffee, at User talk:Coffee#Your recent edit to Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion, to revert himself, with reference to the policy WP:FULL that prohibits admins editing protected pages unless the edit has consensus or is uncontroversial. He declined, saying:

The "communities view" doesn't really matter in this case, ArbCom passed a rather simple motion that everyone has pretty much interpreted the same way. The consensus at the RFC is that PRODs on unsourced BLPs should not be removed unless sources are added, this to you should be better than me just mass deleting, which believe me I have no problem starting again. There's no reason to delay adding it to that policy, other than plain and simple policy wonkery, which I will not tolerate.

While I am somewhat sympathetic with Coffee in the policy dispute as such (indeed I supported two RfC policy proposals with a similar aim to that of the contested policy language), I believe that nothing in the currently ongoing discussions or the ArbCom motion (see WP:BLPRFC#View by Sandstein)) allows administrators to edit-war on fully protected policy pages to enact their preferred policy through brute force.

For this reason, I have blocked Coffee for 24 hours for edit-warring and abuse of admin tools, and invite review of that action. Because I must leave shortly, any uninvolved administrator is invited to lift or adjust the block as required by consensus (if any) here.  Sandstein  08:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My principle objection here isn't that Coffee was blocked, but that you blocked him after filing a viewpoint on the matter at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Sandstein and having filed an opinion at , you should not block other participants in dispute you are involved in. You should have reported it here for an uninvolved administrator to handle. You should strongly consider unblocking and leaving it to an uninvolved administrator to handle. MBisanz 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in the dispute in the course of which I blocked Coffee, which is whether or not WP:PROD should be changed to include language related to BLPs. As noted above, the only comments I have ever made concerning this have been generally in favor of Coffee's position.  Sandstein  08:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the content he was adding was the content in the discussion, that is involved. Someone else has reverted the protect page, I assume you will also be asking them to self-revert? MBisanz 08:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What a load of absolute codswallop. Please remove the block now, I have never seen anything so puerile. billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC) (annotation … uninvolved admin)

In my discussion with Sandstein, Coffee was adding what was a resolution by abrcom made recently. Sure, Coffee needed it to point it out better or link it, but factually, Coffee was right. I call for his immediate unblocking. User:Zscout370 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also seems strange and really needs to stop. We should just cite the arbcom motion and leave this page alone. User:Zscout370 08:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 4) Whether or not the blocking admin may have been previously involved, the edit is clearly in violation of suggestions made in the vague ArbComm ruling, and should probably result in an extended block, although that may need to be left to ArbComm. The ruling specifically said that further actions should wait until a community consensus is obtained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock, please - you just blocked a fellow-editor in a dispute in which you are clearly involved. This should have been brought to ANI first, and have an uninvolved admin evaluate the situation. What you did smacks of 'shoot first, questions later' - Alison 08:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: how many active admins are left that have not yet taken a position in this matter? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I've no idea, but I know where they can be found, after all, we've over 1,600 of them :| - Alison 09:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
      • • • That would be me who has no interest in the BLPs. Much prefer bios of the 19thC. billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
      • (To Fut. Perf.) I asked that about β. There may be fewer uninvolved admins this time, but there are probably some. However, he's clearly a rogue admin, and needs to be blocked, for the good of Misplaced Pages, until he realizes that his specific edits are not supported by consensus or ArbCom. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Alison and others asking for you to unblock Coffee. You are too heavily involved in the matter to make an impartial decision about the matter. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very long-standing practice that administrators should not edit disputed protected pages in this manner. Was a block justified and was Sandstein a good person to make the block? I don't know. But Coffee is responsible for creating this mess. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it looks like people are splitting on the issue and it involves admin-y stuff, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:PROD_wheel_war. MBisanz 09:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good grief - what a tangled wheel-war. Good summation, though, MBisanz. Suggest we archive this thread now, as no good can come of it and there's already one arbitrator who's accepted - Alison 09:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec ec ec)I have unblocked Coffee billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• It has been referred to Arbitration, and Coffee has opportunity to make comment
• the blocker has said to use consensus due to their absence,
• I have asked Coffee to not edit Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion to which they have agreed to, at least for the term of the initial block.

Requesting topic ban or extended block of User:Likebox

He stated that he intends to push his POV ad infinitum on his preferred versions of proofs, and has edit warred over the attempts to move his umpteen rehashing of the same argument to his talk page . Clearly the editing restrictions previously agreeed did not work as he's trying to manufacture consensus by exhausting the patience of others trough endless talk page repetition. I'm asking for an indefinite topic ban on Mathematics articles, widely construed (this includes any theoretical computer science), or for a lengthy block. The basic issue is pushing original research in the form of his own proofs to various theorems. Pcap ping 11:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here? I didn't even edit the page! I just put a short summary of the proofs on the Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems for the benefit of future editors, because the old versions were archived.

A short follow-up discussion was deleted from the talk page by some other editors. This violates policy, and I restored the discussion. It is never appropriate to delete other peoples talk page comments.

Do not use this forum to intimidate editors from (briefly) discussing topics on talk pages.Likebox (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I request that editors somehow make it clear that making these types of accusations is not proper behavior.Likebox (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also aware that an administrator in a hurry could look this over, and conclude that I had done something wrong. This is very intimidating--- it is not good behavior to accuse people of "edit warring". The talk page discussion that was moved to my talk specifically said that if I did not like it being moved, it would be restored.Likebox (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

With edit summary YEAH RIGHT! you add back that:

If this isn't a promise to POV push ad infinitum, then what is it? Pcap ping 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I meant--- I didn't mean that I was going to POV push on the page, only that the dispute is not resolved. So if the old discussion goes into archive, I will restore the proofs to the talk page, because they are still not presented elsewhere. I didn't mean that I would edit the page for inclusion against consensus, just that I would talk until consensus is changed. I hope this happes sooner rather than later.Likebox (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary, just to make clear, was to express annoyance at the deletion of the talk page comments. CBM deleted the back-and-forth and moved it to my talk page. This is not something that should be done without agreement from both parties. The reason he did so is probably because the discussion is not particularly illuminating as regards the material. But the problem is that a long talk page post without a response and without a reference to ongoing back-and-forth discussions make it seem like I am a crackpot pushing original material.Likebox (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved the comments because I thought they were mostly referring to your edit restrictions, rather than to the material. I said at the time I didn't care if they were moved back, and I don't. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed topic ban. At the moment Likebox is under an editing restriction visible on that page. The discussion that led up to the restriction is here.

At the time of that discussion, editors reported that Likebox was repeatedly added material to Talk:History wars after failing to get consensus to include it in the article. He has said he is now planning to do the same on Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorem. This is obviously a misuse of talk pages, which are not intended to provide an alternate forum for unsourceable material that cannot be included in the article itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First off--- the material I placed on History Wars is extensively sourced, since it is about history, and it is pointless to discuss anything historical without sources. The sources on History wars include at least 4 refereed articles and 4 textbooks. The dispute there is entirely distinct from the dispute regarding Godel's theorem, and there is no point in discussing it further.

Second--- I am under no editing restrictions! I never was. I am under advisory probation to not make edit wars, because I have gotten people pissed off in the past. That's it. Don't edit war, don't POV push. These are the normal restrictions on any Wikipedian, and I am more than happy to comply. You wanted me to be put on specific editing restrictions regarding Godel's theorem, and you did not get that. I am saying this here so that it is clear that my edits were not deemed problematic so much as the tactics I was using to get them accepted.

Third--- I know that you and Arthur Rubin oppose including a proof of Godel's theorem, if that proof is stated using computer programs. That might be consensus at the moment, but its an idiotic consensus, and I don't think it has a chance to stand in the future. Let's wait and see. Until then, if the proofs are deleted from the talk page, then the dispute is effectively buried where nobody will see it. So keep the proofs on the talk page, and wait to see if consensus shifts. That's it.

Regarding your moving comments--- I don't think you did anything wrong, and I considered leaving the comments on my talk page. But the comments might lead people to read the archive, which I think is a good thing. Also, when you are discussing mathematics, there are a lot of people who say stupid things, and I think that a back-and-forth shows that this material was considered and rejected for reasons other than mathemtical accuracy.Likebox (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

General comment on the use of talk pages. (I can recall no personal history of interaction with any of these editors, nor edits to these articles.) Article talk pages are not intended to be indefinite storage areas for material that is not presented in an article. If, after a reasonable period of discussion – with suitable recourse to RfCs, third opinions, or other consensus-building tools, as necessary – no consensus to include material is reached, then it is generally best to let the discussion end. Talk pages have archives, should reference to the material be required in the future. For that matter, the material remains in the history of the talk page in perpetuity.

In general, it is considered poor form to repeatedly 'bump' a topic from the talk page archives absent a good reason to do so. Good reasons may include a shift in Misplaced Pages policy, the effects of broader discussion on related topics, articles, or WikiProjects, the publication of significant new reliable sources, etc. Broadly speaking, a 'good' reason is one which might lead a reasonable person to believe that the outcome of the discussion might be changed on the basis of the new evidence or information. "I think the other editors are wrong" or variations on that theme are not 'good' reasons for the purposes of this discussion. Repeated 'bumping' of a topic without good reason (or repeated restatement of essentially the same, previously-archived points) is disruptive and should be avoided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards