Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 20 August 2010 (→GSCC Revision: Heros). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Removing off-topic, insulting commentary from an AfD

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Art student scam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User imposed self ban on article, no consensus for topic ban

Mbz1 apparently does not like the way this AfD is trending, posting a comment denigrating those in favor of keeping it by labeling this and other articles as "Misplaced Pages's hall of shame of smearing Israel". This is trolling, and I called it as such in my attempt to remove it. It had nothing to do with the discussion of the article at hand, all it serves is to incite other editors in Israeli-Palestinian topic area, and this is an area that certainly doesn't need more fanning of the flames. Another editor attempted to remove this was well, but was reverted yet again.

I'd also note the reference to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which effectively turns Mbz1's screed into a thinly-veiled charge of antisemitism against other editors as well.

This needs a more authoritative hand to step in and remove the offending passage and caution this user against using AfDs for personal soapboxes and attacking other editors. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's comment on AfD

Mbz1 first made this comment on the AfD for Art student scam, which is clearly not appropriate and is skimming the line of NPA, as it can easily be construed as an attack on anyone who voted Keep in the AfD. Tarc then reverted the comment, with the edit summary of "rv: trolling. AfDs are to discuss whether or not to keep/delete/etc the article in question, not to make general, critical commentary of the subject area, or to disparage other editors".

Mbz1 then reverted it back, with the edit summary of "reverted vandalism, bring it to an/i, but do not touch other people comments", calling Tarc's revert vandalism, when NPA is quite clear in a user's capability to revert things that can be considered a personal attack.

Tarc reverted it back, edit summary of "re-read WP:NPA at your leisure".

Again, Mbz1 reverted it back, with the edit summary of "reverted vandalism", again calling something vandalism that clearly wasn't.

I then stepped in to revert it, with the edit summary of "This is definitely NPA".

Then, Mbz1 reverted it back again, for the third time, but re-phrased the comment this time, removing some of the NPA, but still keeping a comment that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Mbz1 then left this comment on my talk page. I'm not quite sure on what he means about trying to "hide the unwanted truth".

I will now go inform the other involved users about this discussion and leave this up to the community to discuss. Silverseren 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we made it at the same time. I'm changing mine to a level 3 header under Tarc's. Silverseren 17:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Mbz1 removed our notification of this ANI discussion on his talk page, with the edit summary "who cares". So, we did notify him. Silverseren 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The number of Ad Hominems and accusations of smearing and conspiracy theory at that AfD is really disrupting the discussion, I believe. It seems a significant number of people who have made very reasoned explanations for voting "keep" have been denigrated as supporting conspiracy theories and it seems a group of editors are attempting to sway the AfD by now implying antisemitism and cabalistic smear. This very much has a chiling effect on the discussion as nobody wants to be accused of antisemitism. These Ad Hominems need to stop and the discussion must be allowed to continue on the merits of the article itself, with WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:NPOV in mind. I strongly believe that this will end up at ArbCom at some point, and probably the sooner the better. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What i'm worried about is what the state of the article will fall into after the AfD, as that group of editors still has strict control of the talk page. Silverseren 18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment I do not believe that the comment I made falls under any definition of of a personal attack, but even, if it did, according to this the complete removal of the comment was unwarranted and that's why I called the removal of it vandalism. Although I still do not believe my comment was a PA I rephrased it.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It was correctly removed regardless of NPA, because it was utterly irrelevant to the deletion discussion whilst attempting to influence other editors. The AfD is not there for you to attack other editors or soapbox about Misplaced Pages content. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was not " attempting to influence other editors". The deletion request is going to be closed today or tomorrow, kind of to late to influence something. It was rather my conclusion (for the record only) about deletion request for an attacking and insulting article. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I just found this on RomaC's talkpage, who is one of the users involved in trying to make the Art student scam article better. Silverseren 18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand why you voted to keep the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

?? Care to detail your understanding of why Silver seren voted to keep? Unomi (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, Mbz1 (talk · contribs) is under a 1RR restriction placed by Lar (talk · contribs) here. The restriction applies to all pages, not just articles, and Mbz1's last unblock was apparently contingent upon a promise not to edit-war anymore. That promise, and the 1RR, appear to have been broken in this case. I don't think this falls under a "blatant vandalism" exception. That said, if the AfD has more or less run its course and Mbz1 has edited their comment into a slightly more acceptable form, then a block would probably be punitive rather than preventative. MastCell  18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell, as I explained, I did consider removal of my comment to be a blatant vandalism. If you believe otherwise, please do block me. I should not have violated my 1RR not under any circumstances. except vandalism. The block will not be punitive it will be deserved, but once again I believe the comment was not PA, and removal of it was vandalism. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, bit is there a substantive difference between version 1 and version 2? I don't see how the slight rewording changed the tone or intent. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal topic ban Mbz1 for Art student scam

Proposal to topic ban Mbz1 from articles relating to Israel

Template:Disucussion top

Close it up?

User has, for the moment, retired. Seems that there's consensus that the AfD comment was inappropriate and that there is no support for a topic ban. Is there a proverbial "uninvolved admin" who can wrap this up and let it sink into archive-land? Tarc (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and done. --WGFinley (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez again

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

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

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

• Disagree 1RR is usually unhelpful in my experience. TFD (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• 1RR? No way. That too easily becomes just a tricksy way for people to catch each other out. And the page hasn't even been protected recently, which is a far more likely step to encourage collaboration and thoughtful rewriting. Rd232 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Protection would be an alternative, but then I couldn't continue cleaning up citations that were just messed up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure you can, if a subpage draft is used to re-develop the article. Rd232 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • In the current battleground, it's unlikely sandbox will get anywhere. Also, article protection prevents all editors from improving the article, while 1RR targets disruptive editors, which might help stop the bleeding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

How would you characterize:

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

How would you characterize the scores of diffs on that page of talk page personalization of issues and WP:BATTLEGROUND? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

• Against 1RR. Just use semi-protection on it. Our Hugglers catch any vandalism quickly anyway... --Diego Grez 00:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Diego Grez, do you understand 1RR? It is not used for vandalism; it's used to stop disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• So far, one indepdent editor has weighed in, and that editor apparently doesn't understand 1RR as it relates to disruptive editing vs. vandalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have not spoken in favor of any of those sources. The point is there are high quality sources and you chose to ignore them, instead cherry-picking articles. Chavez has been the Venezuelan leader for over 10 years and came to public attention almost 20 years ago. There is no reason to rely on newspapers. Why would we cover any historical event based on newspaper reports? When editing the article about Julius Caesar for example would you push to include a viewpoint about him expressed in the Economist? TFD (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caeser is long dead, a bit different than Chavez, for whom the sources I provide are quite reliable :) And no, I don't cherrypick sources-- please stop the accusations-- I provide lists of sources on talk to document the article POV and missing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Um - virtually all articles on living people rely on "newspapers" as you think to disparingly calling them <g>. Very few articles on living people are "peer reviewed." Now as to relying on newspaper reports - did you not realize that almost all that is written on Lincoln has its origin in "newspaper reports"? (ncluding the famed Cooper Union speech, and so on) That almost all books on the Civil War (US) are basically oriented on newspaper and government reports - which were, I can assure you, not "peer reviewed". Sorry - the "peer reviewed" mantra has not been accepted at WP:RS as a reason to exclude newspapers, and is unlikely ever to be. Collect (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody home?

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

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

while:

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

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

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

{{archivebottom}}

General sanctions requested

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

No. As noted above, protection has not recently been used on this article. As not noted yet, only the main Hugo Chávez article suffers from substantive conflict, and nowhere near bad enough to justify a general sanction for that page without trying protection first. (In fact, right now even protection seems unnecessary.) Sandy's request seems to have arisen from temporary frustration (and a lack of time to deal with matters at hand more patiently). Rd232 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, my frustration is at AN/I and the trivial disputes that take pages to resolve, with participants apparently not even reading or informing themselves before commenting-- an entirely separate matter. The Chavez article suffers from long-term disruption-- at least four years-- with the additional complication that a new cast of characters appears regularly and prevents progress, with frequent edit wars, failure to read and understand policy or edit summaries or sources, failure to AGF, talk page personalization and ... well, just about one of everything. It is my opinion-- having watched this rinse-lather-repeat cycle for four years-- that the article will not advance unless some sanctions (like 1RR) are implemented. At the rate it's going, it's headed for multiple forums of dispute resolution, which will grind too slowly, leaving the article progress stalled, and wasting everyone's time. Some sort of sanctions are needed to stop the bleeding. Protection and working in sandbox is unlikely to help, because the cast of characters is ever-changing, but the common theme is that old editors defend the POV, and new editors don't learn policy or guidelines, and disrupt the talk page with diatribes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a disconnect between your expectations of others regarding the assumption of good faith, and your own demonstration of its importance. Asserting your belief that participants here and/or elsewhere fail to "read or inform themselves before commenting", demonstrates a disposition in contrast to these very guidelines. I would prefer to assume participants do read and endeavor to provide informed comment. Even when we sometimes disagree. Cheers. My76Strat 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you're weighing in here, I presume you've checked the diffs I've provided to back up statements, and that you've reviewed the "Gimmetoo, again" section of this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct in this - I would suggest that "1RR" is not the way to go -- rather "maximum of 3 non-contiguous edits per day" would avoid the problems with definition of revert, etc. I can see no reason why anyone would need more than 3 non-contiguous edits per day (24 hours and 5 minutes to avoid trivial gaming) on any article other than one under construction with other editors. Collect (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is very convoluted, and will allow edit wars to continue-- perhaps I'm not understanding your suggestion, but I certainly edit articles more than three times a day when I'm active, and it's not general editing, rather removal of tags and deletion of cited content (reverting by new editors) that is creating issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I dislike gameable restrictions like 1RR. I think it would be more useful to make a statement that there has been a long term problem, and that further disruption will not be tolerated. Provide a page, like Misplaced Pages:General Sanctions/Hugo Chávez where editors can report disruptive editors. We'll warn them first, and then proceed to blocks or topic bans if needed. If single purpose accounts keep appearing, we can easily say "You are repeating the same disruptive pattern of editing as somebody else who got banned. If you continue, you will end up in the same place." Jehochman 12:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Could work, but where are we going to get independent admins to police it? The thing about 1RR is that it's more "reportable" and easier to enforce, but general sanctions require some admins to pay attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Formerly

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

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

I think the 48 hour block is totally fine. I think that WMC's continued presence has now reached the point of being a net loss to the project and given his continued snarkiness and repeated disruption I would support a much longer block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not on the agenda here. As far as this block is concerned, I do think WMC was being a bit snarky and pointy, and I'm not surprised that he was blocked as a result. That said, I also think a better course of action would have been for The Wordsmith to let it pass in the interests of avoiding drama. Another editor on WMC's talk page was right to comment that the actions on both sides were not optimal. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way... a block review here at AN/I can result in a shortening, no change, or even a lengthening. The last is rare, but not unheard of. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just finished reading the extensive discussion about this block on the user's talkpage, and I agree with The Wordsmith that the user deliberately demonstrated that he would not abide by the community sanction, as well as baiting him in the process. That said, however, The Wordsmith shouldn't have taken the bait. I believe the short block should remain, but ideally an uninvolved sysop should have been the one to administer it. GiftigerWunsch 22:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think this was optimally handled. First imposing an edit restriction, and then self-applying it when it gets violated. Where did I see that before .. wait, maybe I should ask User:Abd, I think he ran once into a block by one certain User:William M. Connolley, because he was violating the ban implied by ... --Dirk Beetstra 22:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My initial question would be; was this a community sanction, or one imposed unilaterally by the Wordsmith. If the latter, was Wordsmith empowered to do this? If not, then one could hardly blame WMC for taking exception to it. Although as such a seasoned contributor he should've realised that there were better ways of challenging it. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From reading the discussion on the user's talk page, Wordsmith seemed to imply that it was a community sanction. If this was imposed by Wordsmith alone, then the block should be overturned, but I don't believe this is the case. GiftigerWunsch 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the restriction was imposed under the climate change article probation, which grants uninvolved admins such as The Wordsmith the right to impose such restrictions. The restriction was imposed following a request for probation enforcement that can be read here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC, he has just gone off, he knows he was snarky and he is probably chilln out somewhere laughing about it. But the people that support him start, this is wrong and that is wrong and now this thread, and he hasn't even asked to be unblocked, at least allow him the opportunity to speak for himself. The truth is about WMC is that I am afraid, he is a busted flush as far as wikipedia goes and his continued presence is disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Per IRC chat Wordsmith has advised he's currently at work and will be able to respond to this in approximately 2 hours. --WGFinley (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. Ideally would have allowed someone else to make the block but user experience would have been identical in either case. --John (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• (Edit Conflict) - I don't have a problem with the block itself but Wordsmith should not have done it. Since WMC edited Wordsmith's comment and challenged him on his own (Wordsmith's) talkpage, Wordsmith should've requested neutral admin evaluation of the edits and intervention if the other admin thought it warranted. This avoids arguments about retaliation, conflict of interest etc. Exxolon (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I ran across this block not long after it was made, and I've been thinking about it ever since. On reflection I support it. I support it from a moral standpoint, partially because from this thread it seems clear that we need admins who have the guts to wade into that minefield and get their hands dirty, and frankly I don't have the guts to do that. (I think I once commented on a climate change RFC and that was as far as I was willing to involve myself.) But aside from that, WMC responded to a sanction not to edit others' comments by editing the very message itself, which is more than thumbing your nose, it's an immediate violation of the sanction. I don't see why he shouldn't be blocked. -- Atama頭 23:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• A proper block. As much as I agree that those imposing sanctions and those enforcing them ought ideally be separate, The Wordsmith and his colleagues in the CC case have been crying out for uninvolved admins to help for as long as the CC regime has been going. Skomorokh 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Given the WMC history on this issue (Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement), his edit in the notification of the sanction was knowingly inappropriate. "Respect mah authoritah" block? No - respect the community and its rules. So block entirely appropriate. Rd232 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Observations benignly posted within well-respected academic brackets (see User:Bishonen entry) JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsk tsk - please see WP:POINT, as to why that is less than funny. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unless WMC apologises for his conduct, then I don't think he should be unblocked. There are several ways to legitimately gain clarification of a restriction, or for that matter have it overturned, but deliberately breaking it, surprisingly enough, isn't one of them. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not a proper block. An admin is not a police man nor a judge. The role of judge AND jury is that of the Community itself. The Community only can put forth restrictions, restrictions imposed by an admin alone are not valid. This restriction does seem to have come forth from a consensus though I did not read how wide a consensus and how neutral it was. So the question is- was the block by consensus? I see nowhere that Wordsmith asked for any opinions from other informed/interested parties or from non-interested neutral parties (as I understand those are harder to come by) or preferably brought this before AN/I to make sure we were all on the right page. Is the expectation that Wordsmith should have come before AN/I first considered a burden on his right or undue bureaucracy? IMHO- no. AN/I thread could have been quite simple and short and a community block instituted. My opinion in no reflects any endorsement or acceptance of what WMC did or if the block should be removed. The block probably should not be removed unless there is more evidence that it was done in a grudge manner. But Wordsmith should be educated on proper Janitorial behavior and service FOR the Community. (And I second Kim's admonishment of JIJ, in fact whatever happens to WMC shoud then happen to him/her)Camelbinky (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully Bishonen will be first to note my block appeal. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Call to close: the overwhelming majority of users here appear to support leaving the block in place, so could an uninvolved editor close this as such? GiftigerWunsch 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. This has been up for two hours, and surely there's no rush to close this. I'm neutral on the block. AniMate 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close? Now? Oh, seriously. The Wordsmith wants to comment, for one thing, and hasn't even had a chance yet. See above. Bishonen | talk 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

  Yeah I was a little hasty there, sorry about that. GiftigerWunsch 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Extend block to indefinite. Per this, do not unblock until WMC indicates he accepts the sanction placed on him as legitimate, or indicates he intends to challenge it's illegitimacy in the right way, rather than how he just did. And if he gives no such indication, he can remain indeffed until his long term status is decided by the arbitration case, and give everyone a rest. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• A close is premature even given the way consensus is shaping up. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Also Respect mah authoritah: block by The Wordsmith is an inappropriately non neutral section heading, Bishonen knows better. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, she's nothing to fear from Jimbo anymore on that score. I was about to raise it myself as a side-bar, but I couldn't see anything remotely worthwile emerging from the ensuing discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse per explanation below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yet another example of how trying to reform WMC leads to disruptive drama at ANI. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support block and support it being imposed by Wordsmith because no one else would have done it, and that is what WMC was counting on. His behavior was deliberate as he clearly stated he was violating the restriction on purpose to prove a point. Minor4th 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support block I agree with Wikidemon's point that Wordsmith was not the admin who should have blocked William M. Connolley. Technically, there's a case to be made that William M. Connolley should not have been blocked in this case since, technically, he might not have been changing someone's comments in violation of the restriction. But William M. Connolley repeatedly goes right up to the line, which seems very likely a way of trying to goad admins (so I support keeping the block in place). This kind of ridiculous junior-high-school (or grade school) behavior is more bother than we need here. WMC is by now a net drain on the project. And this is what he's doing in the shadow of a looming ArbCom decision which I think everybody expects will come down on him like a ton of bricks. At this point, I'd support a community ban. He will continue to take up hours of editors' time on one melodrama after another until he gets one. It's time he was dealt with efficiently. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I am not aware of the back story. It sounds as if the community is just tired of him. Be that as it may, process is important. There has to be a more direct reason for long blocks or bans than that a minor technical violation (or alternately, a technical non-violation). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support block Per below I think Wordsmith did this by the book. --WGFinley (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question Is there some way of marking comments so editors know if editors commenting are involved, uninvolved or have past history with WMC? I think this needs to be disclosed for fairness to the editor. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Response from the Wordsmith

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

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

Hopefully this answers all of your questions. The Wordsmith 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a tendency to agree with Bishonen on admins needing to be willing to accept being twitted a bit, but there's a difference between being twitted and someone who's been up before Arbcom and then taken to an Arbitration Enforcement page and having 7 admins consensus on imposing a restriction blatantly rejecting the validity or legitimacy of the process or decision and WP:POINTing a violation of the just-imposed restriction.

I concur with the restriction and the block for violating it.

There are appropriate ways to appeal a restriction; that was not one of them, and WMC has been around long enough to know that.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The block appears entirely proper to me.  Sandstein  05:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

First, you are clearly involved. You were indeed in a "current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions". The sanction was not to edit "comments made by other editors". You felt (incorrectly) that he edited your comment. You can't get more involved than that. Second, as I noted, there was no direct violation of the sanction. He did not edit your comment. He added an aside. Yes, he was deliberately provocative in questioning the extent of the sanction. Deliberately challenging things is not sanctionable. The sanction was not to avoid having an opinion, it was to avoid a specific behavior. Third, it does not violate the spirit of the sanctions. Questioning administrative enforcement is something that every editor is entitled to do. Except in extreme cases we don't issue gag orders on editors not to discuss their discipline cases. He was disciplined not for tweaking admins (something that itself is rarely sanctionable) but for disrupting the climate change discussions. I don't see any plausible way in which his questioning of the extent of his sanctions could be considered disruptive. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Deliberately challenging things is not sanctionable." Sure it is, depending on how you challenge it. That's why WP:POINT exists. You don't get to do whatever you want if it's to make a point. -- Atama頭 06:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT is about disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point. It is not about challenging administrators to make a point. In the case of POINT violations the point is about something other than the content matter in question, and the integrity of the encyclopedia to readers, or the editing process, suffers collateral damage. In the case of challenging administrative edicts there is no disruption to encyclopedia content or editing process, just annoyance to administrators who are attempting to impose an edict. Dealing with unhappy editors comes with the territory of imposing administrative decisions. Last time I checked, Contempt of cop is not sanctionable here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're confused, since the encyclopedia is not just the articles. It is the entire project. Interfering with process, in any area, is interfering, ultimately, with article production and improvement. Your rhetoric notwithstanding. ++Lar: t/c 10:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean exactly what I say. Editors are not allowed to hamper the editing of the encyclopedia or the collaboration among editors in order to prove a point. Editors are allowed to advocate against sanctions imposed on them, because that is a part of any reasonable process. Nevertheless, in this case he did not break the restriction in either word or spirit. He inserted a bracketed question in the middle of an administrator's pronouncement, something that disrupts nothing but the administrator's pride. If that were interference with process, then exactly what was interfered with by doing this? Certainly not the effect of the pronouncement, which has the exact same meaning with or without the commentary. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, WMC disrupted the smooth operation of the project with that edit and you are trying to wikilawyer around that. So you're confused. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't accuse. I am sincere in my statement that after reviewing the situation I do not believe there was any disruption, or that WNC violated either the wording or the spirit of the restriction. I'm not calling you confused or accusing you of wikilawyering for thinking otherwise, am I? I just don't see any plausible way in which the bracketed comment interfered with anything. But for Wordsmith's decision to issue a block, it would not have affected the project at all one way or another. It would just sit there on WMC's page, a sanction announcement with a bracketed comment in it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, if a restriction has been applied then it should be blatantly obvious that the correct method of challenging that restriction is not to immediately break it. It's not strictly WP:POINT, but it's drama-inducing because it's effectively saying "well go on then, block me". Black Kite (t) (c) 08:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So the proper response is to invest a significant portion of time and emotional energy to going through various bureaucratic hoops? At what point must this compulsive meme of "hating drama" cede to allowing productive contributors a shred of dignity and self-respect? Considering the hordes of misundereducated sorts WMC has to put up with when trying to edit the articles of his accedited expertise, I think we should all be amazed he manages to bite his tongue as often as he does. Badger Drink (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand the problems that WMC faces. However, this wasn't a topic ban on editing articles, it was merely one on refactoring other people's talk page postings, which he shouldn't be doing anyway, and should know that. Given that, what on earth was the point of the exercise? Black Kite (t) (c) 13:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that he never manages to bite his tongue, Badger, which is why blocks like this arise. I really think this needs sorting out soon at the community level, or by ArbCom, but soon. SlimVirgin 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup ;) This was more than a deliberate violation of the sanction, it was *rude* and amounts to a flipping of the bird. No one should be editing inside other people's comments like that. When I first read the bracketed shite, I thought it might be in the LOL-sense, but noted that it was quite not-Bish. That was rude and a major WP:POINT (not even looked if Jake got his due...). Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• As a matter of admincraft, if a user baits you to block them, you can get better results by not obliging them. Could you post the diff of the offensive edit by WMC? Was WMC merely trying to tweak you, or were they trying to hassle another editor? That makes a big difference. Jehochman 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This and this is what TW blocked for. I agree with your first sentence. NW (Talk) 13:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

NOT a helpful comment. This was a block to prevent further disruption. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

normal? Maybe I lead a sheltered life, but in all my Misplaced Pages experience I have not once seen anyone else interpolate comments into someone else's text in that way. People use replies beneath the text, with quotes if necessary. Rd232 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that he pisses off people who really need to be pissed off,...

... wow, that's totally not how we do things here. WMC doesn't have any more right to be poking people with a stick than the rest of us. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The restriction on editing other editor's comments was not because WMC interlineates his own comments within other editor's comments -- it was because he completely removed another editor's comment on an ArbCom page, and that was one week after he had come off a prior restriction prohibiting him from editing other editor's comments, which sanction was imposed after a lengthy and tendentious history of WMC refactoring editor's comments on talk pages and discussion pages simply because he didn't like them. It caused a great deal of disruption. The fact that he went back to the same disruptive behavior a mere week after his prior sanction expired -- well... like Wordsmith said, there was a consensus of 7 uninvolved admins who agreed to the sanction, as well as a robust community discussion about it on the enforcement page. Minor4th 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, but then the restriction does not apply in this case, as he did not remove any texts now. I also agree that WMC doesn't have any more rights than others have, but we are where we're now because the de facto rules at the CC pages were challenged by the sceptics about a year ago. We now do things with more adminstrative involvement with the articles under a general sanctiosn regime. But the articles themselves haven't changed much, the difference is that there is a lot more bickering about irrelevant matters. Instead of arguing about editing the climate change articles, we're now arguing about whether or not an editor should be blocked for writing a comment inside someone's else's text withing square brackets. This is a WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The restriction clearly indicates that WMC is not to edit others posts; not "not delete", nor "not change", but "not edit". He chose to question the totality of the restriction by editing within The Wordsmith's notice - therefore editing that post. It appears to be a deliberate attempt at testing that restriction. It should be noted that WMC has repeated that action (see at the bottom of the noted edits), despite being aware that it had previously drawn a block. I think it indicates that WMC has no desire to contest the viability of the sanction or restriction without violating the terms he clearly disagrees with. Whatever grounds people may feel he has in contesting the breadth and manner of those restrictions and subsequent sanction, it must surely be recognised that acting in a manner already proven to be considered as a violation of his restrictions is not appropriate. I would also suggest that some admin, who has not been previously involved in editing CC articles or in dispute with WMC, review this further violation and determine if the current sanction should be extended. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, so you can interpret the restriction in this way so that it applies quite directly to his action now. I fully understand that you can then take the position that a strict enforcement could be warranted. But do we want to lose another good content contributor because pointless bickering escalates to boiling point? Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just look at it this way folks. A new restriction was passed down to WMC. He decided to test the restriction, he was blatant about the fact that he was testing it (look at what he said himself, "except of course in places where I'm allowed to; hopefully TW will get round to clarifying this at some point"). He tested the waters and got blocked. It's like touching a pot you're sure is hot just to make sure, and getting burned. So now he knows that it's inappropriate, and when his block expires in less than 24 hours he can continue editing with that new knowledge. I don't think more drama is necessary about this. -- Atama頭 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that this violates the wording of the restriction. And if the restriction is ambiguous enough that it can be interpreted to prevent this kind of harmless activity, an "edit" that does not change the wording or meaning of the text, the restriction isn't a valid one. Let's divide this into two pieces, the part that he was sanctioned for (changing the comments of fellow participants in an ArbCom case) and the part that he supposedly violated (inserting inline comments on his own talk page questioning an administrator's announcement). The first makes sense to prohibit, it interferes with ArbCom process. The second is purely punitive. Would the community really agree on a sanction that says "editors may not annotate administrative decrees that appear on their talk page"? I don't think so. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The ArbCom decision was designed to prevent actual disruption, and I do not think fussing about on your own talk page can be considered in any way disruptive. And it raises the question, what can William Connolley legitimately do on his own talk page? Can he archive it? Technically that's editing other people's comments, so WMC's enemies could seek to get him sanctioned if he does. What about if one of his enemies decides to dump a hateful, obscenity laden rant on it? Can he remove that, or would that be grounds for another vindictiblock? Traditionally we have allowed users considerable leeway on their talk pages, for good reasons, and I don't see any point in withdrawing that basic dignity from WMC because doing so will not prevent any disruption. This doesn't excuse WMC's turning up at Wordsmith's talk page to taunt and provoke him though. Reyk _YO! 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPO actually specifies that you shouldn't edit others' comments even on your own talk page. As always, archiving your own talk page is fine, as is removing disruptive text. -- Atama頭 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

TPO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning", and interspersing your own obviously marked annotations cannot in any way be interpreted as changing the meaning. What WMC did on his own talk page was within both the letter and the spirit of WP:TPO. Since William apparently is forbidden from doing one thing that TPO would otherwise allow, it's fair to ask what else he is prohibited from doing. Reyk _YO! 00:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that I have hardblocked 86.178.177.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for their goading edit to User talk:William M. Connolley. As I believe that it is an account that was logged out for the purpose of making a harassing edit I hard blocked the address - since the Whois notes that it is an "assigned address", which I understand to mean that it relates to one pc/network - to disaccommondate the editor also. Anyone with better understanding of ip addresses who thinks I may have effected a swathe of potential editors are free to convert it to a soft ip block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked 66.81.37.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 31 hours. This IP performed 2 similar edits (diff, diff) to User talk:William M. Connolley as the abovementioned 86.178.177.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This user is on a dial-in, IP might change quickly. --Dirk Beetstra 09:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The second IP (66.81.37.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is asking for an unblock, I will leave it to independent review there. Maybe a checkuser should have a look at this? --Dirk Beetstra 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined and block extended

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

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

Result of this thread

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

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

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

Please do not do that, it is disruptive, leave it as it is, or extend it. You are an infrequent contributor to the wikipedia and you should leave the wheel war alone. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have something like 30,000 edits. You don't know what you're talking about. Please use logic rather than rhetoric, or else I will simply ignore your comment. Jehochman 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you take this action, I believe it is way outside the consensus that has developed and contrary to the actions and decisions of at least 4 admins who have blocked and/or reviewed the block. I suggest you rethink this. Minor4th 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think your "noise filtration" is a little off. Most editors here seem to agree that the block should remain as justified by the user's intentionally disruptive actions, and unilaterally deciding that Sandstein's extension of the block was punitive without discussion with Sandstein or any comments from anyone else on this thread, is far from constructive. GiftigerWunsch 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please name the four admins. Also, are you an involved party in CC disputes, or an uninvolved observer? We don't decide things by votes, but I notice Bishonen and myself opposing this block. I can rescan the thread and confirm some other names and spellings before adding them to the list. Also, admins are not special. All editors in good standing have opinions that count. Jehochman 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The Wordsmith blocked
2. PhilKnight reviewed and declined unblock request
3. Atama reviewed and declined unblock
4. Sandstein reviewed and declined unblock, disabled talk page, extended block

Minor4th 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet you appear to be ignoring the vast majority of editors' opinions by wheel-warring unilaterally deciding that other admins' actions were incorrect and misrepresenting consensus. GiftigerWunsch 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Go read WP:WHEEL and see what it says. I just did. You're jumping to conclusions, and adding noise to this thread. Please address the substance of my conclusions if you want to change my mind. Jehochman 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at this block, the less I like. The talk page revocation was completely unnecessary. AniMate 22:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the above assessment by Jehochman and object to any unblock. Merely asserting that a block is punitive, petty or otherwise flawed does not make it so. The disruption by William M. Connolley is not the bracketed comments themselves, which are harmless, but the fact that he wilfully violated, twice, the clear terms of a regularly imposed restriction based on a community-imposed probation, namely: "William M. Connolley is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months." Please note that the community sanction reads, in relevant part: "Administrators are not to reverse without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so."  Sandstein  22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please address the issue of talk page disablement. I believe that is very clearly forbidden by policy and practice. A small group of editors here on AN/I do not get to override policy. Jehochman 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. WP:BLOCK provides, in relevant part: "Editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." This is what occurred here: both violations of the restriction at issue (, ) happened on William M. Connolley's own talk page, and he gave no indication that he would stop violating his restriction on that page, instead pointing out himself that the block did not stop him from continuing to edit the comments of others on his own talk page. Disabling talk page access was therefore the only means to effectively enforce the restriction. Moreover, doing so did not close off any venue of appeal to William M. Connolley, since he remains free to contest his block by e-mail to the Committee or via the unblock mailing list.  Sandstein  22:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the original block which as yet has not expired and oppose unilateral admin action. If Jehochman reckons he's got this far in his wiki career (or some such self-reverential and overly smug bullshit that he just typed on his user page) by not being foolish, perhaps he ought to reflect on his comments and take a step back. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedro, if you have a thoughtful point to make, you can make it civilly. You have enough experience. Jehochman 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've made the thoughtful point that the block should go back to the one enacted by The Wordsmith. As for experience, I have some, but I don't feel the need to act smugly with pointless and valueless input like "Oh look at my 30k edits" and "oh I keep my bits by not being foolish". Grow up and get over yourself. Pedro :  Chat  22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, let's not sidetrack the thread. I could agree with you to restore the original block for now. The second block is clearly odious; the first was merely controversial. Further discussion could decide what to do about the first block. Jehochman 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully with Jehochman. The absolute way of interpretation of the the ban, even on an own talkpage, enforced by the messenger/enforcer where it would be better to do it by an uninvolved admin, where the block was purely punitative (the block did NOT disable what it was supposed to be for ...) was silly. The edit that resulted in the block did not even have the slightest link to the case where the ban was supposed to be effective (CC case .. to protect CC cases, right!? That enforcement was already out of line. It should have been restricted to topics regarding CC .. and I think that was exactly what WMC meant .. ). And now the extend of the block with restricted talk-page access is plainly pathetic. Do you guys realize that self-enforcing a ban (which had community consensus) is what primarily got WMC desysopped? This has gone from plain silly is plainly pathetic. But probably I will get ignored as a 'supported of WMC', so that still the majority agrees with the blocks. Please unblock, Jehochman. --Dirk Beetstra 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I think Jehochman's analysis is correct. From a conflict resolution perspective, it is far better to get Willliam to agree to the restriction in the way it is meant to be intepreted, i.e. not causing disruption by changing edits. It is true that we can choose to be fundamentalistic about the restriction and choose to interpret it in ridiculous ways, like William not been able to put some comments in square brackets in side a text posted on his own talk page while he is still allowed to remove the whole comment. But then we are moving away from what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be and turn it into some sort of stupid online game. Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Placing a comment inside someone else's comment in square brackets is unnecessarily disruptive and was clearly intentionally antagonistic; as previously pointed out by other users, a request for clarification could have been made in any number of non-disruptive ways. I'm not sure what other result he could have expected for editing a stop-editing-others'-comments warning. If the user agrees to abide by the restriction, then by all means unblock; but so far that does not appear to be the case. GiftigerWunsch 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok folks, let's stop telling each other how angry/pissed/disappointed we are with each other. We're not going to get anywhere with this right now, are we? I have made a request of Sandstein, and am waiting for a response. SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie has reduced the block to its original term, but seems to have left talk access disabled. Jehochman 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He's fixed that - talk access is re-enabled. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Modify sanction

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

He certainly has the right to remove statements from his own talk page. However, he should not modify others statements, even to "refactor" them. His talk page access is now restored, and the block expiration reset to roughly the original time it was set to expire. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is a minor point. As long as we are clear that he can remove or archive his talk page content. Jehochman 23:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a minor point: it was the reason for the recent blocks! Archiving or removing talk apge content should of course be allowed as normal.  Sandstein  23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. This targets exactly the real problem. Any violation of the restriction formulated in this way will now correspond to a disruptive edit. This is unlikely to lead to an escalation like we've just seen. Count Iblis (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've (intentionally) not followed the dramafest that is CC and its associated probation, but I do not understand the purpose of this request, except to provide yet another venue for drama. Just minutes ago you wanted to block William M. Connolley indefinitely and now you want to relax restrictions that, whatever their merits, he has so far shown no intention to comply with? Jehochman, I think you are creating much more noise than signal here and should consider letting other admins handle this matter.  Sandstein  23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* This situation needs a subtle touch. WMC could be blocked indefinitely if he persists in serious disruption or WP:POINT. However, we should not sanction petty mischief on his own talk page. It undermines a legitimate sanction to apply pin-pricks for minor technical infractions. Wait for a big, serious infraction, then do what's needed. Jehochman 23:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems odd to me, from my reading WMC was fully aware that he was not to insert himself other peoples posts, he was aware that it was not specified if there were limits to where such action would be a violation. He used such a violation to taunt another user. He was blocked for said violation, he continued to commit said violations on his own talkpage. Is this an incorrect interpretation of events? Unomi (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's how I've interpreted it, that's why I declined an unblock. I believe that the actual text that WMC inserted made it clear that he knew at the time of the insertion that it was against the sanction, or believed that it was. -- Atama頭 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

JEH: " This situation needs a subtle touch." I agree. Which is why I was surprised to see you getting involved. Going in and suggesting doing things (or out and out doing them, as you did the last few times you dabbled in CC enforcement) in the face of consensus isn't particularly subtle, is it? ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree- let WMC manage his own talk page. Sanctions should only be applied in the event of actual disruption. Reyk _YO! 23:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Context of the sanction. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems to lend weight to the interpretation that it indeed covers all talk pages. I note the use of emphatic I concur that WMC should not be editing other peoples' comments, period. and Most agree that it needs to be a complete prohibition on all manipulation of other editor's comments. - as well as the closing editors comments which do indeed not indicate that WP:TPOC violations might be ok in some venues. Unomi (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Removal has never been an issue and was not related to this block. No one is allowed to refactor other peoples comments even on their own talk page. This modification would actually give WMC special permissions that the rest of us don't have.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not quite true. While it has been contentious at times, removing personal attacks has been at the very least tolerated (and which is at the root of this issue, per my link above). Not to mention that some people habitually interject their comments in those of others when replying...often in such a way that it becomes unclear who said what. While I find that annoying, it's not something that gets anyone sanctioned. Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • No. An example of a user who does it persistently is User:Jimbo Wales. I politely, but without effect, begged him to desist, I don't know how many times, in this discussion, which is rendered hard to parse by this habit of his. Bishonen | talk 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC).
      • Aren't we getting into WP:NOTTHEM territory? --WGFinley (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. He clearly cannot manage his own talk page. I'm fine with letting him remove comments or archive them, not refactor them or change them in any way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate if people who've been in persistent editorial disputes with WMC would declare that when commenting on this thread. We need to be able to sort the involved from the uninvolved. Not everybody has a WP:GS/CC/L Climate Change dance card. Jehochman 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, I guess administrators who have been supportive or lax with WMC in the past should declare that when commenting on this thread. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that would include you. You've indicated nothing about your background with WMC. In my first edit to this thread, I indicated I was familiar with William M. Connolley's shenanigans related to climate change disputes, and I clearly have no patience for those shenanigans. I've also had a dispute with you, in which I've unloaded a hefty amount of evidence about you over at the Arbcom Climate Change evidence page. I notice you didn't declare that when responding to my comment. I normally do declare my past connections, when I remember to do it. Without declaring your own past involvement with WMC, you've tried to hijack yet another discussion in which consensus was forming in a direction you didn't like. Why don't you stop doing that? By the way, have you complained about constant supporters of WMC not declaring that when they comment here? I didn't see your statement about that. Why focus on me? Oh, that's right: I'm the one here who posted evidence against you at the ArbCom case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• In WMC's defense, we do allow interruptions of others' text, as long as the meaning isn't altered and attribution is preserved (so that it's clear who said what). These bracketed interruptions seem to be willfully defiant of the sanction, however, a sanction which isn't new; see here where 2/0 stated that "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done", and in the more recent discussion where it was suggested that the restriction should be reimposed and (as Unomi has interpreted) extended beyond the CC articles. Note that the restriction by 2/0 suggests that any editing of others' posts is disallowed, even when WP:TPOC would give leeway. I interpret Jehochman as suggesting we give WMC some rope here, and I think that we should, but I believe that letting the block expire as originally set would suffice. -- Atama頭 23:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that WMC should not be annotating other editors comments on his talkpage (which the sanction clearly doesn't cover), but he makes a fair point that the block doesn't prevent him from repeating the offence (he is still able to annotate other editors comments on his talkpage). So it looks to be like the block goes against WP:PUNISH. Whether the solution to this is to remove the block or extend it to his talkpage I do not claim to know. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• What if he adds sarcastic subheadings to the top of people's comments? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the original sanction is humiliating and poorly constructed. If WMC has been persistently disruptive in the Climate Change arena, simply topic ban him, per WP:TURNIP. If he's not disruptive, let him edit unfettered. The sanction as it exists provides fodder for WMC's editorial opponents, some of whom are more disruptive, but cleverer than he is. Jehochman 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please! He earned a six month restriction on precisely this behavior after dozens of instances where he edited/removed material he didn't like. Barely a week after the restriction expired he started all over again and it was reinstated, and now he's pointedly rejected the authority of 7 admins! When you accuse others of baiting him, you lose all credibility. This particular episode has involved not a single CC content contributor. ATren (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The sanction as it exists provides fodder for WMC's editorial opponents The link in my quote suggests that other editors will somehow get an advantage in baiting WMC because WMC is restricted from editing other editors comments. How on earth does the restriction do that? I'm getting the impression that this thread is being used by Jehochman to bait editors who aren't allies of William M. Connolley. I can't figure out any other purpose to many of Jehochman's many inflammatory comments here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I think we should avoid sanctioning good editors when doing so only makes them angry and causes them to act worse. In the long term this sanction prevents nothing; it encourages baiting and gaming the rules by content opponents. Our goal here is to create quality content, not to run an MMORPG where everybody gets to play. Misplaced Pages:Content matters. Jehochman 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"not... an MMORPG" -- That's an ironic statement from someone who is flaunting his experience points on this very page. :-/ In any case, no content opponent was involved in this dispute so stop saying that. This is WMC baiting uninvolved admins who are trying to enforce a minimum level of decorum. And for the record, he has a long history of doing so -- he did the exact same thing to Lar a few months ago, he did it to ArnoldReinhold before that and Tedder before that. ATren (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I was among the administrators who decided on the sanction in its original form, and I agreed to it, but it would never have crossed my mind that it was going to be interpreted as extending also to his own talk page. To me, this exception is just a matter of common sense. And I am, frankly, not impressed with the way some admin colleagues have been using their blocking power for playing power games with this user over such a lame issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What extends to his own talk page is the general custom, which exists for good reason, of not unnecessarily mucking around with other people's comments. It's bad enough that he's repeatedly had to have a specific sanction placed to enforce that custom, I really don't see what's particularly defensible about violating it on his own userpage. Rd232 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. I support a full Climate change topic ban. I do not think WMC should be allowed to edit anyone else's comments anywhere. He also doesn't archive anything at all which is although allowed , archiving is recommended. I think one of the problems is that WMC deletes bits of peoples comments and saves others and adds into them as well which leaves a misleading picture. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note, WMC has rejected the terms I've offered (not to edit other people's comments, until such time as the community or the ArbCom lifts the sanction). At this time, there is no consensus to overturn the sanction. Should he do so again, any uninvolved administrator can block him for an appropriate term for his disruption. I'd suggest that if this behavior continues, the next step be indefinite (as in indefinite until he agrees to the conditions above), but that is just my suggestion. Your Mileage May Vary. SirFozzie (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

All this was pretty obvious already, which is why it should have been indefinite in the first place. He was not simply 'managing his talk page' as this rather pointless section implies, and it's pretty clear disruption will continue once it expires if he doesn't make clear he understands how he can and cannot challenge a sanction placed on him. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie's proposal sounds sensible to me. If William M. Connolley believes the restriction ought not to apply to his own talk page or to pages unrelated to climate change, he is free to make an appeal to that effect; until such an appeal is successful, the restriction applies as written, that is, without exceptions as to certain pages.  Sandstein  14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So if push comes to shove we're going to indefinitely ban a long-term editor for adding comments to his own talk page? I have asked this before: exactly what harm to the encyclopedia is caused by this display of defiance? There are some misplaced priorities here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You asked before, and it was explained before. You just didn't like the answer. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• This incident raises all sorts of questions. Was it really the best thing to insert an annotation into a notification? Wouldn't it have been better to leave a small version of what you wanted to say/dispute after TW's comment rather than inside it? Or if the temptation could be resisted, to just leave that as a response? Or better yet, to appeal the restriction so as to reduce the scope of the restriction prior to making the edit?
• On the other hand, was the best outcome achieved by blocking an user because he seems to be disrespecting "authority" and inviting a block? Was it really so disruptive? Does anyone believe that the drama created and time wasted on this ANI would be halved by blocking? Or would it have been better to: (1) clarify the scope of the restriction, and/or (2) if he isn't like to respond to you positive, get another user who he's likely to be more receptive to...to persuade him to (re)move the annotation, and/or (3) note for absolute clarity that should it occur again on his own talk, he will be blocked, and/or (4)...the list of possibilities on how to handle this goes on. Had some of those steps been taken, would there be a reason for anyone to question the block at all? Was the subsequent escalation appropriate? And while seasoned contributors should know better, can we expect people who have lost their tools to have great judgement? Would he have reacted differently if other steps were tried?
• To clarify, I'm not advocating any position in support of anyone or any particular action or proposal - I think the handling of this was not up to standard for the most part (and that may be understating/overstating it depending on how you look at it). By all means, if admins are not ready to wade into a certain messy area, we should provide some form of support, I agree - but does that mean others should not suggest alternative ways of dealing with an issue?
• And don't let me get started on comments like "he is a busted flush as far as wikipedia goes and his continued presence is disruptive." (said at 23:06, 17 August 2010)...really, is this appropriate commentary towards or about any user on Misplaced Pages? Never mind the fact the subject cannot really respond to the comment, how would someone go about appropriately responding to a comment like that anyway? It's a sad sad day for the wiki when vindictiveness, tit for tat, unhelpful comments, unhelpful characterisations, unhelpful actions, agenda-based editing...all come together to drown what's most important and to distract people from other issues. And when those who should be modelling appropriate conduct (but more importantly, doing the right thing) are also lost in the tsunami, even in matters outside this incident, how will the project be better off...I guess one can only wonder. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom?

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

Actually, before I do that, there's a practical question. I'm not very familiar with WMC as a content editor. Other than participating in the climate change disputes, does WMC actually contribute significantly to the editing of the encyclopedia? I'm not asking for venting or defending, I just want to make sure I don't waste my time on a lost cause. It may be hard to address this without triggering some unnecessary debate, so feel free to leave a suggestion on my talk page. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Define "contribute significantly" in this context. Does that include removing things? If so, why yes, he does. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer Wikidemon, I've looked over WMC's last 500 contributions, and out of all of those edits the only articles that he has edited that don't seem directly related to climate change are: Data sharing, Franz Senn Hütte, and Bluetooth. A total of 4 edits to 3 articles outside of climatology/global warming. (The data sharing article might be somehow related to climate change study but I can't tell how.) I hope that answers your question? -- Atama頭 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI if you look on the talk page you'll see that there is a discussion regarding Data Sharing, and the sharing of climate change data.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Atama, you may want to look over his other 44652 edits. And I don't think that Hadley cell, Arctic, Ozone depletion, Sensible heat, Tropical climate, Arctic, Bumps race, Age of the Earth and Gaia hypothesis are articles reasonably classified as "directly related to climate change". Sure, if the temperature drops by 25 degrees centigrade, that might put an end to Bumps races, at least in Cambridge, but it's a stretch. You might get a better overview if you only look at mainspace edits, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are. How can you not say that those are climatology-related articles? I'm not even sure how to respond, that's like saying black is white. And I'm aware that WMC has a very long history on Misplaced Pages and I'm sure there are plenty of other areas he's edited, but I was interested in a sample of what he works on today, and I think the last 500 edits is a reasonable indicator. That is only my opinion, but I think it's pretty fair to say that his current contributions are fairly narrow in scope. I'm not making a judgment based on that, and I state on my user page that I support single-purpose accounts (and I don't think WMC even qualifies as one), I was just trying to answer Wikidemon's question. -- Atama頭 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking cross-purpose. Yes, many of these articles are related to climatology. But not all are directly related to climate change, unless you use a fairly broad definition. Sensible heat or Arctic or even Hadley cell have not been subject to the climate change conflicts to a significant degree (if at all). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, WMC isn't a "climate change warrior" who restricts himself to articles where editors are carrying on a dispute about climate change, and that wasn't what I was saying (though now I'm thinking that Wikidemon may have been asking exactly that). I meant that his topic focus is narrowed to topics related to climatology (which only demonstrates what his interest is). I think you're right that we were talking about two different things, I understand what you meant now. :) -- Atama頭 21:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, the edit to Bumps race was a reversion, and an incorrect one at that, so can't readily be counted as a "significant contribution". A number of the other topics quoted do seem to be closely related to climate change, but I will willingly admit that I haven't looked at all 44652 edits. David Biddulph (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, if you don't have the time or inclination to at least look through a contribution history, just keep quite. WMC has contributed, significantly, over a wide range of articles. I'd take any reasonable bet that he has added more useful content than e.g. User:ATren, User:Thegoodlocust and User: ZuluPapa5 combined. In fact, I'd be somewhat surprised if he had not contributed more than an order of magnitude more than those three editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, looking at the pre-ArbCom activity levels (no idea if he has recently changed his behavior), his article edits tend to consist of about 80%+ reverts (a couple years ago he stopped labeling many of his reverts as such). If there was a tool to determine how many bytes a person has added or subtracted from WP then I am confident that on the whole of things WMC has subtracted many megabytes of content. As for my content, I've never been a huge contributor, but I've made several significant contributions through a smaller number of edits. I've also forgone article editing for the most part for various reasons (some of which involve WMC following me around to non-CC areas t revert me), but there are several articles I'd like to write and I fully intend to do so after the ArbCom decision. Anyway, this isn't about me, so try to focus on people who are actually involved in the current dispute rather than dragging others into it to distract from things. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

StS: We're talking about recently. See the analysis of the last 500 edits, above. Hope that helps. Although I'm not quite sure it will. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought we were talking about "a long-term editor", maybe just below the header of this section it says "a long-term editor". 500 edits was about a month's worth for both WMC and you. In your last 500 edits, I notice seven (7) mainspace edits, all very minor (I think the most substantial ones were adding a header and creating a redirect). That does not imply that you are "a lost cause", but it does show that a month is too small a sample, especially when the parties involved are active in dispute resolution, which of course eats significant parts of their time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, really, that is a uncalled for and not helpful at all. Quit picking on Lar -- this is not about him. Speak to WMC's contributions.Minor4th 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to show 242 articles created by William M. Connolley. Cardamon (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

On bring it to Arbcom, WMC is a long term editor who knows various methods of contacting the committee. I believe during the initial block he was clearly told which email adress to use to appeal. I'm not sure why any third party would beed to bring it to arbcom. If he wants to, he will.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

• A NOTE - Somewhere along the line the section called "Arbcom?" got cloned, there were two identical sections and people were posting different things to each. I tried to consolidate the two but if I put something where it doesn't belong or missed anything, I apologize. -- Atama頭 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You missed my note, but I'll repost it now: Since WMC has rejected the terms, and indeed decided to increase his volume of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I have blocked him indefinitely. Please note, this is not an "indefinite as in forever" block, this is an "indefinite until he puts down the stick and backs away from the horse" block. He knew (or at least should have known) that his behavior was deemed disruptive, and he was offered a path forward (to have the community or the Arbitration Committee review the sanction, and have it lifted should consensus deem it necessary). He's rejected that, and continued onwards. If someone can get through to him and get him to agree to cut it out, go ahead and unblock him at that time. SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Declaring a behavior to be disruptive does not make it so. Count Iblis (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And tolerating disruptive behavior does not tend to bring about less disruptive behavior. Minor4th 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry SirFozzie, hope I didn't miss anything else. I triple-checked too. It was just getting hard to follow this discussion when the entire section was doubled and each version was getting different comments. -- Atama頭 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. I hope I didn't do that :( - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

One more pro-science expert removed. Well done! (There can't be many left, can there?)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as "pro-science" editors continue to treat science like ideology, they will continue to be removed. ATren (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is only the prominent site it is because of the good quality science articles that are effectively edited according to SPOV, despite this not being official policy. And ATren & co. are only active here on Misplaced Pages because it is a prominent website. It thus follows that however they try, ATren & co. cannot have it their way. Count Iblis (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless one assumes they are happier with no science coverage than with good science coverage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Or just bad science coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is what really matters. Atren & co. will always edit that editable site which is on top, which won't be Misplaced Pages if he has his way here, so he'll necessarily find himself in conflict with someone like WMC on another site. Count Iblis (talk)

Please don't use this as a forum to rag on editors; ANI is rough enough without (more) petty back and forths. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate: Don't worry, I'm still here, and I am as pro-science as they come. Much more so than ChrisO, Count Iblis or Stephan Schulz, for example! ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use this as a forum to rag on editors; ANI is rough enough without (more) petty back and forths. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You first, mate. My point is valid... the faction of those who just want WP policy observed is far more pro science than you or others of your faction are, since I'm actually not trying to control the POV the way you guys are. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is your new technique to comment on persons, Lar? Or are you just trying to be a pointy kettle? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Which edit(s) led to changing a 48h block to indef? It isn't really clear in the above exchanges. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Tarc: I lowered the block on WMC to the original 48 hours and reenabled talk page access as a way to try to calm things down. I asked WMC to consider that the original sanction was still in effect, and that if he wanted to have it removed, to get the community or the Committee to lift the sanction. He rejected that, and continued to interject his comments into other people's edits. As you can read from my restored edit, this is simply a block until such time as he agrees to stop the disruption and agree that until the sanction is lifted, that he will not breech it. SirFozzie (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Extending the CC sanction regarding refactoring others' comments to his own talk page is a mighty big leap, IMO. We do have the "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" line from WP:TPOC that could have been cited instead, though an indef for that seems pretty steep. I tend to view user talk pages as fairly sacrosanct; short of personal attacks, users should have wide latitude to do what they will there. If there are others who do not like WMC refactoring what they say at User talk:William M. Connolley, well, they should simply refrain from carrying on discussions there, IMO. Move the discussions to Wiki-space, where WMC will have no choice but to comply with the refactoring rules. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • To add to what Tarc said, the wp:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation says that it will apply to "Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) ". I very much doubt that that includes an editor's own talk page. So, the sanction did not apply to WNC's talk page, and the original block was invalid. The concept of keeping WMC blocked until he agrees that a sanction which does not apply to his talk page actually does apply to his talk page seems questionable. Cardamon (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC) And yes, WMC could have handled things better. Cardamon (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Effect on smooth functioning of the project

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

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

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

It's worth noting as well that SirFozzie applied the indef block in response to WMC redacting the part of SirFozzie's post that was a direct quotation from a private email that WMC had sent. As I understand it, quoting emails without permission is a no-no (anyone remember the lengths ArbCom went to to avoid quoting from emails in the EEML case?) and SirFozzie should not have been quoting an email of WMC's without his explicit permission. I am deeply unimpressed with the restraint and common sense from the admins in this minor incident; the first block should never have happened. EdChem (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC's behavior in response to the prohibition was clearly obnoxious and POINTy. Wordsmith's actions are apparently well-intended, but come off looking rather petty. (It is generally a bad idea for an admin to respond to personal taunts against himself by directly issuing blocking, even if the block would seem entirely justified.) More importantly, I agree with Dave that the restriction — as applied to user talk pages — seems highly dubious. The climate change probation created by Arbcom applies to behaviors on climate change related pages. WMC might even have deserved a block for POINTy behavior, but applying the CC probation to pages and actions not related to climate change seems like overreaching, and the applied restriction probably needs to be revised accordingly.

So, personally, I think it is about time we walk this back a bit, recognizing that WMC has already been blocked more than 48 hours (the length of the original block). Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WMC could have handled this better, the behaviour was unnecessarily pointy, and that would have deserved a good warning. But I agree here, the effect of applying the sanctions here disrupts Misplaced Pages far more than the disruption should have prevented (and it is not like, that interjecting your comments into anothers' comment is a mortal sin .. are we realizing here that this is not even policy based? WP:TALK is a mere guideline, and note that interruptions are even an example of something that may be allowed under certain circumstances.

This ban is just plainly absurd. Lets go on, please: 'You have reverted an edit to a page directly related to Climate Change. We have established that your revert was not productive, and warned you. Yet you do it again. Therefore we now impose that you shall not revert any page here on Misplaced Pages.' ... 'Your style of commenting is not appropriate, and you have been asked to come with properly referenced criteria for inclusion. Yet you still insist in suggesting unreliable information. Therefore we now impose that you shall not edit any talkpage on Misplaced Pages.' ... This is a great possibility that ArbCom is giving here. As soon as Climate Change is involved, it is one strike and one can be banned from the whole of Misplaced Pages. No. The ban should have been "you are not to refactor comments of others, or insert comments into others' comments on talkpages related to Climate Change (broadly construed)". Any other page, and that includes an own talkpage, should be outside of that restriction. It might be that it includes discussions that are clearly about climate change on talkpages of editors who are involved in the case, but that is about the limit. And even that is already a questionable ban, not based on any policy of this site (I have yet to see a policy that says these things about talkpages. There are some hard rules which apply to talkpages (plain abuse of our core policies, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:COPYRIGHT), but refactoring .. naah .. that is not in there).

There is no right there to be drawn from the CC case. If WMC makes problems outside of CC, then that should have gone through the appropriate noticeboards, in a case unrelated to CC (it might have pointed back to CC with 'he does it there as well'). Consensus for a site-wide ban of this type is not to be decided by editors in a sanction page (Arbs can do it, but that is a different situation)). The first block was out of line, the extension of the block was even further out of line, and now this indef block is .. well .. how far can we go. --Dirk Beetstra 09:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed this matter in detail in connection with posting evidence about it to the Arbcom case evidence page. It's pretty clear to me that the blocks all exceed the authority given by WP:GSCC, which only applies to climate change related articles. The "any other measures" is in a section that only applies to those articles, so it does not extend any authority here. That makes everything else moot. If this were treated as a simple administrative matter under general principles, I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the three edits in question were blockable disruption: (a) asking for clarification of an administrative ruling, (b) engaging in humorous wordplay with an editor who welcomed the interaction, and (c) redacting the posting of a private email. It's a shame to let this one fester, or to have to burden Arbcom with it. It would be nice if we could simply reverse the block and let WMC know that although he should avoid unnecessary provocation even on his talk page, the sanction does not apply there. Consensus isn't the point here - consensus here on what to do about WMC cannot expand the scope of GSCC, much less retroactively so. Also, the restriction in GSCC about reversing enforcement actions doesn't apply, because the action does not fall within GSCC. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec with much of the above) I think it is the wrong time to walk this back even a bit. I can't believe that anyone, even William M. Connolley's most fervent supporters, actually thinks that in the inevitable disagreements we all know he will have with administrators, he will have a cooperative attitude. His hobby is annoying administrators by arguing every point of punctilio while simultaneously engaging in conduct that skirts the edges of any sanction that part-time, volunteer, well-meaning editors have attempted to construct for his long series of misconduct sprees. I'm certain that every single one of us expects, if he returns, that if he has a disagreement over enforcement he will take POINTy actions, do it in a rude way and otherwise act in a way calculated to make administrative enforcement of any provision related to him as difficult for administrators as possible. Hasn't that been the exact pattern of the past -- how many? a dozen? -- administrative enforcement episodes involving him? He wastes a lot of time of a lot of people. After about the eighth episode, concern about the smooth running of the project should have outweighed the desire of a particular faction to have William M. Connolley around to continue his activities in furtherance of their goals. Misplaced Pages has broader goals. William M. Connolley impedes them. That's why he gathers more and more opposition over time. We can argue with William M. Connolley and his allies over and over and over again about the subtleties of the fine points of the subclauses of the remits in the history of the bureaucracy. Or we can work on the encyclopedia. It's getting increasingly harder to do both. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that that allows to find any stick to beat the dog .. I'm sorry, if WMC is doing so bad, then really, then there will be better reasons than just to implement a ban which is way out of jurisdiction. We have ArbCom to deal with such cases, present the full evidence to them, and let them rule. Do not just make up rules which are not even close to policy based, and which are way out of the jurisdiction of the ArbCom rulings applied. This reflects bad on those administrators, the involved editors, and on Misplaced Pages. --Dirk Beetstra 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One could just have applied the same ban for indefinite, within the scope of CC .. No-one could have argued against it, and if WMC thén chose to violate, then indeed, blocks of increasing lenghth should be applied (and if WMC is behaving as bad as everyone says, then that would quickly have happened). --Dirk Beetstra 09:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon subsequent discussion

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

I see that you have admitted that your aim is in defending WMC even if he goads other editors, just that it is more difficult for you to do so in that eventuality. Since your neutrality is obviously compromised would you consider recusing from this subject? And if you do not should others consider whether you should remain an admin? Weakopedia (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a correction - the block has not expired, in fact it has been increased to indefinite. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• - WMC is presently blocked under an indefinite label, which of course does not mean indefinite, he was blocked for an infraction of one of his conditions, he objected to the condition which was not upheld and he was pointed in the direction of appealing the condition, WMC was also warned that he would be blocked again if he did it again and recommended to go appeal the restriction, as soon as WMC was unblocked he violated the restriction. He was blocked again which is totally fair enough. All he needs to do as I see it to be unblocked is accept the position and then go and request the condition be altered, we all have to follow the restrictions imposed on us. WMC knows full well the correct procedure for appealing his restriction and this was also pointed out to him more than once.Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• How can you ask someone to accept a position that has no applicability? From what I'm reading those sanctions are not applicable to his talk page so why should he accept them there? Would you accept it if an admin unilaterally told you that you are not allowed to behave on your own talk page in a manner that others are? I agree wholeheartedly that WMC seems to be acting in a very petty fashion here, but he's clearly not alone in that game. Lets put the sticks down and realize that there was no justification for this block and move on until such time that WMC or anyone else actually violates a sanction in a way that is actionable. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• The block which was for 48 hours from 17:27, 17 August 2010, was changed back and forward then expired on 19 August, SirFozzie having made that conditional on WMC agreeing to stop editing the comments of others. WMC rejected that for areas outside the CC area, and for his own talk page, twice edited the comments of others on his own talk page, and for that was indefinitely blocked by SirFozzie. Thus, the second block is also based on application of WP:GS/CC to WMC's own talk page, and the same questions apply. WMC still appears to be blocked. . dave souza, talk 13:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• - yes, indefinitely - until he accepts the condition and then he will be able to go off and appeal it., the result of which I have no idea about. What I do know is his actions and re actions after having the issue clearly spelled out to him were nothing more than a fu to the wikipedia which is not a good position for anyone wanting to contribute to the project to have. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to be clear here, the sanction was not worded with any qualification whatsoever -- it was a blanket restriction. The context of the sanction was the CC probation, which applies to CC articles, broadly construed. So I believe what WMC's defenders are arguing here is that the sanction itself was inappropriate because the probation does not apply to user talk pages. But note: WMC never made that argument himself, he just violated it blatantly to draw the block create all this drama. This is gamesmanship, pure and simple. Regardless of the correctness of the original sanction, the subsequent gaming (his refusal to either accept the terms as they are or appeal them through proper channels) is the reason for his indef block. And furthermore, WMC's defenders' argument is weak: the sanction applied was only mildly outside of the scope of the probation; at best, his defense is based on a legalistic technicality, and amounts to little more than wikilawyering. ATren (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• WMC asked for clarification several times, and explicitly made that argument himself, writing at 20:45 on 18 August that "This block is pointless because it doesn't prevent me repeating this behaviour, viz editing my own talk page. Invalid because nothing in the CC probation permits restrictions on editing of users own talk page." WMC is being legalistic but accurate, and it's the escalation of these dubious blocks that lies behind all this discussion. Your wikilawyering is noted, but "mildly outside" is still outside. While I don't doubt that The Wordsmith and SirFozzie felt their action was fully justified, they remain incorrect about the scope of the CC sanctions and in my view made a wrong call. As was wisely said, everyone's behaviour was sub-optimal, including WMC's. . dave souza, talk 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been going on for many months!

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

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

If you all want to block an editor for his long history of supposed disruption then please do so after gaining the necessary community input. Blocking him for altering comments on his own talk page comes of as really petty and immature, not to mention outside the bounds of any policy I'm aware of. I know little to nothing about the history here, but from the outside this all looks really bad because none of the justifications for this block really pertain to a rational application of policy to the behavior the editor is being blocked for. Someone else in this thread suggested that people should ignore childish games played by users on their own talk pages and wait for them to violate sanctions on the applicable pages and then block. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. You all should consider ending the drama now and blocking people when they actually transgress the rules here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, while I'm certainly not defending WMC for stepping over the line, many (most?) o the enforcement requests against him have been closed as unactionable, and he's been the target of a more sustained campaign of vilification and abuse than any other editor I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages. A number of editors who oppose his POV have very clearly being trying to goad him and harass him for months now. Whatever else he may have done, the campaign against him on- and off-wiki has been deplorable. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. The editors who have been in conflict with him recently are SlimVirgin, Cla68, Lar, BozMo, even FloNight. The "poor WMC is being harassed by POV pushers" meme has been exposed as nonsense. ATren (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Atren, giving more weight to the minority POV in the topic area of Global Warming has been pushed by SlimVirgin, Cla68 and Lar, with Cla68 starting his editing in the area a long time ago trying to portray the scientific consensus view as "only a theory" and continuing in that vein. Plenty of other editors have been pushing fringe povs in the area more vocally, and there have been repeated and obvious attempts to harass WMC, both on- and off-wiki. No-one thinks WMC's conduct has been perfect or has backed his every action, but your claim that it's an expired "meme" is nonsense. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You were the one who put this in terms of "many months", not just recently. The fact that WMC has been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of harassment, with people literally competing with each other on- and off-wiki to get him sanctioned, is surely relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. No matter what happens with others offsite, this conflict involves editors that have nothing to do with that. I certainly don't. Cla68, SV, Lar, The Wordsmith, LHvU BozMo, FloNight don't. From all indications, A Quest For Knowledge, Heyitspeter, Minor4th, John W Barber and Off2riorob don't either. All of these editors listed have been involved in this conflict and have expressed concerns about WMC's behavior, and NONE of them can be classified as part of your off-wiki gang of miscreants. Stop clouding the issue with this harassment meme. It has nothing to do with the current conflict. ATren (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This conflict has frequently involved you, Atren, making observations attacking battling against WMC and his views. To a large extent, I've been agreement with many of WMC's views. I have no gang of off-wiki miscreants. Some of those you name may have shared views at times with off-wiki voices and socks, but I see no evidence of gangs. The point remains that there has been a persistent campaign on and off wiki to get WMC sanctioned. . . dave souza, talk 13:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC) better phrasing, diff added. . dave souza, talk 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You struck the wrong words Dave. I have no problem with the words "battling against", but the object of that battle is wrong. I am "battling against" POV pushing and aggressive tactics that I've witnessed for 2 years, not some editor or his "views". His views are fine, and in fact I share many of them, but when an editor holding those views is violating all kinds of policy (including BLP) to support them, that's when I have a problem. ATren (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

...says you. Diffs please, or hold thine tongue. Weakopedia (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole arbcom case out there about what Atren seems to regard as a battle between "gangs". Having said that, "battling against" is a much more accurate description than "attacking", so I've changed it accordingly. . dave souza, talk 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was more the on and off wiki campaign to get WMC sanctioned that I was referring to. I am honestly interested - I don't understand what sort of an off-wiki campaign could get someone sanctioned. I think there has certainly been some effort to get WMC sanctioned on-wiki, but similarly against Lar, AQFK, Mark Nutley and that other one who always gets sanctioned, I forget his name - anyway, my point is that it seems to me that the people trying to get all these editors sanctioned have been doing so on the basis of sanctionable acts. That's not to say that all the accusations were wrong or right, but the venue has been RFE so it is not really secret, and sanctions have been imposed as well as rejected in most of those cases. From my point of view, although many people on 'both sides' have tried to amalgamate as many examples of past behaviour as they could into each RFE request, that ultimately anyone who got sanctioned was sanctioned for violating some sanction or rule on Misplaced Pages. And surely the responsibility for sticking to the rules belongs to the individual editor. So my question is, do you have some kindof link to what you perceive as an on or off wiki campaign? If there is something I am missing in my evaluation I'd like to see it. I would point out tho that WMC has brought many sanction requests to the RFE page, but not all have resulted in sanctions. I don't think that means that WMC has an on-wiki campaign to influence the CC sphere, nor do I suggest that his off-wiki blog comments and the replies of Misplaced Pages admins there are an attempt to do so - is my definition of campaigning too broad or too narrow? Weakopedia (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

No apologies are needed. No mea culpas.. just an agreement not to violate it while the community/Committee discuss it, and then let the chips fall where they may. SirFozzie (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but whose spite? You do realise that WMC could get unsanctioned any second if he just agreed not to modify other peoples talkpage posts? Do you think that WMC should be allowed to modify other peoples talkpage posts? Even many who disagree with the sanction process agree that WMC could better not alter other peoples talkpage posts, even on his own talkpage, where he is quite free to summarily delete them. You do realise this is the culmination of many acts of WMC displaying a questionable attitude to altering peoples talkpage comments on article and enforcement talkpages? What is so hard about not altering other peoples talkpage comments! And really, when the best WMC has to offer is to call his blocker "Sir Fathead" are you really still going to defend this childish attitude towards Misplaced Pages and it's contributors? That ignore all rules principle is there to stop exactly this kind of behaviour - if procedure is all that is stopping WMC from being definitively prevented from altering other peoples talkpage comments then it should be ignored. If you have some other reason for empowering his obstructive and overwhelmingly pointy behaviour then what is it? And what does IIRC mean? (note, while the original block was made in relation to CC probation all subsequent blocks have due to deliberate refusal to comply with block conditions - normally when people challenge their block aggressively they get that block extended, as it is never productive to challenge the block conditions in the wrong venue) Weakopedia (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't have a problem with inserting comments in square brackets into other's posts in his user space. I'm not criticising anyone, but I'd prefer some sort of compromise, perhaps unblock as time served, and modify the restriction. Otherwise, I think "IIRC" means "if I recall correctly". PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree; all comments were clearly identifiable, while the annotations were clearly identifiable (via square brackets and initials/signature), and all of this was visible on that user's talk. I'll add criticism as I'm sure some people will otherwise miss the subtleness of this view. Obviously, the subject could have just temporarily accepted the stricter version of the rules that some of the admins were advocating, just in the interests of reducing drama, but he didn't. Obviously, some admins who got involved in this (who have yet to appreciate that they are expected to have better judgement) could have avoided reactive blocking, especially given how predictable/clear it is that these blocks are not at all moving towards the "smooth functioning of the project". And all of this is coming from a poorly conceived restriction; is it any wonder that the resounding view about CC General Sanctions in the RFC was not so great? There are a variety of ways in which this whole incident could have been handled - instead, there's been petty + needless escalation, and nobody involved ends up looking better because of it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it quite amazing that at this point WMC has somehow backed himself into a corner where he won't be unblocked from an indef block unless he agrees to follow the same rules everyone else does - yet declines to do so. And somehow finds support for his decision! What's so special about WMC? Why should he have a unique privilege to muck around with other people's comments? Rd232 16:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, in a week's time everyone will have calmed down, and some sort of compromise will be possible. Also, throwing around comments such as 'bizarre' isn't helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• A proposal - It has been suggested that the sanction levied against WMC doesn't extend to his own talk page. It's acknowledged that nobody on Misplaced Pages has permission to modify other editors' comments, even on their own talk pages (per WP:TPO). WMC does have a habit of inserting his own comment in the middle of other editors' comments, and though he does so in a format unusual for this site it can be argued as allowable per WP:TPO as an "interruption". If the sanctions that suggest that WMC can't edit others' comments in any way don't apply to his user talk page, then the current block should be removed. My proposal is to undo the block, but remind WMC that he still has to follow the same rules as everyone else (he can insert his own comment but can't modify what others have written except to delete or archive entire comments at his choosing) and he is still under a tight restriction at ares under the CC sanctions (he shouldn't be touching anyone else's comments at all). I can do the unblock myself and I'll take the heat for it. Does anyone object to this? -- Atama頭 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Already tried, those were pretty much the terms that I specified when I reduced the previous block and restored his talk page access. He explicitly rejected those terms. SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • He explicitly rejected them? This to me doesn't sound like that at all. NW (Talk) 17:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, he did reject them. SirFozzie (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • And left such a nice comment for Sir Fozzie too. Mauler90 _talk 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Except that contrary to what SirFozzie stated, Atama's proposal was not already tried - there's a significant difference between the two, and had SirFozzie offered the reminder that Atama proposes to offer, instead of the arbitrary "condition" that he had offered, the needless escalation could not have continued over this pettiness. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. On William's talk page, at the end of this section you'll find enough clarification from William's side that suggests he will go along with this. Count Iblis (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• IMO all of this is a waste of time, WMC has got himself to blame for his situation and only he can get himself out of it, he knows the way to do that it is not difficult, all of this chit chat is nothing but more disruption surrounding the issue. What do you WMC supporters think that it will all be fantastic if you go on and on enought to get someone to unblock him..that won't help. The ball is firmly in WMCs court and you should allow him to deal with it or not as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock with reminder per what I said here and here. I'm uninvolved, and I'd support this common sense position for any user who found themselves in the same situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'm uninvolved too. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Judging from comments like this, which Ncmvocalist rightly deplored above, I rather doubt that. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is my position and I stand by that, I can have a position and be not involved, I am not involved in any of the climate changes issues that WMC edits. Is WMC unable to say...I accept I was a bit pointy and that I pushed the issues after I was warned and I will avoid that in future, I accept my condition and I will appeal it in the correct way as you suggested when I am unblocked . -Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that would be all it would take, in an email would suffice. In fact I have only one single issue with WMC (although there are more at ARBCOM) and I have asked him more than once but not received a reply. As a citable climate change blogger to please stop editing the BLP articles of his opponents. That is my issue with WMC, I saw it happen on multiple BLP articles were edited with content that reflected negatively on the living people that he has citable conflicts with. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to after the ArbCom case

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

Actually, Count, if you look on the CC general discussion page, I bring up the future of the CC GS, and specifically the question if GS should have the same level of inviolability as AE sanctions enforcement does there. As for Likebox, without rehashing it too much, I'll remind you that any unblock has to start with him asking for it. SirFozzie (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, the CC discussion page seems to be the right place to discuss this further. About Likebox, I agree that given where we are now your position is defensible. However, one has to ask how things could have escalated this far. Ncmvocalist had asked me on my talk page to revert this thread (its a bit of a distraction), but it is too late for that now. But if people want to reply they can do that on my talk page or elsewhere. Count Iblis (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

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

• Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• At 17:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC), I endorsed this (and I still do). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question, do you intend to enforce the WP:TPO guidlines or only remind him of them?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've run into people violating those guidelines now and again. Usually I'll just let them know that it's not acceptable to change others' comments and it's very rare that they repeat it. I do recall one situation where an editor was persistently doing so at AfD and after repeated warnings they were indefinitely blocked; although I wasn't the one who ended up giving out the block, I would have done it. I'm not going to watch WMC's page or anything but anyone who is persistently abusing their editing privileges by refactoring others' comments should be blocked. I ran across this incident in passing which is why I initially took action (declining an unblock and then later unblocking him) and if I run across WMC or anyone else being disruptive I'll take action if I think it's needed. -- Atama頭 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not asking this as a hypothetical. You clearly have examined this users history of refactoring comments of others. Do you consider his history equalling "persistant despite warnings" and disruptive. I mean his overall history leading up to the now void sanction, not post sanction.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No, not in the way I meant. What I meant by persistent is when an editor refactors another person's edit, is warned, does it again, is warned that doing it can lead to a block, then does it again, so they have to be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do it. That's similar to what WMC actually has been doing (kept inserting comments after being warned to stop), except that his edits weren't actually refactoring anything, he was inserting his comments in the middle of other editors' comments which is technically okay to do. In the past (not any time recent that I've seen) he has actually replaced or removed portions of other editors' comments, which is clearly not okay. He has already been blocked for what he did in the past and I don't suggest a punitive block now for it. -- Atama頭 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I think we're getting closer to my question. There was behavior that led to the sanction that went beyond the debateable insertion behavior post sanction. My question is will returning to that previous behavior lead to consequences, or remind, remind, remind and remind again.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'm fine with this, as long as he maintains something resembling proper decorum. The Wordsmith 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock, block was ridiculous. Another nail in ArbCom's coffin. Verbal chat 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom had nothing to do with this. ATren (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GSCC Revision

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

"inserting parenthetical comments into other people's text is an obnoxious thing to do, and ... most people don't appreciate it." Indeed: if you need to respond point-for-point, there are other ways to do it (one such method demonstrated in this comment). –xeno 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your comments. Good idea to revise the wording of the sanction and clear up the confusion at the same time. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's okay in this case. I can foresee other restrictions under GSCC arising out of behavior on pages where the page content is not related to climate change, or where the restriction is applied to such pages. But I think there has to be some direct connection between the climate change probation, the behavior, and the sanction. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This change to the sanction looks sensible to me, and is likely to find consensus here. But I'm slightly annoyed that many above who feel the same way have created enormous drama just because they don't seem to understand that if one disagrees with a sanction, the only reasonable mode of action is to seek consensus to change the sanction first. What one should not do, and what William M. Connolley did here, is just ignore the sanction and violate it in the most uncooperative manner possible just to make a point. Because if one does that, one should expect the sanction to be enforced as written, whether or not it is flawed.  Sandstein  19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, and practically, yes. But are we going to lend the weight of policy behind that, by viewing the violation of a sanction as itself a sanctionable offense, even if the underlying sanction is invalid and there is no disruption to the project other than the challenging of the sanction? It depends on your conception of the role of administrators. Do they enforce by decree or only as enabled by the community via the administrative policies? In this case WMC was clearly pushing things, but in other cases, involved administrators occasionally threaten blocks to win content disputes. Should an ensuing block stand because challenging the administrator was disruptive? I don't think that disapproval of administrative judgment here means endorsing WMC's approach at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's what one should expect normally, and then there's what one should expect when one is William M. Connolley. When one is William M. Connolley -- as long experience shows -- one gets to go right up to the line, act rude, thumb one's nose at the enforcing admin, engage in POINTy behavior, then have the other allies in his faction argue ad nauseum that he's been denied some due process right. If, somehow, a sanction is imposed with consensus from WP:GSCC, some admin then comes along and undoes the original block and the cycle repeats itself, within, say, a month. It's like the phases of the moon. The result is to (a) goad other editors in disagreement with the faction; (b) goad admins; (c) annoy the hell out of everybody so much that the circus drives away anyone more interested in article building than drama. If you have enough people willing to argue for you, despite your continued disruptiveness, it's a very successful strategy on Misplaced Pages. This strategy tends to remove everyone who isn't a hard-line advocate of one's own POV and leave, in large part, only a few who are hardline advocates of some other POV, for whom there are other methods of elimination. it does tend to produce a growing number of editors who are appalled at the shenanigans, but I guess we have to wait a few more cycles for the number of appalled editors to increase, unless ArbCom's upcoming decision puts an end to the cycle. There is a reason why so many admins wouldn't touch WP:GSCC with a ten-foot pole. This is part of it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with admins, per se, is no problem. It happens constantly. But where the community institutes binding dispute resolution mechanisms, via the arbitration process or as here via community-based probation, we all have an interest to make these mechanisms work, which means that we have to stringently enforce any sanctions imposed under them. That those who enforce it are almost always admins is of no importance. People who violate such sanctions are not disruptive because they challenge an admin, they are disruptive because they disobey the community's decision to provide for binding sanctions. Now if I think I've been blocked because of a flawed sanction, I should raise that issue explicitly in an unblock request. The community can then discuss that as an appeal against the sanction, and if there is consensus that the sanction is flawed, it will be amended and the block lifted. But until such time as the sanction is amended by community consensus, it is binding and may - should - be enforced. If we all followed these simple rules, we would have much less drama in such cases.  Sandstein  20:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's a big conceptual difference between "should" and "must". A small practical difference. Where people place principle before practicality and lose sight of why we're here, we get drama. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• I count Rosa Parks and Mahatma Gandhi among my heros. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the limiting of such annoyances to GSCC pages a little short sighted. I would have been happy to permit WMC to act as desired within policy on his own talkpage, but am wary of giving him carte blanche to act in this manner on other pages outside of CC/AGW related space. When I placed a restriction on his use of demeaning terminology when referring to other parties, I made clear that this was project wide so there would not be any grey area's. While a behaviour may be initiated within the confines of a particular topic, often the restriction addresses the entire project. I suppose if WMC does not make a habit of posting within other editors comments in other area's of Misplaced Pages, then this may be moot - but it would be a shame if these restrictions need to be revisited to expand the area's in which he may not in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a line to be drawn somewhere. Surely there's room inside that line to extend a sanction to cover other interactions on the same subject, with the same people, or the same behavior if it's closely related and the sanction is tailored to preventing disruption of the sort covered by GSCC. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is an issue of being wise or "short sighted". I believe it is matter of adhering to the limits of policy as currently constructed. The plain text of GSCC and the consensus of most editors seems to be that GSCC-based restrictions are only allowed to apply to actions that are at least tangentially related to climate change. Outside that sphere of influence, broadly interpreted, GSCC restrictions are moot. That appears to the intent of the system created under GSCC and similar general sanctions that define a specific sphere of influence. Maybe limiting the issue in that way is fundamentally a bad idea? (There is certainly room to argue the point.) But if so then I think we should discuss revising where and how these general sanctions fit into our overall framework of governance. I don't believe the current GSCC system allows one to impose any restrictions that apply project-wide. Dragons flight (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ITartle

• ITartle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• See also: checkuser result in meta

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

Please notify ITartle of this discussion as required (see the yellow box that appears when you edit this page).  Sandstein  05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified the user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for missing notifying. - Chugun (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Chugun, if you feel the username is problematic, try taking it to WP:UAA. That's the kind of thing they deal with on a day-to-day basis. As for his alleged bad moves and edit summaries, it would help if you could provide some diffs detailing what you think the problem is. There's nothing an admin can do unless it is cear that ITartle is deliberately disrupting the project through those means. If you think Itartle is a sockpuppet of User:Crystall Robbot, try asking for someone to look into it at WP:SPI. Be forewarned, however, you will need to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, to back up your claim if you want someone to act on it. Aside from that, have you tried talking to ITartle and describing the problems you're encountering? Often, these kinds of issues are best resolved by the involved editors discussing it amongst themselves. Try to take an objective, constructive tone and let them know what, in particular, you have a problem with. Administrators are just regular users with a few extra tools; they don't really have any increased authority. The only way an admin will intervene is if the use of those tools (eg, blocking) is required to prevent disruption to the project. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see (I didn't just know UAA and SPI). I missed the point although I just tried to talk him in ko.wp and there was no way. :) - Chugun (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the problem arises from the culmination of his behaviour on several wikis, then try meta. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with meta, so some digging on your part is in order. Good luck! Throwaway85 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Cunibertus

A couple of days ago after reading a book written by university of Harvard professor John Fine I expanded the articles Sicani, Sicels and Ancient peoples of Italy and History of the Alps. Cunibertus then reverted me on Sicani and Ancient peoples of Italy and left a very disruptive article talkpage message saying is this intended to be fun or a vandalism ?. Later he even went so far as to say that only Albanian nationalist groups make such claims(although John Fine is a Harvard professor, so there might be a BLP violation here), reported me for vandalism and on ANI saying that I have initiated a campaign of Illyrization, although my edits aren't related to any racial purity claims but the opposite In 1300 BC the eastern Alps were settled by the Illyrian tribe of the Norici that later mixed with the native population.. Cunibertus apart from misusing the policy, making personal attacks(and possible BLP violations), didn't even inform me that he had reported me on all those boards.--— ZjarriRrethues —  11:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have informed User:Z he cannot change unilaterally the meaning of a voice when there isn't a general consensus on the matter - specifically when he supports nationalistic oriented claims (illyricism in the specific) - and I invited him to improve eventually the voice Enotri where founded basis of illyrism exist or alternatively to present correctly the different theories about the origins of the sicilian ancient peoples he wanted to change unilaterally, best regards Cunibertus (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then bring your sources but you can't report people you disagree with for vandalism. Btw these edits are very disruptive since you removed sourced content.--— ZjarriRrethues —  11:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Z, but I asked you if you were kidding with your really surprising statements of illyrism, and you didn't replay me - so I supposed you were a teen-age vandal and not an effective user. about the Norici, I do not know what are you speaking about as it isn't in my watchlist, but knowing that the Norici were very probably a mixed people with a later celtic predominance (or may be a fully celtic people) who lived on the very celtic side of the celtic-illyric border I guess other people will soon ask you for explanations. btw, you should also distinguish between proto-illyrians and different meanings of illyrian as the name encompassing a 2,000 years long period and also different academical usages isn't very clear in many situations Cunibertus (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cunibertus please read WP:OR because these edits are considered disruptive.--— ZjarriRrethues —  12:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The source for the claim "Most modern scholars believe that the Sicani were originally an Illyrian tribe that gained control of areas previously inhabited by native tribes." doesn't seem to back the statement. Hopefully you aren't working off a snipped and have a quote in context for this? How it his removal of that OR? Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, i'm confused. The source states "Most scholars now believe that the Sicans and Sicels, as well as the inhabitants of southern Italy, were basically of an Illyrian stock superimposed on an aboriginal "Mediterranean" population."

And the edit that thew OP added was "Most modern scholars believe that the Sicani were originally an Illyrian tribe that gained control of areas previously inhabited by native tribes." They match up. I see no OR here whatsoever. The OP's statement looks to be valid, as removal of his statement is pretty much just removing sourced content. Silverseren 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And I apparently get no response. ._. Silverseren 18:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To explain, the link used in the reference was this one. When you view it initially, it is cut off which is probably why Dougweller was confused. You have to click in the little box showing the scanned book page to see the rest of the reference, where you'll see that yes, the OP's information was backed up by the source.

To get back to the original matter... Cunibertus assumed that ZjarriRrethues was a vandal and was mistaken, and apologized above. I'd like to leave Cunibertus a strong reprimand about a failure to use edit summaries, especially when you are reverting someone else's edits it is extremely important to explain your reason for doing so. Anything else is a content dispute and shouldn't be handled here. -- Atama頭 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I notified about the revert on the talk page Talk:Sicani and User:ZjarriRrethues too directly because I am unexpert about the correct procedings to do it and for problems with my connection internet line who does not permit me complex operations. the content dispute is resolved as long as it is my concern with a more balanced edit thank also the mediation of a third user Cunibertus (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Donald Duck behavior

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

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

• You need to notify any user you discuss here. I'll be doing that now. elektrikSHOOS 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't do it because he's deleting my messages.--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If an editor deletes a message you leave on their talk page, that's an implicit acknowledgment that they've read the message. If you leave them a notice of this discussion and they delete it, your obligation is over. -- Atama頭 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Calling you a vandal for posting an explanation of what you are doing on xyr talk page is inexcusable behaviour on Donald Duck's part. However, you could have acted to prevent yourself from getting into this mess in the first place. You're removing what you assert to be false information that one editor systematically added to Misplaced Pages. But there's no clue in your edit summaries that you're doing this. Your edit summaries do not provide any way to distinguish between what you are doing and what vandals do to Misplaced Pages every day. You're blanking parts of articles and statistics from infoboxes, and the very best that your edit summaries have been are "fake, pov". In many cases, you haven't provided any edit summaries at all. How on Earth is anyone to tell that you're doing this with good intentions, as part of a WikiProject Football cleanup effort, if you don't say so in your edit summaries. Link your edit summaries to a WikiProject Football discussion showing consensus amongst editors to systematically revert these additions.

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

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

  Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that I've run into this issue with Donald Duck. I don't believe that they have the firmest grasp on WP:VAN. See here where there were two good faith edits reported as vandalism (which I'll admit eventually led to the editor's block after some uncivil responses to the vandalism templates, but that's beside the point), and even some edit warring on the editor's own talk page. These good faith edits reported as vandalism are accompanied with less-than-stellar edit summaries, so probably no more than a trout is warranted, but I do see something of a pattern of mistakes here. -- Atama頭 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Harrassment is a blockable offense. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this would be borderline at best; harassment usually occurs when an editor targets another editor or group of editors and specifically tries to make them miserable through various means. Donald Duck's behavior has been untargeted, and more importantly I believe that they truly believe that their vandalism warnings are genuine. Mistakes can be blockable if they cause disruption and the editor has been warned about them and willfully continues them, but that hasn't happened here from what I can see. I still feel that a nice fish-slap is all that's needed. -- Atama頭 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with everything Atama has said. I know I'm not perfect and make mistakes, but there is a bit of a pattern I see with Donald Duck. Tommy! 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I was referring to Wrwr1's repeated harrassment of Donald Duck. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Then you need some sense of perspective. Three user talk page edits and no interactions other than on the football articles that the user talk page edits were discussing and explaining is not harrassment by any stretch of the imagination. This edit summary should not be taken as gospel. It's Huggle Happiness, just hitting the Huggle buttons that one hits all of the time because it's easier than doing things right according to specific cases. Notice that Donald Duck reverts and dismisses/ignores every editor who doesn't have an account or a user page, whatever the discussion. This response is a good indicator that Huggle Happiness is setting in, too.

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

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

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

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

        • @Everard Proudfoot: I assumed you meant Donald Duck because I couldn't imagine how Wrwr1's communications could be considered harassment.
        • @Uncle G: Thanks for that extra information. I didn't realize how extensive this problem was, I've apparently only seen the tip of the iceberg (and I admit I didn't take the time to really look into their behavior, I've only seen Donald Duck's behavior in passing a couple of times this week). This looks like a serious problem and I'm wondering if this uncommunicative editor is far too disruptive to allow unblocked. I think I will take the time to look into this. -- Atama頭 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I see nothing disruptive in my edits. Per Ungle G's comment, he / she should have put clearer edit summeries. "Fake" is not a clear edit summary. Anyone in my place could have done the same as me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Edit summaries are not always clear, hence why we have diffs. Anyone in your place would have looked at them. ANowlin 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• He posted a very rude response to a warning I gave him after he reverted a blanking at WP:AfC, that was done after the original author. He asserts that he has done nothing wrong, and that we are treating him like he is dumb. He also says that everyone makes mistakes with HG. IMHO: Someone needs to be brought back down to earth. HG doesn't make you God. ANowlin 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that "HG doesn't make you God" is fair or applicable in this case, let's try not to make this discussion unnecessarily heated. Donald Duck, I am glad you have decided to participate, but don't you see that the sheer volume of mistakes you're making is a problem? I'm willing to cut any recent pages patroller some slack, fighting vandalism is very admirable, but all of the "friendly fire" going on is really worrisome. Even more troubling than the mistakes is ignoring the repeated pleas to be careful, and an unwillingness to listen when someone protests a vandalism tag. -- Atama頭 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Anowlin, there is nothing rude in my response; don't accuse me. Atama, how's this for a start at resolving this discussion? - Donald Duck (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I simply do not understand how you reverted the removal of copyvio 4 times at Milieu therapy despite clear edit summaries asserting it was copyvio. Most users would be blocked for that. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Woah! He wasn't blocked for this? ANowlin 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • His / her edit summaries actually weren't that clear. Yes, he pointed towards WP:COPYVIO and such, but what was copyrighted in the article? He / She never said what was copyrighted by linking to where the text came from. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If it's a removal, that points to WP:COPYVIO, maybe you should check, instead of pressing Q or R. ANowlin 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for striking out those warnings, that's a helpful gesture. I'm wondering, is Huggle the whole problem here? Maybe avoiding that tool is a good idea. Just throwing that out for consideration to all here. -- Atama頭 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Also, I agree, the response to Anowlin wasn't rude... Curt, perhaps, and dismissive, but not necessarily rude. (Rude would be saying that Anowlin was stupid.) -- Atama頭 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Actually, I recently came back from a hiatus because my PC was broken down from July 1st, 2010 to July 26th, 2010. In that time period, I either used my mom's PC or my Dell, which I now call a substitute PC since the Dell is just there as a back-up PC now. Neither of them had Huggle, so I figured it was a good time to take a break. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Not an excuse. Calm down, and lay off the Q and R keys. You're wearing them out. ANowlin 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                • I wasn't using my PC as an excuse; quit accusing me of things. - Donald Duck (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • Please. If you see anything in an edit summary that suggests text has been removed as copyvio, don't put it back unless you are sure it isn't copyvio. Ask someone else to check if you don't think you are able to check it properly. Ask me if you want to, I'm not bad at finding copyvio although (like today) I hate finding it as it can cause a lot of work. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Actually, xyr edit summaries were fairly clear, and the content being removed had "captured from: www.focus-alternative.org/milieu.htm" in a section title and a {{copypaste}} tag at the top. 75.173.6.133 wasn't exactly being mysterious and secretive (unlike 71.198.107.182 who, if xe had pointed this out more clearly all those years ago, would have saved us a lot of this trouble).

            Incidentally:

            edit

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

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

And I've just discovered that s/he's also filing false vandalism reports. Will somebody with some authority around here wield a trout, or perhaps even remove Huggle access? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a saying to remember: "Everyone makes mistakes". Anyway, your edit summary "stupid 'bot" was very misleading. Please use clearer edit summaries in the future. Thank you. Also, here's a suggestion. If you don't want your edits showing up on Huggle, create an account. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Iranians in CAT:CSD

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted is choc-full of Iranian bios that have been A7-tagged by User:Beeshoney. The tags are clearly misconceived. How would we feel about using rollback to revert them? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just checked half a dozen. All had a least assertions of notability. Roll the lot back and counsel editor on speedy deletion criteria and PROD/AFD procedures. Exxolon (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and rolled them back and posted a note on the user's talk page explaining why. It is obviously not a conventional use of rollback (the tags aren't vandalism and we can assume they were done in good faith) but here it is the clearest way to improve the encyclopaedia.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the many notices on the talk page have made the issue abundantly clear and I'm sure it won't happen again. And hey, while checking the tags some things were fixed along the way :) Hekerui (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I want to make it clear that the purpose of this ANI post isn't to rap the editor over the knuckles in any way (hence I haven't notified the editor) - just to deal with the stack of A7 tags. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Given this has occurred after this same user had removed discussions on an Iranian in a very recent AfD discussion and has also abused Rollback on that same article it is all a little odd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to post support for Mkativerata, that was a very good IAR use of rollback. -- Atama頭 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There look to have been another swathe of deletion requests from the same user. And they have already been warned about one of them on their talk page. These should be looked at. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also notified the user in question of this discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of these speedies (by declining some and prodding others) & tried explaining to the user why speedy is not applicable in most of these cases. But they then went on another spree. I've left a much more explicit note about speedy policy but perhaps someone else could try it too. Beeshoney appears to be saying they are speedy-ing them for standard notability/low quality concerns and doesn't seem to hear that this is incorrect --Errant Tmorton166 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello - just to defend myself: 1. Where I removed another editor/s comments, I didn't realise this was wrong. You should have seen the length of that AfD, and I thought it was OK to shorten it especially since the same arguments were being repeated multiple times. 2. Where I misused rollback rights, I didn't know this was wrong, and I have accepted it was wrong. I have explained why I thought it was OK to use rollback in this case on an old revision of my talk page, which Erazerhead1 has provided a link to above. I accept criticism, so if what I'm doing is wrong please tell me and I will stop. Beeshoney (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Beeshoney, I felt you responded very positively when I raised the rollback issue with you, and I accept your explanation re: the AfD comment deletions. However, one thing that concerns me is that all these issues affect Iranian articles. As well as taking on board the advice you've been given on your talkpage, I'd also like to see you try and avoid Iranian articles. TFOWR 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is that all of these issues have come up in a very short space of time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also just spent a fair amount of time reviewing many of these speedy noms, and removed quite a few. The editor's pattern of nominations suggests complete obliviousness to the requirements for an A7 deletion -- among those I saw were the mayor of a sizeable city, a national cabinet-level minister, a Grammy-nominated musician, and an actor with several dozen film credits. Results like these, coupled with the editor's use of automated tools to generate prod/speedy nominations every few seconds for sustained periods of time, lead to the inference that the editor is not properly scrutinizing the articles in question, to the point of abusing the deletion process. I believe that all these nominations should be rolled back, given the burden this burst of activity will place on other editors and the very high error rate seen in nominations that have been reviewed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just had another check through Beeshoney's recent contributions and this latests spree seems to be being rather personal (who is one of the main editors involved with Kourosh Zolani). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again - I live in England, and work to GMT, so that's why I suddenly stopped yesterday. To respond to TFOWR, I can explain why they are all Iranian articles. I went to look on Thommasshane's talk page (because he had posted a message on my talk page), and I saw this message. So, I looked at that list of 125 Iranian BLP's with no references, and thought "Well they're not very good", so I tagged a lot of them. To be honest this A7 Speedy Delete policy is very ambiguous as to what it means, so I've switched to PROD for a lot of them.

Most of the articles I've tagged (after being warned on my talk page), are just a few sentences long. And although other editors say "try and improve the article yourself instead of putting them up for deletion", this is almost impossible for a lot of the articles, as very few results come up on Google (as least ones that could be used as reliable sources).

My focus is not on Iranian articles - it's just that I thought I'd look at that list first. I have also bookmarked the other list mentioned on Thomasshane's talk page of over 26,000 BLP's with no references, and I'm planning to look at those too (and with care this time).

Sorry for being careless, and I will be more careful with future articles. I'll also look through the articles I've tagged, and see if I should undo any of my actions. Beeshoney (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Having had the majority of his speedies declined and prods removed, this editor is now bulk-nominating many of the same articles at AfD for quite questionable reasons (e.g "no English references"). Of course he is entitled to do this and I'm sure he's acting in good faith, but IMHO he is creating a lot of work for other editors for minimal gain. Thparkth (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the Prods and AFD's seem reasonable. But many others are very vague in rationale and it does not look like the user is doing a very careful search for references. I do think Beeshoney is not taking particular care with their tagging for these matters; their position seems to be that these are better off gone - whereas I would argue that a better approach is trying to save some if possible. I'd argue a better approach is to work on a couple of these articles per day (most can be salvaged) rather than run them through AFD's (which will probably come out keep). --Errant Tmorton166 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything I am now doing is within Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Considering a lot of these articles have been in the state they're in for years, I don't think it's unreasonable to start AfD's. A lot of these people have few English hits on Google, and if it really is so easy to improve these articles, why does everyone struggle to find good references? Beeshoney (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just saying; a lot of the references aren't hard to find - and it is better (in my mind) to spend 10 minutes finding a ref or two, cutting any dubious content and tagging for recovery. Eventually we will get to them - there are a lot of articles to get to :) That way you don;t end up indiscriminately tagging material and articles that do deserve to be deletion (and will go through AFD to delete successfully) are the only ones tagged. This saves community time etc. The # of English Google hits is usually not a good way to judge deletion/notability --Errant Tmorton166 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would still be very surprised if an article that was kept improved significantly a few weeks after an AfD was closed. Beeshoney (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Something like this amazes me: an administrator has votes to keep this article. There are less than 2000 English results for this person on Google - as you can see here. My own user name gets nearly 3 times more results (shown here). Even TFOWR (just shown as an example because you might think that "beeshoney" is common) gets over twice the results, as shown here. I do not understand what this administrator is thinking when he/she votes to keep the article. Beeshoney (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that one looks like fair AFD material to me :) On the other hand Mahmoud Zoufonoun shouldn't have gone to AFD - it's easily cleaned and it will only take an hour or so of work :) (I'm working on it now as it happens). All I am saying is - consider trying to improve some of the articles that can be improved so that only the marginal stuff hit AFD --Errant Tmorton166 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The number of "english Google hits" is absolutely not the criteria for anything. But still, did you consider the 22,000+ hits for the Persian form of his name, سیروس الوند ? After all, he is Iranian. I'm not sure that you understand that if he is notable to everyday Iranian's, he's probably notable on the English wikipedia, even if you haven't heard of him. Thparkth (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My ego just got a massive boost, only to be cruelly destroyed :-( Google is picking up Misplaced Pages and lots of mirrors - I'd imagine if you stripped out all of that, I wouldn't register at all. TFOWR 09:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's notable to everyday Iranian's, why don't you create the same article on the Iranian Misplaced Pages? (I think there is one) Then you'll have no problems using Iranian references. :) Beeshoney (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Because he already has an article in the Iranian Misplaced Pages, and also because I don't speak Persian. You must try to understand that it is OK to use Iranian references in the English Misplaced Pages. Thparkth (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well there you go. I'd assume it's mainly Iranians who would be interested in this, and of course Iranians can read the Iranian Misplaced Pages (I can't), so why does person need to have another biography here as well if it is poorly sourced? It is not OK to use foreign language references in the English Misplaced Pages unless a decent, understandable translation is provided. (If it isn't understandable it isn't a translation) If this isn't true, please give me a link to the Misplaced Pages guideline saying so. Beeshoney (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:NOTENG is faulty. Translations are only needed for quotations, or when specifically requested by editors. I would personally regard such requests as being made in bad faith if you are only asking so that you can dismiss the reference and delete the article. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd ask for a translation because the article effectively has no sources if all the references are foreign, because I can't read them (unless they're French, which is unlikely in this case). Beeshoney (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I accept that. I'll just AfD the really bad ones. Beeshoney (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thparkth, Beeshoney may well have a point over that article. Per WP:NONENG it is difficult to reliably source at this point. I'd argue that if someone capable of translating the material comes along then it is easy to reinstate. --Errant Tmorton166 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Beeshoney, I suggest reading User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Sources in languages other than English, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and all of the things cited at and below Misplaced Pages:Search engine test#References at this point. We're not trying to be a big directory of only the stuff that is locatable via Google. (Google's doing that itself, after all.) We're not trying to write an encyclopaedia that is limited to the anglophone world. (Indeed, enabling anglophones to discover and obtain non-anglophone knowledge is one of the very rôles that an encyclopaedia exists for.) And the right way to approach any article, per policy and good practice that has been agreed upon since pretty much the start of the project, is "How do I improve this article?", and only resort to deletion if the attempts to improve find no way in which improvement can be done.

We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not stand by and watch expecting other people around us to do so. So our attitude always has to be one that is from the standpoint of "How can I collaborate in writing this?". We look for sources ourselves. We research. We copyedit. We help with editing mistakes by novices. We expand. We write. We cite supporting sources that we find. If we can show that we've looked for sources for subjects, actively rather than passively, and still come up empty-handed, then that actually makes a good, policy-based, case for not having articles. Putting verifiability and deletion policies into practice correctly is not a zero-effort task, however.

Finally: Anyone complaining that no-one has worked on an article and that therefore it should be deleted is labelling xyrself as part of the very problem that xe is decrying. If you see an article that hasn't been worked on, and you are of the opinion that Something Should Be Done, then pull out that editing tool and work on the article yourself. Be bold! Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem.

Take the advice of someone who garners more utterly meaningless Google hits than the both of you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User appears to be continuing to misuse speedy tags, despite requests to be more careful. Including tagging readable articles as patent nonsense and using G7 for sports matches . Much more. Now he seems to be going through the alphabet, speedying everything in sight. The vast majority of his speedys and prods have been declined. 250 edits in less than 24 hours, virtually all to do with deletion, the vast majority declined. Seems to be on a warpath to delete articles. See also the stuff at Kourosh Zolani, where he deletes every teeny bit not sourced without lifting a finger to help. Also, "challenging" every foreign language source for a translation and threatening to delete if not provided, while strictly complying with policy, is not in the spirit of encyclopedia building. I recommend a block for disruptive editing as the user doesn't appear to be listening and people are having to cleanup after him. Alternatively, a temporary ban from using speedys and prods. Maybe also remove twinkle. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Beeshoney has a number of requests on their talk page about deletion taggings. I've just come from declining another one. I have asked Beeshoney to lay off tagging for deletion, as I feel they lack sufficient understanding of WP:CSD. Dlohcierekim 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I was one of the editors who got highly involved with Beeshoney in a recent AfD discussion last week. This person caused us a lot grief during this discussion by deleting a huge part of our comments in discussion in two incidents (1 & 2), repeatedly changing our edits to the article, and several uncivil comments such as calling us cheaters, sock puppets, etc. After the discussion was closed, my friend, Thomasshane (we are a group of Iranian-American graduate students who started a project to improve biographies of Iranians on WP) sent this user a friendly note for a closure. However, this user nominated tens of Iranians articles for speedy delete yesterday and again put many of them for AfD today. Surprisingly, this user has sent Thomasshane and I separated notes and invited us to continue this AfD game with him/her.
I do not believe this person has an interest in Iranians articles. It seems this user wants to create a discussion and be at the center of the attention. This behavior is not acceptable on WP. I agree some of the articles are just a few sentences but most articles that she nominated are about prominent Iranian artists and can be improved. I do not wish to get involve with this user in another AfD and I am really frustrated and disheartened that this user has nominated so many Iranians articles for AfD for personal reasons. I sincerely ask WP administrators to stop this user and revert the damage s/he is causing. Thank you Sozlati (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sozlati, there are no "personal reasons" for this - I don't know how many times I have to say so. I focused on Iranian articles at first because there was a link on Thomasshane's talk page to a list of Iranian BLP's with no references. If you look at my edit history, I have now moved on to other topics. Also, the messages I left on your and Thomassane's talk page did not "invite you to join in". Because I have been told to do so, I have stopped nominating articles for the time being, and have decided to wait and see what happens to the articles I have nominated for deletion. Beeshoney (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith here - this isn't exactly an isolated incident. You are nominating an unreasonable number of articles for deletion on shaky ground. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I am also an editor involved in the recent AfD discussion about the Iranian musician’s article. I have decided that I am not going to contribute to any article proposed for deletion by Beeshoney. This is an encyclopedia not a game program. What this user is doing, is not acceptable. I don’t know how much damage a person should cause till some one decides to remove their privilege. I went through the proposed articles for deletion by this user, in one incident, Beeshoney is proposing EIGHT articles for deletion in ONE MINUTE!!!
This tells me that the user did not go through the articles carefully before proposing them for deletion. I am not saying that all the nominated articles are in a good shape but this is not a right approach to improve the articles.
Beeshoney dose not have any interest or knowledge in Iran related fields, specially the music. This person is not the right person to decide which article has to go!!! One of the nominated articles is Jalil Shanaz who is absolutely an Iranian music legend. This user put the article for deletion!!! Beeshoney has nominated many Iran related articles for AfD and asked me to improve them. How many articles one editor can improve in 7 days?
I strongly believe that every article proposed for any kind of deletion by Beeshoney since yesterday needs to be reverted. Based on the pattern of this user’s behavior, s/he is not qualified to nominate any article for deletion. Thomasshane (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the non-Iranian speedies are just a unreasonable as the Iranian ones, for example Auch Inter-Borough Transit. I'm very grateful for people willing to sift through the backlog of problematic articles, and help remove the probably hundred thousand or so junk articles remaining in Misplaced Pages , and I don't want to discourage Beetlebrox from continuing to do this--but just to get him to do it carefully with a better understanding of relevant policy.. The use of automated tools like Twinkle has an unfortunate tendency to encourage carelessness, and I would very strongly recommend that the editor stop using them immediately--I avoided using it for at least my first year on the project until I thought I had enough experience. If they continue being used in this manner after the editor has been alerted about this , the usual thing we do here is to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers

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

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

• - http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2010/08/will-i-become-wikipedia-editor.html - you could not make that up, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Not sure what can be done other than keep a closer eye on new accounts diving right in to controversial articles, but in the wake of Misplaced Pages:CAMERA, I hope this is taken seriously. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• more press coverage in the guardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlypsychosis (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The New York Times has picked up the story. Way to go, guys. Skinwalker (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing votes

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

One of the voters, Mariordo decided to canvass support for his point-of-view by messaging four other users, , , , and .

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

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

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

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

I have notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo has, on three occasions, notified me of discussions regarding electric vehicles, including hybrid electric vehicles. He understands that many of my edits revolve around this subject, and I have always appreciated his notifications. He certainly does not know how I will feel about any given subject, and we have had disagreements in the past (see Talk:Electric_bicycle#Pike_Research_Report as an example). He phrases his notifications in neutral terms, and he has never tried to influence my opinion when he notifies me. I have responded to two of these notifications, and not responded to one (other than acknowledging that I received his note and declining to participate in the discussion). I do not feel that I have been "canvassed" in any way, shape or form.

OSX has been consistently antagonistic toward Mariordo, as he is toward many people (myself included) who disagree with his edits. Here is one example of his childish harassment and name-calling: Talk:Hyundai_Elantra#Merger_of_Elantra_LPI_Hybrid. It is clear to me that the notice on this board is just one more attempt on OSX's part to silence a rational, dedicated, polite editor whose views sometime conflict with those of OSX. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much inherently wrong with this canvassing. The alleged canvassing could have been handled much better by OSX, the warnings he gave were aloof and bordering on rude ("I'll report you to the ANI board and you may be blocked"); but I don't think it's a gross violation of policy, or arguably a violation at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• As the links provided by OSX clearly prove, I simply notified other regular users interested in the subject about the ongoing discussion, and according to the rules of appropriate notification, the text is neutral, the posting were limited (only 4 users), and in a transparent way (leaving messages in those users talk pages). So I do not see any violation to Wiki policy, I just a followed a regular channel to make others aware of the discussion.-Mariordo (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels

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

I was asked by this very user to create an account, which I did. When I started editing from this account and expanding the article as requested and providing additional material I was attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold and my edits reverted. This article is biased and the fact that it's protected and the neutrality of it questioned is an issue that should be of concern. In the past two weeks, since I created this account and started editing this article, I have abided by the policies and guidelines set forth and I request that you look at my editing history as an example. Yworo, however, seems to take issue with the fact that I am working to improve this article and that means providing context, balance and, yes, positive material to balance it out. The surreal nature of the discussion is certainly true but if you look at the discussion page of the article you will note that each time I suggest a link or an inclusion of new material I am attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold, a sock puppet and told the material I am trying to add is "resume padding." Look at the conversations surrounding the California Energy Crisis and Enron. I added material that was in line with Misplaced Pages policies and standards. Yworo routinely changed the material I was including, going so far as to remove it or revert it back without providing a legitimate reason. One time, Yworo said the link I provided was not working and reverted it back. I went in and fixed the link and readded the material in the Enron section and again was attacked and threatened for doing so. As I have stated dozens of times at this point, I would like to improve this article. That means expanding upon it and not make it one-sided. I would be perfectly happy to bow out of editing it if in fact Yworo was removed as well. Frankly, I think the conversations on the discussion page will illustrate the biases of many of the people who are working on it. The users do not need to like me, but I believe my contributions to this article, especially since I created an account have been important and within the guidelines. And I would like to continue contributing without fearing that each suggestion or citation I add or section I create is going to end up with me being attacked or accused of being the source.

I would like to note that there is an anonymous user who has been contributing to this article in the past few weeks: 69.17.54.2: that may be in the same vicinity I am: Los Angeles. I was accused of being every IP address that contributed "positive" material or tried to expand the article. But because the contributions and comments of this IP, as recently as Wednesday, have been negative with regard to the substance and content of the article, Yworo seems to be supportive of this user. Mind you this user has been making changes to this article since 2007 and those changes have been well outside wikipedia's policies and has not been asked to create an account, threatened with banning or complaints leveled. Is it because the IP's opinions about the subject of the article and Yworo's are in sync? I don't know. But I do find it curious. That is part of the surreal nature of the issues and discussions surrounding this article. It is not one sided. It's clearly complex. But I should not be the one who bears all of the blame. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, multiple editors have not requested that I, Jimmy McDaniels, refrain from editing this article. Yworo has. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please learn to indent. The requests are all over your previous IP address talk pages, on the talk page of the article, on the BLP noticeboard, etc. And there's a long section on your current talk page from Off2riorob, here. Yworo (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm curious, what is the conflict of interest? I've looked at the RFC and Talk:Jason Leopold and of course this ANI report, but I see nothing to suggest there's a COI. What connection does Jimmy have to Jason Leopold that would be a COI? He claims to be a fan, and he seems to have POV issues, but that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Being Leopold's relative or employee or PR person or something along those lines would. What am I missing? -- Atama頭 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He has claimed multiple times to be Leopold's lawyer (four examples: , , , , and admits he did here), and nearly everyone ever involved believes he is Leopold himself. Besides his unintentional admission of identity with the IP editors, I believe I've thoroughly established continuity of identity in the RfC. Yworo (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant COI then. I'd support a page ban enforcement of suggestions at WP:COI, restricting the editor's article edits to non-controversial edits and otherwise making talk page suggestions for content changes. I do see some constructive talk page input so I think such a ban would permit the editor to contribute while at the same time prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would help a lot and as you say, still allow him to contribute as he does have some input that is beneficial to content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see him voluntarily comply with this. If a topic ban is applied, I suspect we will simply see and have to deal with sockpuppetry. I could be wrong about that though... Yworo (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have written a lengthy statement here on the edits and contributions I have made to this article over the past two weeks and I'd like to know why that is not being discussed. These edits and contributions have expanded the article. I have not done anything that violates policies or guidelines here. I was asked to sign up for an account, which I did and since then I have been very vocal about suggestions to help improve and expand this article. My edit history, since I signed up for the account, shows the value in my contributions and I again ask that they be looked at as well as the commentary I have made during the course of editing and on the discussion pages. This article needs to be improved. Twice the neutrality of it has been challenged and tagged as such. It asks to be expanded. The bottom line, once again is that attempts to improve or expand this article is unsupported. I do not have any relationship to the subject of the article whatsoever. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I need to say that I am not Leopold?? Stop suggesting that I am. The snarky comments that you continue to make are disturbing and underscores further bias. As I said above, I should not shoulder all of the blame. If there is a conflict of interest I believe Yworo now has one too because this is clearly becoming personal for him/her. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please address why you claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. And became offended that I referred to the IP address that did so as a "nutcase", self-identifying with the IP. If you continue to refuse to admit that it was you who repeatedly made this claim, and explain why you did so, there is no reason to believe anything else you might say. Yworo (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, if you claimed to be his lawyer and now claim you aren't, you were being deceptive either now or then. This inconsistency doesn't engender trust. I deal with conflict of interest issues quite a bit (I hang out at WP:COIN) and it's not uncommon for an editor to claim some sort of connection in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, but it almost always comes back to bite them later. Editors with a conflict of interest are generally allowed to contribute until other editors object to their edits, in which case a topic ban isn't uncommon. I believe you're trying to have your cake and eat it too but it's not going to work, you've already let the cat out of the bag and your COI has already been established by your own words. It's too late to claim that you're uninvolved with the article subject at this point. -- Atama頭 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, Yworo. It was clear from your "nutcase" comment that you were referring to me and the comment you left on my talk page saying as much would make that apparent to anyone. Your comment was directed toward me. You were playing a game of gotcha. As far as being Leopold's attorney I made a comment saying I was trying to be his attorney and I did see evidence of defamation and libel on this article and brought it to Leopold's attention. I never heard back from Leopold following my correspondence. The contributions I have made are valuable and the arguments I put forth are worthy of discussion. The discussions on the article page show the bias of some editors toward the subject matter. Arguably, that is in and of itself a conflict of interest if the editor is only interested in adding negative commentary to the article and does not even want to entertain the thought of balance or neutrality. Many of the editors, again, based on the discussion page, show deep disdain for the subject of the article: Leopold. To me, that is an issue that needs to be dealt with and one that at least one other editor agrees with. At the end of the day, that is what should be the topic of discussion regardless if I am here or not. This is the first thing that pops up on Google and therefore it should represent the most up to date and neutral point of view and material about the person. I would expect the same for every other article but editors do not seem to treat the entries of other media people the same. There is a real desire to make this one as negative as possible. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Arguably, that is in and of itself a conflict of interest if the editor is only interested in adding negative commentary to the article and does not even want to entertain the thought of balance or neutrality." (Buzzer sound) Jimmy, you're likely "referring" to WP:NPOV; which cannot be achieved when an editor has a very serious conflict of interest. Much like one who is (at least) "trying" to be the attorney for the subject of the article. Editors are actively trying to make this article as "negative as possible"? See WP:Consensus. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..." "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..." "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..."

That is not "a comment saying trying to be his attorney". That is saying you are his attorney. I think it would be a cut-and-dry COI if you had just said you are his attorney, but your actions could (could, not all may see it this way) be interpreted as editing beneficially on his behalf in order to gain favor with him. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Still a conflict of interest anyway you look at it, though. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Bulk changes to sports articles without explanation

I recently ran across User:NBAfan321 who has been updating sports articles (baseball and basketball from what I've seen). Some of these edits involve updating ERA and batting averages, and others just involve updating the date. I asked the editor what the edits were about and I was met with this response. While I don't have any reason to think these edits are incorrect, the lack of explanation after I brought it up, and then again a second time, is bothersome. Another editor, User:Stricken83 brought up similar concerns about an hour later (that editor seems to be commenting on the actual content), and yet NBAfan321 continued on with the edits. None of these edits have an edit summary and all told there've been over 300 of these in the last 7 hours.

I don't know what a solution is right now but I do know this editor doesn't appear to take my, and others' concerns seriously, and I'd appreciate some more eyes on this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Let me explain myself; I had no intention to cause any conflict at all. I am just trying to update these articles. Some of the infobox stats are more than a month old, and I'm just trying to improve the articles in question. The stats are all correct (they come via ESPN.com), so I don't really see how there's much of a problem. NBAfan321 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If its what you want, fine, I'll start adding edit summaries. NBAfan321 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is another example of the problems that can be caused when editors don't leave edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to explain my angle on the issue.I have updated stats up to a certain date, and at least in the entries I was talking about - NBAfan321 has only changed the date (by one day!).Maybe I'm the one that's not seeing things correctly, but I just don't see the point of updating the date by one day without any changes to the stats themselves, especially if the player in question didn't even play on that date.One more thing that bothers me, I'm not sure that this is the proper place to ask the question but I'll give it a shot anyway - in a sports article, when stats are supposed to be updated up to a certain date - should they include the same date? For example - the stats for a certain baseball player are mentioned to be updated until today, does it mean that they should include today's games, and if they don't - I should write the update date as yesterday's? Please advise me, because I'm not sure where to ask, and this is a major key for me in the dispute between me and NBAfan321 Stricken83 (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to update it to the actual day, rather than the day played, but it's not really something we discuss here on ANI. Best to contact a relevant Wikiproject and form some policy, if there isn't some already. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'm new to all this stuff so I didn't really know where to ask... Stricken83 (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually a project issue. The infobox clearly states that the stats are "through" a date, which specifically means that the stats include the games of that day. On that one particular point, you are correct. However, I have to agree that folks were getting quite bitey on this. For future reference, feel free to come over to the baseball project talk page and bring things up. -Dewelar (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely a way to drive away a new editor. Thankfully you failed. Seven hours of updating stats and this is the thanks. This is a waste of ANI's time over a non-issue. Vodello (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Don't exaggerate, Vodello, and this is not a non-issue. Facts need to be cited, edits need to be explained, and this editor was asked quite nicely (a few times) and answered quite dismissively. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think this is an AN/I issue, but rather one that we handle routinely on the baseball project talkpage. And if the edits were accurate, I thank this new user for his additions. As far as updating by one day, that's fine -- I see zero harm in that.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

walled garden of articles controlled by subject

The subject or someone claiming to be the subject Mic Neumann seems to have a walled garden of articles - Kung Faux, Mic Neumann, Tommy Boy Entertainment that he will not allow any clean-up or citation work to occur, he simply reverts to his preferred (and favourable version). Looking at this history, this has been going on for months if not years - I became aware of the problem as he has been trying to insert (unsourced) claims about his influence on the work of Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright and films such as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Communication with him is fragmented as he leaps from IP to IP, and I am at a bit of a blank how to proceed. It's pointless at the moment trying to clean-up the articles or fact-tag them as it's simply removed.

The IPs that I've come across (and I'm sure there are more) are:

68.36.175.168 68.36.173.50 68.81.1.107

Suggestions? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, one could always semi-protect all of the pages in question, make the valid and sourced edits :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably a good idea. I'm unhappy with an IP claiming to be someone and then claiming because they are that person they know more than anyone else about the articles. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• If he is claiming to be a living person of note, then request he self identify to the project or that he gets a name change. If he self identifies then he should stick to the talk pages of articles he has a citable conflict of interest with. When people are claiming to be someone we need to deal with it and not allow it to just continue on. He either identifies to the project or stops claiming to be that person. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • He doesn't have an account so there is nothing to name change, he simply hops from IP to IP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Right thanks I missed that. I also saw the AFD and that article looks on its way to article heaven. It does seem to be hard to deal with these situations. The few similar I have been involved with seem to drag on for months. Semi protection of all the articles is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • He's just arrived for the 'evening shift' (or I guess the day shift for the other side of the water), so I guess we are in for more fun and games this evening. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • After he had removed the AfD tags a couple of times, I lost patience and semi-protected Mic Neumann for a week. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Now editing as Squeezedot (talk · contribs) after being blocked as 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) - can someone take care of it or do I need to do a SPI? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Squeezedot blocked indef. WP:DUCK. Blood Red Sandman 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
              • • Whoa, wait -- we're blocking a named account indefinitely for evading an IP block????? Not a good idea.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                • *Thinks* OK, that wasn't my smartest move. Will reduce to one week. Blood Red Sandman 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                • It's fairly clear that these are all one single person, not least because xe has said so: See "I am Mic Neumann for Christ Sake ! - I created Kung Faux & Dubtitled & Popdetail & Co-founded Nylon Magazine & Tommy Boy Entertainment ! - I am the source !" and "who is going to know what the meaning of the Skull & Chopsticks logo means without me stating it, since only I know what it stands for ?". All of these accounts, with related names, writing the same content across multiple articles (we've just gained Dubtitled Entertainment created by Squeezedot, in place of Dubtitled created by Squeezdot), that is information only one person in the world is supposed to even know? I'd say that it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • "Now"? Now is relative. Notice that the original creator of some of these articles was Squeezdot (talk · contribs), note the spelling. I have no doubt that there's only one real person here, not least because 68.81.1.107 (talk · contribs) took over editing roughly 4 minutes after 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) left off, in addition to what I mentioned above. I've revoked the other IP address' editing privileges until after the end of the AFD discussions, given what it was doing. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to look at restricting this guy to a single account. Blood Red Sandman 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reasonable requirement. Got any canned wording handy we can opine on?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Squeezdot remains unblocked, note. So that's effectively what has happened. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, but Squeezedot is only blocked for a week now. So eventually he will be back to at least two accounts, and may well feel free to create more. Blood Red Sandman 20:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • See this edit by 68.36.175.168 (talk · contribs) - clearly BLP vandalism. This IP has been around for 3 months now, clearly a static IP address, virtually every other edit just self-publicity, eg . The other IP, 68.81.1.107 (talk · contribs), has been around since Nov 1 2009, also a static IP Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• But for the drama, I'd WP:SNOW close the AFD and salt. Once the article(s?) are gone, the disruption should cease as he goes off to do other things. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kung Faux isn't a snow closure. People are rising to the challenge. And Dubtitled/Dubtitled Entertainment aren't even nominated. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I was referring specifically to Mic Neumann. Agree, the others aren't so clear cut. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Roux Unblock Request

Roux (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

As can be seen here, Roux is requesting unblock. His contributions are typically positive, but then become punctuated by negative reactions, hence the block. I felt that discussion here would be most fruitful. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I vaguely support an unblock - any problems can be managed with cooling off periods. Roux just has a temper - it's not something insurmountable, and he is a good contributor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good news. Welcome him back ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Long overdue. This was basically a burnout issue, and said burnout was at least partly caused by an editor who won't be coming back. The increased scrutiny that comes with this kind of unblock should be sufficient to prevent any disruption should there be any future problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the rest of us, could someone link the reasons for the indef in the first place (or was it just that he swore a lot...)? I've looked through some talk pages but I don't see the discussion... maybe I'm too lazy. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at his most recent contributions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, I saw that. That's why I said he swore a lot. Clearly he was blocked before that though. So what's the deal? I hope we're not blocking just for language these days (6 months ago). Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do block for constant violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. In this case, I believe the straw that broke the camel's back was calling User:A Nobody a "rabid inclusionist".--Atlan (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to support this, if Roux accepts a six-months' civility parole. Salvio 11:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Could somebody please provide a link to the discussion, if any, leading to the block?  Sandstein  11:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I oppose an unblock. I am for second chances, but according to the block log this editor's second chance is long, long past. The unblock request is also inadequate, not addressing the reasons for the block and generally casting himself as the victim ("when I am being abused, as I have been many times by other users").  Sandstein  12:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm hearing myself say such a thing, but I agree with Sandstein here. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

• Discussion containing Roux's edit summary, Block discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• This from 1 March from the blocking administrator is worth noting... Doc9871 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – Roux has not shown any signs of promising to be more civil, which makes an unblock inappropriate. /HeyMid (contributions) 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Heymid: the user's unblock request seems to focus more on how wikipedia has problems than how (s)he has caused them, and hasn't indicated that they will cease the behaviour that led to the block. GiftigerWunsch 13:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support- seems that the editor who got under Roux's skin the most is permanently gone, and that Roux is promising to take his grievances through the proper channels rather than getting mad and lashing out. So he's addressed that part at least. I'm not quite happy with Roux wringing his hands and crying victim but I don't think that is the point. The point of keeping people blocked is not that they fall to their knees, grovel and meekly conform, but to prevent disruption. In my opinion Roux can feel as hard done by as he likes; he's said he'll stop acting up and I am prepared to believe him for now. Reyk _YO! 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would disagree with Bwilkins summation of Roux's contributions to date as "typically positive" – I have found his attitude to be abrasive, mistrustful and generally unpleasant. The unblock request indicates that nothing has changed in that respect. So I oppose an unblock under current circumstances, and suggest that if the editor is eventually unblocked, it is with restrictions on negative interaction with other editors. Skomorokh 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Roux is a decent person and certainly will not go off, as before. It's been six months. Let him return. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, provided that... he's watched closely, as he has been too quick to pull the trigger in the past. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose...for now We've handed out too many "second chances" to this guy. What makes this one any different? I'd like some more re-assurance that he'll stop what got him into this hole in the first place before I'm willing to see him unblocked.--White Shadows 14:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Generally supportive of an unblock. Burnout or no, the original block was warranted and six months on it is possible we can accept him back. Protonk (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Roux was a productive editor before he burned out. Six months with no socking or other disruption makes me hopeful he can return to editing productively once again. Of course he'll be closely monitored, as all editors unblocked after lengthy amounts of time are. AniMate 16:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I like Roux, he was very helpful and it was a shame when he blew up. If he can keep his cool it would be great for Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Roux has served his time and has explained how he intends to deal with any future episodes of the sort that got him into this mess. It is unseemly to demand that he falls to his knees shouting mea culpa. There are too many here who see incivility in the behaviour of others, but are blind to it in themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I haven't read his unblock request. I only hope he's given up his siege mentality & excepts some of the blame for his getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • He did... sort of. His request wasn't very repentant, in fact it was somewhat defiant, but he did predict that his request to be unblocked would be controversial (whether that's from a feeling of persecution or an acceptance of personal wrongdoing, I don't know) and he did state that he'd behave differently if he felt like he was being harassed ("abused" in his words). -- Atama頭 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If he's unblocked, I hope he'll have better self-control. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: unblock request is fair, and I wasn't supportive of blocking him for the "rabid inclusionist" comment either. Sceptre 17:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Support If he promises to behave and cut the Civ and PA out. I see no reason not too, He's a good editor hopefully six months have taught him something. Worse case we block him again later Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support too. A decent and intelligent editor that needed a time-out; seems well worth a try. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Decent person, decent unblock request, and it's been six months. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Burnout was at the heart of the dispute between Roux and a now-community banned editor. I would encourage him to throttle back the temper, though. Horologium (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: You should be unblocked. However, in the future, don't let your temper get the best of you. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Shadowjams (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I don't expect any grovelling or abasement (though it'd be nice ;-) but I do expect a commitment from Roux that future problems will be handled differently: Roux's undertaking to raise problems with a third-party is sufficient for me. TFOWR 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support - Only if he agrees to a 6 month mentorship. If he stays out of battles and refrains from losing his temper in that 6 months, then the mentorship ends and he is free to resume as normal. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if that will be necessary or at all helpful. Roux is very far from an inexperienced editor, he doesn't need a mentor to help him with Misplaced Pages. Roux has had problems dealing with conflicts with other editors, and he has pledged to take those problems to someone else for help, so that has the same effect as having a mentor (you're getting help from someone else to keep you out of trouble). -- Atama頭 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Blocked for "a rabid inclusionist"? Talk about potty mouth. Mr. Bowlder, you are wanted on line number two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support – I'm willing to give Roux another chance in the understanding that he will handle future conflicts better. Airplaneman ✈ 18:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support an unblock. It's been 6 months now. With civility being the only problem, I think that's a long enough block.--Atlan (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – Six months is WP:OFFER. /HeyMid (contributions) 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. A 6-month block for comparatively mild incivility is quite long enough. SnottyWong 21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair to the parties responsible, the reason for escalation to indef was due to said incivility going beyond "mild". Still, the standard offer allows for far worse than burnout rage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock of Roux the editor - "Roux le Rage" will need keeping an eye on, though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Productive. Passionate. Had a tendency to get pissed off when confronted/taunted, and he intends to work on this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good person; like me, he may get a little testy at times but he says he'll work on it, and I trust him there. Agreed that he's been gone long enough if civility is the only issue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support with... a mentor. I was given one when I came back from block (actually had two mentors) and they were very helpful in letting me know where I should be editing and not, what I should be doing and not and keeping me in line. It helped. I think Roux is a good editor, but needs the help of a mentor to stay on track. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – not much to do besides walk the dog. Toddst1 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Vandals blocked - Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards