Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Page abuse

This page seems to be having a problem with repeated malicious and/or nonsensical editing (nonsense, being, for example, the thing I just deleted that said underneath a factual paragraph, "i would say this is probblay true... pagans celebrated new year on april 1st" (untrue) (more badly written, un-wiki-ish stuff). I cannot report this for protection because I am unsure if it warrants it. One already-reversed edit I saw said, "april fool's day is gay." A lot of recent edits are pointless or abusive, but they are not happening every hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day

                     ~Rayvn 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ease of editing break

I had not realised Peter Damian had been rebanned. I think he should be unblocked and personally do not think it necessary to impose any restrictions on his editing. If his contributions are disruptive, that can be addressed then by neutral parties. The more I reflect on his contribution to the project, the more I think he was treated unfairly and has cause to feel aggrieved. If he's still interested in contributing, I think we should welcome him. WJBscribe (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've no reason to trust a Sock Master. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people have said they'd like to see Peter Damian unblocked. So would many of us, myself included. The problem in the larger picture is that we ask people to refrain from socking. How can we expect banned users to take that message seriously if socking can prompt a discussion that ends their ban the next day? Peter has plenty of talents that he's welcome to put to use right now at other WMF sites. If he does so for three months without socking here, I'll initiate an unban discussion for him myself (see WP:SO for details). That's a fair offer. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Durvova, this did not happen to Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had multiple socks, so why should Peter Damian be subjected to this kind of probation? That seems quite arbitrary. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Slightly more than one year ago Peter Damian was granted an unban on the heels of a socking episode; the result did not turn out well. Wikipedia:Standard offer usually works; am not aware of that Mutawandi example and would have made the same offer there. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I see it rather differently. I am not very concerned by people evading bans to produce good quality consent. If someone shows that they have evaded a ban and that their contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think this is in itself a good reason to consider unbanning them. It rather suggests that either (a) there was something wrong with the ban in the first place or (b) that the user has changed. I concede that this approach incentivises evading bans but, provided the contributions to the project made are good, it doesn't seem so bad... WJBscribe (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Call it a difference of wikiphilosophy, then. This website does not have a good track record at dealing with editors who contribute worthwhile content in article space while being disruptive elsewhere. The question is whether an individual willing to abide by the same standards the rest of us observe. Does content work amount to an exemption from behavioral policies? We've allowed case-by-case discussions on that point to consume inordinate amounts of volunteer energy. Refraining from socking is a minimal demonstration of respect for policy. Those who wait for several months are more likely to make a successful return. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone in contact with Damian? It seems like it would be helpful to hear from the man himself as to whether he'd like to return and, if he does, what his editing interests would be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've just gotten an email from Peter asking for talk page access. Seeing as consensus is not close to unanimous one way or another, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to let him speak directly via his talk page while this discussion is ongoing, any relevant comments should be copied over here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only just caught this thread, but would support Peter being unblocked. His overall content contributions outweigh other issues. --Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another 8 accounts have already been found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian, and it seems very probable that more are to come. Note that some of these were created long before the current ban, indicating that he was a sockpuppeteer back then as well. Note also that User:I love SUV's was blocked late December 2009 for 48 hours for ‎ Personal attacks or harassment. Another sock, User:Think of the children, was blocked for five days for disruption. So that makes that of the currently known socks, at least two have been independently blocked without any relation to being a PD sock, one for personal attacks and one for disruption. Unbanning such a user is really beyond the pale. Fram (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One of his socks tried twice to whitewash the Think of the children fallacious argument[1][2], and then used that same argument on Jimbo. That was 10 days ago.

I once argued for PD's unbanning, and shortly after unbanning he decided to retake his long-time argument with FT2, and got re-blocked for it. PD needs to show that he is really interested in improving the encyclopedia, and that he won't go out of his way in trying to destroy his perceived enemies inside wikipedia. He contributes good content not for the sake of improving the encyclopedia, but for the sake of getting himself blocked after he reveals his identity. He does this to support his point about good editors being blocked for political reasons. As far as I know he will just do the same thing again: 1) contribute an amount of good content, 2) make a POINTy argument that he knows that will get him blocked, 3) brag in Wikipedia Review about how his point was proven once again. PD has to show that he is willing to break this dynamic and limit himself to article work.

By the way, as far as I know, his pledge to do all in his power to destroy wikipedia is still standing..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here is Peter's reply, copied from his talk page:

Thank you for unblocking the talk page. I notice that a number of perfectly innocent accounts have been uncovered, and some content has been deleted. Damnatio memoriae. All I can say is how upset I am about this. I can't believe that the people who did this care anything about building a comprehensive and reliable reference source. Deleting these articles is worse than common vandalism.

The attacks on the WP:AN are just too horrible. I have nothing more to say. The cruelty of human nature is limitless.

• As you can see, it does not contain a request to be unbanned, so I suppose that means we're done here. He also posted a list of articles that he feels were unfairly targeted for deletion, but I didn't see any reason to re-post that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that we're deleting articles that Peter is creating when there's nothing wrong with them, and in fact they look quite good. These three have apparently now been deleted: The_Pheasantry, Jenny_Kee and Linda_Jackson_(designer). Is it policy that articles created by socks be deleted? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The usual "...created by a banned user..." would seem not to apply in the case where a user in longtime good standing, with extensive good content contribution, is judged to have later gone astray in a non-article related manner. No matter what policy and precedent say here, I think that IAR should override and the articles should be reinstated across the board, unless a particular article has a specifically identifyable problem. I haven't had time to more than briefly scan them, but I haven't found any problems so far. Please stop deleting and put 'em back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The relevant policy, to answer SlimVirgin, is WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. Edits made by banned editors, including articles created, don't need to be deleted, and the policy specifically states that "obviously helpful edits" are an exception. So I agree with GHW, except I don't think we need to IAR because the rules specifically allow for this. -- Atama頭 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with some of the bio ones and am checking and adding references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have tried to just be a sort of mediator so far in this because I didn't have any previous involvement with this user, but my patience for his games is now rapidly wearing thin. I have gotten some more emails in which he asks me to restore articles that he created with sock accounts, while at the same time stating that he has no desire to return to editing Wikipedia. Does anyone else see a rather large contradiction inherent in that statement? If he really had no interest he wouldn't be creating sock accounts left and right and asking for all this stuff to be restored. In any event, since he has stated that he does not want to be let back in the unbanning discussion is moot. In the interest of moving forward, I propose that those users already evaluating his recent contribs proceed, but that any future socks be dealt with in the usual manner and have all contribs reverted or deleted on sight in order to discourage further socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've this to offer, which I placed on my own talk-page following a brief but productive interaction with Peter about his linking of the term Latin West. Our discussion was ended by the subsequent abrupt disappearance of his alternative talk-page (or "sock", if that's preferred).

I responded with suggestions for disambiguation or de-linking - if the context of the term wasn't clear, it should at least not confuse the reader. An admin closed the user-page soon after; it had been opened to evade a permanent block. I was surprised to find all this editor's contributions and others' responses on his talk-page erased, as if in damnatio memoriae; I thought we evaluated contributions on their own merits. Haploidavey (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I've read here has changed my mind. It's reasonable to delete worthless articles, which these aren't. I think Peter's claim to not want editing rights disingenuous, but not underhand; the guy probably wants to edit, desperately. If there have been problems in the past, I hope he acknowledges them and negotiates a return but that'll only happen if he's allowed a voice. Haploidavey (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's called gaming the system. PD is banned for good reasons, he is following a route taken by other banned users of socking to create some uncontentious content which can then be exploited to divide the community based on the quality of that content, in an attempt to obscure or distract from the documented fact that the user is banned for good reasons. It's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and we don't need it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Per Guy. There isn't a good answer to this problem, but it is worth remembering that Peter Damien has previously expressed a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach with these: he argued that he would deliberately create articles as a sock of a banned user, and, if the content remained, he claimed a win, arguing that WP permits him to edit in spite of his banning. If the content was removed, and/or if the sock was blocked, he argued that he had won, because it showed that WP is more concerned with punishing editors than building an encyclopedia, and he could take this evidence to donors. It's an odd game, that I could never see as carrying much weight, but it's probably worth keeping in mind in relation to current actions. Alternatively, maybe he does just really want to create articles. - Bilby (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the links. Per Bilby's – an odd game indeed, but admins who oblige with a block when PD blows his cover are playing into it. Anyone here can edit under any number of names. Abusers are reasonably banned, as far as I can see, for what they do on particular pages or a whole series of pages – less reasonably, I believe, for who they are, who they later claim to be, or even their admission of ulterior motive in offering positive contributions. A review of banning and blocking policies might be in order. Haploidavey (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is silly to say that by blocking sockpuppets of banned users we are in some way playing into their hands. It's just a housekeeping job. We don't have the concept of a little bit banned, if someone is banned it's because they are a net drain on the project, and this thread is a perfect example of a drain on the project which costs PD virtually nothing. If he wants to appeal the ban he can do it in the orthodox way by contacting the ban appeal subcommittee. If he is so very confident of his case this should be a straightforward process. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also fail to see how we are playing into his hands when he is wasting hours of his time, and we could be done with it in only a few minutes. Just make it obvious to him that none of his contributions, no matter if they are good or bad, are welcome here, since he is a banned user who is during his bans creating and using good hand - bad hand accounts to avoid scrutiny of all his edits. I don't understand the people who feel that content is more important than anything else, and believe that they are the sole people playing into his hand and making his socking and siruption worthwhile to him. I'll continue to block his socks and delete his contributions, and ignore him otherwise. Fram (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked the main account without talk page access, since he is not interested in unbanning, but just in soapboxing. He has enough other outlets where he can do this, he blew his chance here when he created problematic socks again. Fram (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, PD emailed me about this, I am not sure how much of this thread is the result of email and other offsite comments by PD to other people. My advice to him was the same as I said above: we have a ban appeals subcommittee and an arbitration committee, that is the proper route for appealing this ban if he wants to continue editing Wikipedia. Otherwise he should simply find himself another hobby. The regularity with which his socks are discovered argues against his assertion that his editing is uncontroversial and indistinguishable form that of any other editor interested in collecting the sum of human knowledge. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ChildOfMidnight and Slim, and especially with WBJScribe: Peter Damian has been treated unfairly and has cause to feel aggrieved. There was indeed something wrong with the ban to begin with. The question is whether this editor has been treated so badly by Wikipedia that he now hates it too much to work in good faith here. Things like that happen, unfortunately. It seems unnecessarily cynical to keep PD blocked for such a reason, though. Can he do a lot of harm? No. Can he do good, by using his editing skills and knowledge? Yes. As for re-locking his talkpage when this discussion is over, I request that you don't do that, Fram. (The page is unprotected at this moment.) Allowing a blocked or banned user to use his talkpage is the normal option. The reason you give for locking it, "Page should only be used to ask for an unblock so this is misuse,"[3] is quite a new rule, as far as I know. If you don't want to see what he says, can't you just not go look? Admins (and, a fortiori, arbitrators) should think twice before throwing their power around. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

User:Ronald Mckay/Allen Mills

Any suggestions on how to deal with pages such as this one? It's the subpage of a perma-blocked sock.

It also raises issues about abandoned subpages/userspace drafts in general. Do they just hang around forever? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to have a regular article, so the question is whether it's salvageable as an article. If so, you could move it and tag the then-almost-empty subpage for deletion. If not, you could tag the subpage for deletion. An admin can tell you for sure, but my guess is that they do stay forever unless someone takes the initiative to handle them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I couldn't do any of those things. IP editors are not able to move pages or create them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But any IP is free to create an account at any time. And you know that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And when it becomes mandatory, I'll consider it. Until then, I'm looking for answers not criticisms. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. So stay away from where you don't belong. *shrugs* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody actually answered the IP's question, and I'm curious about it also. Is it correct to say that a page like that, left untended, will stick around indefinitely? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No Bugs, it won't. If you stare at it long enough it will vanish right before your very eyes. That's what happens to unsourced BLP's in sockpuppets user pages. something lame from CBW 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you have known about it if it hadn't been brought to your attention? Also, it doesn't exactly vanish - it undergoes a red shift. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Seb, that's an entirely inappropriate response, and especially so from somebody whose actuall logged-in account is pretty illegible. Woogee (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And still no answer to the general question of how to deal with old user subpages. Anybody with knowledge of the issue care to respond? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have an account then send them to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If you don't have an account then you will need to get someone to finish the nomination as it requires that a page be created. Of course it's also possible that any given user subpage could be tagged using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. And to Bugs, no I didn't know it was there until I saw this. something lame from CBW 06:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a relatively easy way to identify such pages? I suspect that there are tens of thousands lurking around with no easy way to find them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some users who are regulars at WP:MFD that specialize on ferreting out this sort of stuff. You might ask them what methods they use, I'm a bit curious myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who has blocked most of the socks of this account, I must confess, I often let these subpages remain, because the new socks would always come back to edit them (among other articles). It was a fast way to identify them and block them. If you're interested in deleting other subpages, just go through the contributions and subpages of the other socks of this account. I haven't blocked the latest sock incarnation as they "appear" to be attempting to make useful contributions. If another admin cares to block, feel free. I'm beginning to tire of following these socks around. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, the old leave-some-bait-for-the-sock game. Played that one a few times myself, it does wear thin after a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The technical term is honeypot. I've always like that term, I imagine some espionage agents trying to capture Winnie-the-Pooh. -- Atama頭 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In Alaskan parlance a honeypot is a bucket that persons who don't have indoor plumbing use as a toilet on cold nights to avoid a trip to the outhouse, taking it out and emptying it in the morning. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean a gazunder :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review request

User_talk:ChildofMidnight#Request_for_posting_a_review_on_Administrators.27_Noticeboard Gerard^PFAW 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM was blocked for these two diffs; [4][5]. On a personal note, I find CoMs commentaries to be extremely unhelpful and certainly not inline with a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. He seems to feel the need to comment on every single controversial issue on the project. If something's kicking off, you can be sure to find CoM somewhere close by offering his advice. I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll (and with first edits like this and this, I'd bet my last penny that this isn't his first account). That being said, I wouldn't have blocked him for those two diffs - I don't find them to be particularly uncivil - I probably wouldn't warn for them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the need for this "protective" block (for what other sort is there?), the need for it to be so severe, so sudden and without warning, or for the unblock request to be so vehemently denied. ChildofMidnight was uncivil and deserved a warning, maybe a sanction if they kept it up afterwards, but not this. I wouldn't disagree with any of Ryan Postlethwaite's comments either, but a block like this is unwarranted. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Overturn. While the tone was less than measured, there is no way to interpret CoM's comments as "personal". Rather, they are specific criticisms of an administrator's use of the administrative tools. Wikipedia should not censor critics of those who have tools that are supposed to be "no big deal" and are not supposed to be unilateral policy makers. ^Bongo_matic 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - My god, again? ChildofMidnight has a penchant for attacking admins and ArbCom members in a over-inflated plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people fashion. If this is to be lifted I'd like to see some sort of prohibition of this lashing out in the future. If there is a dispute with an administrator with allegations of abuses, then it should be brought to a public forum for discussion. If we start to see repeated filings that turn out to be frivolous, then that can be dealt with as appropriate. I will remind all here that we went through an RfC on ChildofMidnight recently where this sort of behavior was discussed. The end result? CoM attacked the closing admin. I'll leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock. I disagree with CoM far more than I ever agree with him. But this hair-trigger blocking surrounding anti-AGW editors is just beyond the pale. It has stop, or soon enough arbcom will need to become involved. This was a pathetically ill-considered block, and should be overturned right away. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Seems rather than a block, some sort of long term restriction on the types of disruptive behavior Ryan Postlethwaite describes above may be in order. The two diffs provided as triggering events for the block by themselves were simply examples of long term behavioral problems. See the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight RFC closed last month and his response to the closing note. ChildofMidnight's response to the current block has been to attack the blocking admin rather than focusing on his own behavior immediately after saying he would "... apologize and refactor if it will shorten my block". Whether or not the current block is upheld, the disruptive behavior and personal attacks need to stop - and I see little evidence that will happen without some sort of community sanction or ban. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Tabula rasa, the comments in question are pretty trivial. But CoM has a very long history on AN/I, with ArbCom, and on RFC, and has at each instance chosen to interpret the results as not his fault. This is a problem, and given the problem the block is not out of order. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, see Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#ChildofMidnight for a recently filed topic ban request and the evidence contained therein. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing here seems to be that most of us have issues with CoM, but not the particular edits that led to this block. Since it seems this is finally reaching the level of ArbCom, I am going to unblock him so he can speak in his own defense and let them deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• The block should have been directed through the General Sanctions for community input. The editor should be free now to respond there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I've fine with lifting the block, but something really needs to be done here to address the general situation. We also need to separate the ongoing problems with global warming articles (about which I know little, but where there seem to be behavioral issues galore) from ChildofMidnight's behavior in particular, which has been a problem all over the place. I agree with Vsmith's point above that we need to deal with this given the strong consensus that there was a problem at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight, C of M's complete dismissal of that effort at dispute resolution, and the continued problematic behavior. Beyond the two diffs cited as reason to block, see also the following recent comments by C of M [6] [7] [8] where we see phrases like: "Get the fuck over it and move on. Your disruptive nonsense is absurd"; "I'm more than happy to give you an example of a personal attack Cool Hand Luke, but I'm 100% the trolls and disruptive monkeys will use it against me,"; "childish jerks," etc. Or see how C of M responded to a perfectly polite note from another editor here (that conversation is very telling). The problem here is that if you look at just one or two diffs one might say, "that's not so bad," but this has been going on for a year or so, and there seem to have been a bunch of problematic comments just in the past couple of days. We need a long-term strategy for getting ChildofMidnight to stop with these constant ad hominems and incivilities and stick to the business of helping the project of which he is quite capable. Discussing the general problem of the global warming articles should probably happen elsewhere. Unfortunately I have no good ideas as to what to do about C of M. Banning from noticeboards (as has been suggested before) won't do much given that a lot of the worst comments happen in user or article talk space. Fresh eyes on this problem would probably be good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I also feel the need to point out that kicking off this thread with the comment that one editor was a "drama loving troll" was a pretty terrible way to start the discussion. Let's try to avoid labeling others and just deal with the issues at hand. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock without restrictions The two comments cited by BozMo were within a gray area of incivility (and don't approach personal attacks or violations of any other policy or guideline). Editors subjected to an admin's actions (like warnings) need to be able to criticize that admin on the admin's talk page. These editors naturally get upset when an admin action takes place in connection with a long-running, heated dispute like the AGW area. So when we've got a gray area, where a comment might be interpreted as a serious violation of WP:CIV or just as easily might not, lean toward leniency. The fact is, numerous comments made against CoM in this overall thread could be just as easily interpreted as a violation of WP:CIV, but admins traditionally give people some leeway because it's more important to the project to allow criticism. The behavior restrictions on AGW-related articles don't apply to admin talk pages. It was a bad block all around, therefore it should be completely overturned. If CoM's other behavior is at issue, this is not the best time or place to discuss it: the issue is too clouded by the bad block, especially for this page or AN/I, and this thread proves it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply and explanation regarding civility, hounding and admin abuse, what this is all about

Thank you all for having the decency to recognize that bad blocks should be reversed. It took a while, it's cluttered up my block log with more abuse, but at least I can edit again, which in theory is what we're all here for.

I would just like to reply briefly with a few points:

• Ryan Postelwthaite's statement that "I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll" is ironic on many levels given the bogus nature of the block I just endured.
• As to the allegations that I stick my nose in when there are controversies, he should have taken the time to look at my proactive comments even in the last few days before spouting off with a heaping pile of hateful attacks.

  This thread might be worth reading and reflecting on for admins big and small:[9]. The admin enforcements that followed it have gone a long way to feeding new disruptions, incivility and disgruntlement.

  And here's another OUTRAGEOUS comment by me[10] that if it had been heeded would have prevented a whole lot of drama and wasted time.

• But I don't expect RPG to be blocked for his uncivil personal attack. Blocks are for the meer peon editors so they can be bullied according to the whims of abusive admins who can then invoke their "lengthy block logs" as they engage in further abuse down the road.
• And if anyone wants to know what this conflict is really about, it's about an editor who has a clear COI involvement in the climate change subject area and who operates an advocacy attack site off-wiki against his ideological opponents, using this encyclopedia to push his personal beliefs on everyone else. If you don't believe me go read our global warming article and then read the encyclopedia Brittanica's article. Go read the entries on Dictionary.com (including the one from a science dictionary at the bottom).

What you'll find is that we've narrowly redefined the whole subject of global warming to give the impression that it has only ever existed in the 20th century. Yes, despite the fact that understanding anthropogenic warming and greenhouse gas impacts needs to be understood in historical context, including how recent changes differ and are similar to past warming events, a group of editors and their admin allies have completely thrown out the science. And that's just one example of the distortion.

In a push to make an argument, they've abandoned common sense in favor of misleading and distorted article content and have used awkward and innaccurate titles like Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. That's the convoluted description we use for events related to unfavorable disclosures of collusion, insular exclusion of opposing viewpoints, and illegal violations of the freedom of information act by a group of climate scientists in England that has resulted in an independent inquiry, people stepping down, apologies, and further investigations into grossly innaccurate information, unscientific reporting, bogus data, and new independent bodies being established that aren't tied to the wrongdoers.

Yes, these editors and their admin friends including BozMo, who when he's not making improper blocks is defending an editor calling others "old fruits", and 2over0, who's passed out a half dozen blocks and bans but not a single one on the most disruptive uncivil and antagonistic editors in that subject space, are working to chase off anyone who disagrees with them.

So don't let the real trolls and abusive stalkers fool you with their smears. The rot goes pretty deep on this one ladies and gentlemen. But if we stick together we can root it out.

That's what this block is about. It's about abuse, intimidation, censorship, and bias. I will not remain silent about it, and it's incumbent on every member of this community to stand up to the bullying and intimidating abuse that is corroding the editing environment at this encyclopedia. It's destroying any semblance of collegial collaboration, but it can be nipped in the bud if we just say no to it. No more abuse BozMo. No more abuse 2over0. ENOUGH. STOP IT! NO MORE! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryan's comment was not okay in my book, and you're right that comments like this stemming from the global warming imbroglio are uncivil and unacceptable. But can you not see that your comment above has the same problems? You object to someone calling you a troll (as you should), but then turn around and complain about the "real trolls and abusive stalkers," which unfortunately is very much part of a long-term pattern for you. I'm not defending what Ryan said or what WMC said, but how do you defend yourself when you speak in exactly the same manner? I'm asking this in seriousness, because you may not realize how incongruous it looks to many observers who watch you complain about a certain behavior and then engage in it yourself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bitimepeace, Tarc has been hounding me and stalking me for months now and you haven't said boo about it. I didn't mention him by name, because if I call someone a troll I'll get blocked for it. But other editors are allowed to make bad blocks, attack me, and make all kinds of insinuations. Did you read some of the comments I posted below the block that have been directed at me and other editors by the AGW acolytes? They're outrageous, but no one says anything about them. There are trolls and abusive stalkers, but I'm not one of them. So if you want to help get rid of them PLEASE BY ALL MEANS DO SO! I'm here to work on articles with editors who agree and disagree, but are willing to work together in good faith without disrupting or abusing their status to enfore their will improperly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you and Tarc to avoid each other, and quite recently I told Tarc that would be a good idea via an e-mail. If at some point you ask for some sort of mutual interaction ban between the two of you I would probably support it. But that's beside the point I am making above and I'm not going to get sidetracked by it. You notably did not answer my question, and I think you should. If it's not okay for others to call you a troll, why is it okay for you to call them trolls? (And above you basically did do it by name.) Please note that "because they are trolls!" is not the right answer. I'm genuinely trying to get a reply from you on this, because it seems you truly do not see comments like the above to be problematic, when most others do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BTP, I don't believe in interactions bans, they are ridiculously bureaucratic, red-tape laden responses to user conduct issues that fill the boards with never-ending "can I comment here?" "can I go there?", "what if he/she is already in this article?" eDrama and nitpicking. We all saw that in the aftermath of the interactions bans (of which I was not a party to, for the record) following the arbcom decision. I have done no more than you, or 2over0, or Sandstein, or Connoley, or any of the dozens of other users and admins whom Com has savaged over the last year; I weigh in whenever this user is dragged to yet another policy or enforcement page because I truly believe him to be a detriment to the project. I do not post on his user page, wiki-hound any edits to any articles I do not usually edit...hell, I only have the slightest input into the whole global warming imbroglio, there is no conflict between him or myself there. So please, do not single me out for seeing how much of a problem ChildofMidnight is; as we can see above, that is becoming a near universally held point of view. As for the e-mail, I have not seen it, as the account attached is one I rarely log to. Perhaps I should note that somewhere on my talk page. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace has a long history of going after editors who don't share his leftist agenda. He promised repeatedly to stop harassing me and to cease interacting with me. He has no involvement with me on any articles and has no dispute with me, yet he was the one who launched an RfC for his buddies Tarc and a few others who had to be restrained from stalking and harassing me.

Basically, he played the same role on the Obama articles that 2over0, BozMo and a couple other admins are fulfilling on the climate change articles. He has promised to leave me alone repeatedly, but continues to pursue me relentlessly including with an RfC. When the spammers and the abusive POV pushing editors needed a go to guy to push their agenda they shopped around until they found someone with his aggressive, disruptive and abusive approach to enforcing their viewpoints on article content. He's been more than happy to engage in abusive conduct and intimidation.

These actions are inappropriate and wrong Bigtimepeace. Stop it. Don't seek out conflict with me any more. We don't work on any of the same articles, so you need to cease bullying me and chasing after me. If you want to be proud of yourself that you were the go to guy for POV pushers who distort our article content to your favored perspective and stalk, harass and chase those they disagree with, so be it. But this dispute doesn't have anything to do with you (or your buddy Tarc) so maybe you should start keeping your word for a change and leave me the heck alone. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Point of order - I thought CoM was unblocked to defend themselves at ArbCom. [refactoring my strike-through satire at Durova's request? :-)] [Why all this here?] Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The unblock notice didn't give a direct link to the arbitration subpage. CoM has commented at his/her userpage that s/he didn't realize where to respond. Which is a reasonable confusion because the wording of the unblock seemed to suggest an arbitration case request rather than an enforcement request. And CoM is accepting feedback: per a request s/he refactored the worst part of the comment above. It is counterproductive to allude to it; would you consider a real refactor in place of the strikethrough? That said, one alternative worth considering is instead of unblocking an editor solely to respond to a discussion at one page is to use a transclusion template. That mechanism allows a blocked editor to participate directly in one discussion without resuming disruption elsewhere. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 05:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • [Note: I have refactored my strike-through satire element, but the stricken element shall not always be stricken in upcoming discussions of civility and rhetorical fouls etc] Proofreader77 ^(interact) 05:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously C of M's comment wasn't an answer to my straightforward question, but okay. I'm not going to bother rebutting all the accusations above, but if anyone wants to look into the "promised repeatedly to stop harassing me" claim please see the first paragraph in my reply here. The RfC speaks for itself and was originated by me and no one else. No offense to Tarc, but we aren't particularly "buddies" (nor "enemies"). A further comment from C of M to me and my reply on my talk page can be read here. I'm going to disengage from this direct interaction now, but there is a need for a discussion about how to handle some of the problems with ChildofMidnight's editing, so I'll start a new section on that and leave it for others to comment if they so choose. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note on the unblocking Sorry all if I wasn't clear, I suppose I assumed everyone was following this conversation as well. The above linked ArbCom motion/discussion/whatever I was supposed to call it at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#ChildofMidnight is what I was referring to, it seemed only fair to let him speak in his own defense, and also the conversation here seemed to indicate that there was a general feeling that the particular edits he was blocked for did not merit that reaction. The unblock is not intended to be any sort of ArbCom reply only conditional block, it is a normal, full, unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We need a remedy

I'm going to start this conversation (hopefully) and then largely step back from it. There was a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight (which closed a few weeks ago) that there are some issues with ChildofMidnight in terms of editing behavior. As the summary said the perception for many was that "he has difficulty interacting in a productive manner, especially on project pages and with almost anyone in a perceived position of authority." Those problems have continued since the RfC closed, resulting in a couple of blocks which were overturned but where the comments upon which the blocks were based were clearly problematic. I mentioned some other recent troubling remarks by C of M above. This is a long-term problem, dozens of editors commented at an RfC in an effort at dispute resolution but that yielded no mutually agreeable solutions, and the issue is clearly ongoing with no end in sight.

What are the appropriate next steps in terms of dealing with this editor's behavioral issues? I'm not sure there are easy answers, but I think we need to start thinking of some possibilities. Personally I'd most want to hear from folks who have relatively little involvement with ChildofMidnight since they might have a fresh take on the situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop seeking out conflict with me Bigtimepeace. You have promised in the past and since we aren't working on any articles together there's no reason for you to continue hounding me with your intimidating threats. Please stop this activity here and on the Climate change noticeboard where you have no history of involvement and have just now "appeared" to antagonize me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM, please stop accusing Btp. In my experience, Btp is not a problem at all. Not everyone who has a problem with you is "seeking out conflict" with you. I didn't support Bozmo's last block of you, but your accusations against Btp are just out of line. Scottaka UnitAnode 05:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion CoM's style seems strikingly akin to WMC, a well known climate change editor who can be equally productive, verbose and drama prone while skirting admin action in many noticeboard cases. Ironically, these two might be considered on opposite sides of entertaining a POV. Whatever solution is found for transforming WMC for the better, may likely have an equal impact following on to CoM. (Bigtimepeace, you remind me of me in pursuing peace.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from ascribing a POV to me. I would like our articles to be clear, accurate and to reflect the most notable aspects of their subjects according to our long standing policies regarding weight and neutral point of view. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your intentions. My applogies, I tried to avoid assigning a specific POV. It's best to leave a specific POV out of this. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Take care of yourself and stay out of trouble. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to BTP, what is required is something similar to the remedy that was recently enacted against Tothwolf - another long time very productive user who has issues with civility and seeing conspiracies everywhere. In otherwords a prohibition about being uncivil, ascribing motives to other users actions and making baseless personal attacks. Something along the lines of

CoM is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should CoM make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, CoM may be blocked for a short duration not exceeding one week. After 5 such blocks the maximum duration of any block shall be increased to one month. In particular CoM is reminded not to cast unfounded aspersions without providing detailed diffs to support their claim

While draconian, I have to say that CoM's behaviour has really gone too far now and they seem to be unable to engage in any discussions on wikipedia right now without importing a battleground mentality that is far from helpful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• My recommendation would be a site ban of ChildofMidnight. I have frankly never come cross this editor's name except in the context of massive drama caused by his apparent difficulties to interact productively with others. I am of the opinion that we should not allow our time to be wasted by people who do not have the skills to work without massive friction in a collaborative environment. (Though to be fair one would have to apply the same remedy to some of the editors in the climate change area he seems to be in conflict with, but - one thing at a time.)  Sandstein  07:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that a site ban goes way beyond what I think is needed here. I don't doubt that you've only come across ChildofMidnight's name in the context of massive drama, but if you look through his contributions you'd see he is doing a lot of article work (it's not an excuse for poor behavior, but to suggest that he's only involved in drama is simply not true). We have not really tried anything in terms of a community-imposed remedy, all we've had are some sanctions from ArbCom in one topic area (Obama articles) and a number of blocks, some of which were clearly problematic or at the least controversial. We should not be jumping from there to a site ban, or even to a long block. The goal should be to limit or put an end to the troubling behavior so ChildofMidnight's positive contributions will be all that we see around here. Personally I like the sound of Spartaz's suggestion. It's not ideal, but it could be effective, and there seems to be some precedent for it. I'm curious as to what others think about that idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeesh I'm just coming off ANOTHER bad block in a long line of them. Let this thing die. If any sanctions are needed they're against BozMo who continues to make a series of poor judgments. You don't get to play the, well he wasn't guilty but let's make some new shit up and punish him anyway game. If I make a personal attack, I'm sure I'll be blocked. It should be for 24 hours, and a warning and an opportunity to fix things would really be appreciated. That's a courtesy that's never been extended to me, and I am human. What also needs to stop is the abusive and disruptive hounding by Tarc, Mathsci, and now Bigtimepeace whose abusive antagonistism and intimidation I thought was over and in the past. It's very frustrating and upsetting to see him stalking me and hounding me to new forums again. I'm here to do aritcle work, and if these abusive and harassing actions would stop I'd really like to get back to it. Please leave me alone and let me write articles. It's something Tarc and many of the rest of you should give a try. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• CoM, Denis Healey famously said the first thing you should do when in a hole was stop digging. This comment is the complete oppposite of this. Please do yourself a favour and stop adding fuel to the flames. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As completely uninvolved, the length of time and the breadth of venues this guy has played you all in is a breathtaking example of how bad you all are at grabbing the nettle. The guy is here to be a disruptive timesink (well, that and occasionally writing about disgusting bacon confections). Just restrict him to only articles involving bacon (or siteban him) and be done. Or keep doing this, over and over and over, which i must admit is more amusing for those of us in the peanut gallery.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Bali, you're a left-leaning editor who makes sharp comments on a bunch of pages (and I'm a right-leaning editor who's done that, too). I can recall some sharp comments from you I saw just within the past few weeks. You're "completely uninvolved" only in the narrowest way -- if you haven't been in the "breadth of venues" with CoM it's by chance. And CoM points out that he's been attacked by editors who themselves haven't been sanctioned. A site ban seems out of place, especially coming from you. The whole AGW mess is inevitably difficult to deal with because of the nature of the controversy and the difficulty in getting consensus there. You, of all people, should understand how frustrating these things can be, and that should be easier to see the less involved you are. Back in the day, you made similar comments on my talk page, and you were pretty much on the money. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • John -- You really don't know my politics. CoM is just here to fight, whatever his politics. I can't remember ever making any comments on your talk page about global warming (I don't think i've commented on global warming here at all -- my opinion on that matter is that wikipedia as governed is incapable of dealing with global warming and many other topics in a competent matter, given the nexus of obsessives, fringe politics and the need for nuance in areas where at least some of the key science is unsettled. But this complaint is a structural one).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • No, you didn't make those comments on my talk page (not about global warming, but about this kind of frustration). My mistake. No, CoM is not just here to fight. When he points out bad behavior and points out admins allowing that behavior to continue, he can be on the money (although I don't see how his comments on 2=0's talk page are accurate), and that information can be valuable. And he's been given bad blocks, including this one. My main point stands: You know exactly how frustrating it can be to participate in hot political topics on Wikipedia. That's not irrelevant here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• The whole thing is more involved than an A/N discussion can get to the bottom of, and RfC has been done. It would be better for CoM and for the project if he walked away from AGW-related edits and complaints, as long as everyone realizes that CoM walking away won't come close to fixing the general problem there, and it would do no good to ban him from there -- because it looks like it would reward the people goading him. It's almost impossible for someone who hasn't been following the AGW situation to figure out if admins have been lenient to one side and harsh on the other without just reading the whole damn archives. Maybe this whole thing should go to ArbCom. Are the AGW general sanctions working out? If not, it should definitely all go to ArbCom. When this general sanctions regime was set up, I said it would be better to have ArbCom appoint admins to deal with it. Those admins would be directly answerable to ArbCom and would be less likely to make a block of the type we see here (and maybe more likely to make other, necessary blocks). Self-selected admins are naturally going to be open to more suspicion, and this is a really difficult area. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's important to separate the issue of ChildofMidnight's behavior from the issue of AGW-related articles. From the little I've seen the latter are clearly a (large) problem, I personally don't feel like getting remotely involved as an admin given the level of vitriol there, and you could be right that ArbCom needs to help sort things out. But that's a general issue of which C of M is just a small part (it was a problem well before he ever got there). There is also the undeniable issue of ChildofMidnight's editing style, which was found to be problematic in the recent RfC. Leaving the AGW stuff to the side (it's not the topic of this sub-thread), we need to have a way to deal with this problem. Simply saying C of M cannot edit global warming articles won't do the trick—the problematic behavior goes back many, many months across multiple topics and in multiple forums, and we need a general way to handle it. If you want to pursue a discussion or form of dispute resolution about AGW articles (which is probably a good idea), you should probably start that afresh somewhere separate from this much more focused discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the editing restrictions proposed by Spartaz above. Such a restriction would allow Child of Midnight to concentrate on writing content and help him avoid the drama minefields where the civility problems arise. Vsmith (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptions that need to be addressed

These were uncivil and antagonistic comments were made just in the last few days by vaious AGW acolytes:

• "..."old fruit" is categorically inoffensive."--BozMo talk 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This relates to WMC calling other editors "old fruits". BozMo came in to defend him because, you know, calling people you disagree with old fruits is a really good idea and should be encouraged, especially from someone who considers "Will" a personal attack when used in reference to an editor named William.

• He "is deliberately misusing this page." He "has made similar capricious, clueless and offensive edits just to make a WP:POINT against a perceived opponent. " He "should refrain from manufacturing events " If "he has nothing sensible to contribute, he should be banned from posting on this page or its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)"
• "At the moment he is gaming the system and misusing this page. Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 "
• "Absolutely. Another example of baiting and gaming the enforcement system based on very little knowledge of the facts. I think. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC) "
• "On the other point there is a difference between calling an editor malicious or an edit malicious. Compare "foolish". I make foolish edits sometimes and would not consider having an edit called foolish a PA. Calling me foolish would be quite another matter (I may be as well but it is a PA to say so). But I do not think this request is other than good faith. People do feel that WMC is offensive sometimes and some of the reason why it keeps coming back as an issue is a sense of frustration which is better aired, up to a point. --BozMo talk 09:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" In this diff Bozmo defense William Connolley's personal attacks and uncivil disruptions.

• What remains is the same trivial mudracking we've seen before. It's a spurious pile-on request and should be discarded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Calling trolls and POV morons trolls and POV morons isn't incivil, it's the truth. Truth is the ultimate defense to defamation. -- 166.135.160.248

• 2over0 calls another editors work "tendentious and unproductive"- 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just a small sample of the nastiness and incivility that editors working in that subject area have to put up with constantly. It needs to be addressed. Admin 2over0 and BozMo have only encouraged it by going after editors they don't agree with and protecting the William Connolley crowd. It really needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And it should be noted that in addition to the relentless trolling of my contributions by Tarc, who isn't involved in any articles I'm working on, and the harassing intimidation engaged in by Bigtimepeace, who's also not working on any articles with me and isn't involved in any disputes with me except those he's now seekign out here and elsewhere, I'm also being taunted by sock puppets like User:संपादक who was just indefinitely blocked, and PhGustaf, who had no edits today, suddenly popped up to taunt me when I was requesting review of my block. So if we want to deal with abusive trolling and harassment, I'm all for it! Let's get started on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase was 'old fruit', not 'old fruits', and is British slang, similar to 'old bean'. It is possible but hasn't been demonstrated that the reference was meant to mean an old gay person. I guess I should also point out that this was discussed ad nauseam by a number of editors, not just BozMo. It came up in a request for enforcement against WMC at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement by Mark Nutley, but I've just noticed that Mark actually struck through that particular complaint. There is now a request for enforcement against CoM there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM, I was the individual referred to as the "Old Fruit", and I certainly didn't get the "pip". Under your specious arguments, it is very fortunate that WMC did not conclude his comment by saying "Tally Ho!" I shudder to think what your reaction to your understanding of the meaning might have been... To mix a British and an American term; stop walking around with your fanny in your hands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why CoM has included my comment above. It's another instance of the comments made about his project space edits on the recent RfC/U. His edits do seem to be disruptive at the moment, following this unblock. Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Question for BozMo

Bozmo, you blocked CoM at 18:32, 12 Feb, citing Disruptive editing: offensive language, assumption of bad faith etc on the block log [11] and referring to CoM's comments that RyanPostlethwaite links to at the top of this thread. But nine hours a little over a day before the block, you made this comment on the "General sanctions" report page [12], defending a comment William Connolley made -- against ChildofMidnight:

On the other point there is a difference between calling an editor malicious or an edit malicious. Compare "foolish". I make foolish edits sometimes and would not consider having an edit called foolish a PA. Calling me foolish would be quite another matter (I may be as well but it is a PA to say so). But I do not think this request is other than good faith. People do feel that WMC is offensive sometimes and some of the reason why it keeps coming back as an issue is a sense of frustration which is better aired, up to a point. --BozMo talk 09:23, 11 February 2010

What I don't understand is how you could decide that Connolley's statement about "malicious edits" (which, in fact, can only be made by a "malicious editor"), directed to an editor Connolley knew might get upset, were acceptable, while CoM's similar comments to an admin were blockworthy. It looks suspicious to me, but perhaps you have a reasonable explanation. (I don't think Connolley's statement should have gotten him into trouble either, because implying that an editor is acting maliciously in a particular situation is in the gray area of possible incivility on the AGW-complaints page where Connolley made the comment. We need to allow some leeway on complaint pages -- just as we need to allow it when editors are complaining on an admin's talk page -- where angry editors need a little allowance in making a complaint.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am interested in seeing his answer to this. It appears to me as though his hand has been caught in the cookie jar. Jtrainor (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that this question was raised after any serious examination of CoM's remarks, or of the reasons given for the block. CoM made several inflammatory edits for which he was correctly blocked. I have also said on Wiki that the block of Connolley was correct. However in the two cases the level of inflammatory language etc. was completely different. 2/0 has been widely thanked as an outside admin who dared come into a difficult probation area, where we are trying hard to calm things down. On principle accusing him of bias is possible and kind of freedom of speech, but the language in "grotesquely biased and damaging. It's played a large part in contributing to the frustrating and toxic environment" is gratutious, the technical accusation could have been made in a considerably politer way, and the language was inflamatory. 2/0's talk is widely watched by people of both sides, and neutral ones. The statement about "disruptive propagandists" was made in the context of a known group of good faith admins and editors who were engaged in various disputes with CoM. It was clearly written acknowledging that those he was refering to was known to him, 2/0 and readers of the page in general. The fact he does not give a list of names in my view is irrelevant, the comment was clearly intended to provoke. --BozMo talk 07:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the question was raised after a serious examination of CoM's remarks, and an examination of some of the remarks made to and about CoM, but I certainly haven't looked at everything. Please extend to me the same WP:AGF I'm extending to you. You haven't answered my question on whether you were applying a higher standard to CoM than to Connolley. You state: the language in "grotesquely biased and damaging. It's played a large part in contributing to the frustrating and toxic environment" is gratutious, the technical accusation could have been made in a considerably politer way, and the language was inflamatory. I agree completely. Having looked a bit at the AGW general sanctions page, I've seen quite a few statements, going months back, about which you could say the exact same thing, and yet which don't seem to have resulted in blocks, so we're really no closer to understanding why you singled out CoM (does anyone want me to provide diffs of these edits from other editors?). An editor who comments on an admin's talk page about that admin's actions, particularly after the editor has been subjected to the treatment CoM got on that sanctions page, should be given some leeway. CoM's comment sounds about as bad as others I've seen on the AGW reports page. You write, where we are trying hard to calm things down. Great! I think admin work there is very difficult, and I appreciate the efforts of admins who do it. This block didn't help, though. CoM was complaining about admins taking sides. Blocking him for behavior roughly similar to what those on the other side are getting away with kind of supports his point, doesn't it? [13] (tendentious to the point of outright disruption [...] That POV-pushers keen to misrepresent reality have been allowed to continue like this for weeks and weeks without sanction is, frankly, outrageous. [...] The constant insistence that this article be renamed to accommodate these non-neutral terms is highly disruptive, and serious consideration should be given to handing out topic bans. That's not from the complaints page, but from the article talk page on Feb. 5). I don't see a bright line that CoM crossed here (although when this thread is closed, I plan to have a friendly chat with him about civility and prudence). Back to my original question: I don't see how your comment about Connolley is consistent with your block of CoM, so would you please explain it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

←Since his unblock, ChildofMidnight has copy-pasted the same list of comments to the CC probation enforcement page that he posted above here. However he has unwisely added the following comments:

“ These are all comments from editors aggressively promoting AGW and seeking to censor to anything they disagree with no matter what how well sourced. Sadly, these comments weren't objected to, and instead we've seen a pattern of one-sided enforcements from 2over0, which is what I was objecting to in some of the above diffs. William Connolley was finally block after 7 or so filings and dozens of diffs by at least a dozen different editors, so I hope there is some hope going forward and that we won't see more abusive and disruptive incivility from Mathsci, Tarc, Nigelj, or Stephan Schulz, and that disruptions will be stopped no matter who the editors is engaging in it. ”

Since I do not edit GW articles and have expressed no view on WP whatsover about the topic, what he has written as applied to me is a malicious and deliberate lie. Possibly the same applies to other editors mentioned. This kind of wild and unreasonable personal attack on good faith editors must stop. It is one of the worst examples of disruptive editing by CoM that I have seen so far. He appears to think he can write anything he likes, no matter how nasty and how unsupported by fact. Perhaps if he wrote like this when blocked on his talk page, venting his anger; that might possibly be overlooked; but this appalling behaviour cannot be condoned on project pages. If he is incapable of controlling his tone or being careful about what he writes, he should be indefinitely banned from participating on project pages. This is not a form of censorship: it is the straightforward consequence of his flouting the views of the community, unequivocally expressed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. I don't have a grudge against CoM, who is capable of being charming and of making good points occasionally on project pages (eg his suggestions about unblocking Peter Damian); however, on climate change he seems as unruly as he was in Obama articles and, as evidenced by the above passage, regards WP as a form of WP:BATTLEGROUND where he is above all rules. It's hard to see how this can continue. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, you seem to have had an animus against CoM. [14] [15] Is it really necessarily a a malicious and deliberate lie that CoM is telling about you simply because you do not edit GW articles and have expressed no view on WP whatsover about the topic? Isn't it a pretty small point that you haven't edited those articles, and isn't it his real point that you are repeatedly provoking him with your over-the-top language? You complain about his tone, but your tone in so many comments about him or to him doesn't exactly set an example. When you say, If he is incapable of controlling his tone or being careful about what he writes, he should be indefinitely banned from participating on project pages. Couldn't that description apply to your interactions with him on that page? What's the nature of your relationship to William Connolley, who was in a conflict with CoM, apparently for some time? Could that have some affect on how you view CoM? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly CoM posts rapidly and does seem (deliberately or accidentally) to get facts wrong in his favour. For example [16] where stating to another admin there was a consensus in his favour of unblock he states that [17] "until I requested review of my block and then "popped up" almost immediately to comment" whereas a quick check reveals the editor to have 2390 edits steadily back until 2007. Off course we all assume good faith and don't check most of the time... --BozMo talk 09:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues like that (and I'm personally extremely familiar with the "getting facts wrong," aspect see here for just one recent example) are the reason for the "remedy" thread above where a concrete proposal has now been put forward. I hope some more people can weigh in there and we can come to some sort of agreement, otherwise we'll be back here (or somewhere else) discussing these same issues at some point in the future, and this has really gone on far too long as it is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think people who are upset should be expected to get every fact right, especially when they're embroiled in something. I think when this is pointed out to them they should be expected to correct themselves later if they haven't already been corrected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that, but the problem of "getting facts wrong" has been a long-term one for C of M. To take just one example (already linked above so maybe you saw it), this recently happened quite blatantly on my talk page. C of M claimed I made a statement (which was actually made by another editor on my talk page) and accused me of lying as a result, I corrected him, and he then removed his statement without acknowledging its inaccuracy, instead replacing it with the comment that he "just wants the abusive harassment to stop" (this is also inaccurate, but whatever). Surely you can see how that would be quite annoying, and this is not a one-off incident—for many months ChildofMidnight has been complaining (all over the place) about "things I've done" which simply did not happen, I correct him, and he continues to say them. For the most part I stopped correcting quite some time ago, and it really does not bother me on a personal level since his claims are basically ridiculous and admins have to expect complaints, both legitimate and not. But there are many editors who have had similar experiences, and really no one should have to endure persistent attacks with little or no basis in fact. Understand I do not at all think that C of M is willfully misrepresenting the truth, but often when he gets it in his head that person X did bad thing Y he won't drop it but rather repeats it over and over, the facts be damned. Again I'm sure you would agree that this is a problem, and it's part of the larger concerns about general incivility and battleground mentality which had consensus in the user conduct RfC.

I'd actually be very interested to see if you have any ideas on how to address those concerns going forward. I think maybe ChildofMidnight would view you as a good-faith arbiter, and personally I'm just interested in whatever keeps these kind of incidents from cropping up in the future, which might require someone whom ChildofMidnight sees as trustworthy pointing out that there are legitimate concerns here which means some behavior has to change. Voluntary arrangements along those lines are much more desirable than formal restrictions as far as I'm concerned, but unfortunately we've been forced to start entertaining the possibility of the latter at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, during the embarassing amount of time I've spent looking into this (and just scratching the surface of most of it), I haven't found that you've acted badly anywhere, BTP. And I have a lot of respect for you, based on reading your comments and interacting with you in the past. I completely disagree with CoM on that. There's been a bunch of constructive comments friendly editors have added to his talk page over the past few days. (This wise one is worth laughing through [18].) For the short term, that's going to help more than anything I can say. He obviously finds it more difficult than most of us to put up with the bad behavior associated with POV pushing, and to a degree I share his frailty/outrage there. He also has higher expectations than I think are realistic about admin professionalism. And he obviously hasn't had, shall we say, a perfect reaction to all that. And about his conduct, I think I'll leave it at that for now and try to have a discussion with him in private if he'll allow it (his emails were off the last time I tried using them, and he told me then he wasn't using email). Maybe that would help for the long(er) term. Ultimately, any editor here has to accept the (very real, very annoying, very difficult) limitations of this place and either decide to live with it, try to change it, walk away, go rogue or be kicked out. I don't get the impression he wants the last three options, so I'll try to talk with him. While his (and my) frailties in dealing with the Wikipedia Zoo are personal responsibilities, good unbiased admin work in monitoring the AGW general sanctions is a social responsibility. I appreciate your reasons for not wanting to engage in AGW as an admin -- at present I don't want to engage in it as an editor for much the same reason -- but experienced, level-headed admins who monitor their own POV and who are willing to put the time in could make a difference there. It's a pity Wikipedia makes this so difficult for both the administrating and editing tasks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here's the problem. CoM gives the appearance of extreme missionary zeal against the scientific consensus view of global warming. Every debate with CoM over conduct relating to this ends up being framed by CoM in terms of long rants about how AGW is evil and therefore any Wikipedia user or admin who takes action against any opponent of AGW is evil. The issues of behaviour are never addressed, it's always framed in terms of sides in the war. Long experience of this kind of user indicates that it is extremely rare for them to be able to contribute productively in areas where they feel this deep emotional commitment. Topic bans are only partially successful since the most determined do not edit in other areas and will spend endless hours debating whether a given article is or is not within scope, when the edits in question always are about the problem topic. This is a natural consequence of the fact that Wikipedia is now perceived as the single most important place to have your POV reflected. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  This really is the heart of the matter; it isn't the topic that is the problem, it is the editor. Replace every mention of "global warming" there with "Obama", and we have the same situation that presented itself back in March of 2009. Editors who become repeat offenders in different topic areas need more than a topic ban to curb this sort of behavior. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Speaking of editors, Tarc, you're one of the ones CoM claims are misbehaving toward him, and there do seem to be a number of diffs to show his concern is justified. Just last week, I brought up your own overall uncivil behavior toward a number of other editors, including CoM and me, and that resulted in an admin giving you a civility warning. [19] When CoM says a number of editors are repeatedly treating him badly, well, he's got some of your diffs to put up as evidence. [20] [21] [22] If CoM is brought to ArbCom anytime soon, I'm sure your interactions with him won't be ignored. Does anyone know if CoM had major conflicts outside politics? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  No, Barber, an admin closed the discussion, and another admin came after the fact with a "suggestion", which I rejected. As I noted there, you don't get to troll through other user's edit histories and cherry-pick things you don't like; if any of those editors in those conversations objected to something I said, then they were and still are perfectly free to seek redress in the Wikipedia'a appropriate venues. YOU are not, as you have no standing or claim. If I say something to you, then by all means file a complaint. Do not advocate for others; it isn't your place.

  As for ChildofMidnight, his behavior is verging on the disturbingly pathological ; nearly every comment of his, here and on other user's talk pages, is filled with "please do something about User X, User Y, and User Z harassing and abusing meee!!!!" (X, Y, Z change from time to time) rhetoric, yet it is clear to most commenting here that he is the one who is doing the harassing and abusing to others. Remember, we have the two shining examples; the attacks on the RfC closer, and the wonderful episode that we call ChildofMidnight's Nazi Incident. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Guy, focusing solely on personal responsibility on CoM's part explains very little about a bad block nor promote personal responsibility among a range of editors on both sides over at the AGW articles, a broader problem that keeps coming back to the drama boards. From what I've seen, CoM doesn't look like the description you're giving. Please see my reply to BTP at 18:35, 15 Feb. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I saw what you did there. I don't think it's a bad block, any more than any block of a determined POV-warrior and serial timewaster is bad. Bring a set of evidence against an AGW proponent who has been as tendentious and who has been as consistent in framing every attempt to address conduct as being about taking sides in the dispute. Of course we have the usual WP:FRINGE problem; as has been noted before there are basically no scientific review articles which dispute the two base premises of increasing CO2 and consequent warming, and no scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a contrary position, but around half of all discussion in the non-scientific media presents an overall sceptical view. There are strong overlaps between opposition to AGW theory and opposition to evolutionary theory; both are dominated by the US right and are of much less significance elsewhere in the west; both involve people with deep emotional investment demanding that scientists prove a negative, both involve a largely non-scientific group opposing a strong consensus formed over time within the scientific community, an essentially liberal body of thought. I find it interesting that Pascal's wager, which is logically incomplete in the case of the existence of God, applies far more closely to the issue of AGW. But here again we stray onto the issue of content; fundamentally the problem is CoM's behaviour not the content he advocates - obsessive personalisation and factionalising of a dispute. Topic ban or site ban, I don't care, I've just seen one rambling conspiracy-based whine-fest too many from this user. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

As I believe the Arbitration Committee are in the best position to handle the behaviour of ChildofMidnight, I've filed a request for arbitration which can be viewed here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruption from an administrator

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. File an WP:RFC/U if you have an issue with Tbsdy; this noticeboard is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. NW (Talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) What is going on with this administrator Tbsdy lives, he has been repeatedly disruptive at multiple locations since he was re-sopped here? Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Could you provide some examples of the behavior you mean to highlight? —Soap— 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) The header of this page quite clearly says to include diffs, and, as an immensely experienced user, you should anyway know that your comment above is useless and unhelpful. Please provide clear evidence. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 18:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I will if it is required but everyone has seen his edits have been repeatedly disruptive, in fact that is all I have seen from this editor since he returned, first it was the pictures he added to his talkpage and since then it is the baiting of Giano, a blind person has seen it, do you really want diffs? Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, it's bloody required. As is notifying Tbsdy of this thread (which I believe you failed to do). What's the matter with you? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC) To be fair, I reverted his comments to me on my talk page, as I didn't really know how to respond - certainly he didn't provide me with any evidence of disruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) No, the comments on your talkpage did not notify you of this thread. He didn't do what was required of him, and it's inexcusable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC) If you could provide some direct evidence of where I have disrupted the flow of articles, I would appreciate this so that I can take corrective action. Could you provide some diffs? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I tried to help him when first came back and told him he has been away to take a step back and see how things are here, he was in dispute then and adding pictures representing editors he was in dispute with in a negative way, I was surprised that an administrator was acting in sucjh a way then and I advised him to step back as he had been away, but since then he has been continuing along the same path and is actually the center and cause of the disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC) There was an etiquette notification where this was all hashed out and I gave some detailed reasoning behind why I added the images. This has now been archived now though, is this your evidence? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC) A blind person has seen the way you have been disrupting the general editing environment here since your return, what evidence do I need, you know yourself what you are doing. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You have said this before. If it is so obvious, then please, I welcome specific criticism of my actions so that I may consider whether I need to change something. I am definitely willing to discuss the issues further, I would be fine to discuss this on WP:AN, after all this is what I created it for. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I know basically nothing about the backstory here, but this is not going to yield anything. Off2riorob has a problem with Tbsdy. Step one is to talk about it on that editor's talk page. If that has not worked, and you think others might have a similar problem and tried unsuccessfully to resolve it, then an RFC is the thing to do. Tbsdy seems quite willing to communicate, so I suggest you take this matter to his talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC) In all fairness to Off2riorob, he did make an attempt, but I couldn't work out what he wanted me to do I reverted him. If he could send me a more specific message then I'll discuss this with him. However, I am more than happy to hash this out here, if nobody has any concerns about this. If it is not felt to be appropriate then that's fine also, I'll go with what others want to do. Unfortunately, I am about to go to bed, so this might have to wait till another day :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Yes I did attempt to talk to him on his talkpage, he deleted it out of hand, Tbsdy lives you have been at dispute resolution boards since your return, would you deny that you have been involved in multiple disputes since your return? Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You tell me! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Note—I have issued Off2riob a warning on his talkpage, for his behaviour here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban not on the admin noticeboard

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.

Unified discussion now at the thread below this one. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

---

see also: wp:ani#A topic ban not on the admin noticeboard — Jack Merridew 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm at a bit of a loss to know where to post this, so I've also posted on WP:AN/I. Please feel free to remove from either one. However, I was wondering whether the following topic ban proposal for myself should be conducted here or on ANI? And if not, where should it be announced so that an appropriate cross section of the community gets to comment? Also, who will be the admins who administer this ban? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the last, I would be content to allow you to administer it; you do have some aptitude in adminning, and you are fundamentally a sound individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm... he's the SUBJECT of the ban. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What, administer my own ban? LOL! I don't think that would regular, surely? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy

On my own initiative, I am archiving this thread. I hope any similar threads will be archived as well. Tbsdy has indicated that he is heading off for the night; hopefully when he comes back online tomorrow, things will be more rational. If a new thread is started tomorrow, could it please be held here, on the Administrators' noticeboard, with no subheadings? Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• DOCUMENTATION: diff of archiving and suggested constraints: "no subheadings." Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Note, this was originally held on the article talk page. The discussion has been removed from this thread by the nominator. Sorry, I'm tired, this is not the case, the comments are still in the thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Based upon Tbsdy's behavior at Talk:Blenheim Palace particularly--and towards Giano in general-- and commentary both there and across several other pages, I propose that Tbsdy be banned from editing Blenheim Palace and interaction-banned from Giano. Clearly, from his commentary at that talkpage, nothing else will get him to disengage. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (topic/interaction ban for Tbsdy). Scottaka UnitAnode 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is basically already the consensus, but I suppose formalizing it with a poll might be the only way to get it enacted. If you'll take a look at WP:ANI#Bounty board template and article ownership and Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise, you'll see that it has been recommended to Tbsdy, by nearly every editor that came to comment, that he refrain from editing the article in question and that he stay away from User:GiacomoReturned. He stated in no uncertain terms that he actually plans to pay extra attention to this article and Giano's edits. We'd therefore like the de-facto ban formalized. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:16, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - for the record, I think that given the circumstances, I have been extremely civil towards Giano. Giano has told me to shove a olive branch up... somewhere. He's told me that I'm a liar, has already banned me from the article (see the talk page), has threatened to have me banned as a vandal, has informed me that I'm incompetent, has been harassing another editor I wanted to collaborate with and basically intimidated them so badly they left the article for good and has categorically rejected suggestions for improving the article. The one who has submitted this ban proposal recently started edit warring with Jeni to remove the bounty box from the talk page, and eventually when they were asked why they removed it were pretty much forced to readd it back in. You'll have to forgive me for feeling that all of Giano's proponents have popped up and want to lynch me! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  You really need to put down the stick about the bounty box. It's a hackneyed, tired argument, and Equa and I reached a suitable compromise, of which you had no part. You've been a problem at that article, and all surrounding Giano for several days now. It needs to stop. Hopefully this does it. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Well, you did edit war, and you did make a claim that the editor was being WP:POINTy about the bounty box, in other words you accused them of being disruptive, when they did no such thing. I note that the admin discussion that was ongoing there was shutdown by one of the supporters of me being banned, this seems to me to be no coincidence. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Put down the stick. This is about you, and your actions surrounding that article and Giano in general. Stop trying to deflect and dissemble. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  You started a thread here about him. Do you expect him not to participate? Beach drifter (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not, I'm merely stating the fact that you are not what I'd call an uninvolved party. In fact, your edit summary was almost precisely the same as Giano's when he removed the template. Every one of your assertions against that editor proved to be false. The editor was not violating WP:POINT and the template was not cluttering up the page (you moved it down the page - your actual reason was you didn't like the picture of the pirate). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't speak to anything else here, having had little to no experience with Tbsdy or Giano outside of one page, but I have to say that on that one page Giano is really being an A$$. he's contributed nothing except a protracted string of 'this is a stupid idea' type comments mixed liberally with open or veiled complaints about Tbsdy, administrators, and wikipedia in general. If I had to choose which editor I wanted to deal with, it's a hands down no-brainer in favor of Tbsdy. you are all seriously worrying about the wrong person here. --Ludwigs2 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure of this thread

• I hope you don't mind, but I got rid of the poll structure. It's really not necessary and encourages factionalism. Tbsdy, my advice to you from the ANI thread still stands. NW (Talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Er, why is this showing a collapsebox? I'm confused. So confused. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I collapsed the portion of this thread that dealt with moving it off the talk page, as it's already been moved. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:10, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. And into the drama pit you enter I also see. Nice :-) Thank you for doing this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
        • What point do these type of comments serve, other than as baiting other editors? Placing smiley's doesn't ameliorate your actual commentary, Tbsdy. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Er... I thanked you for taking this here, even if you think it's a drama pit. Nothing untoward there. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't think it's appropriate to hide these comments. I do feel they show that UnitAnode is taking everything I say, even polite things, fairly badly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about interaction on Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks

• So a question is - if I am not allowed to interact with Giano (nothing would give me more pleasure), then does this mean that I can still shepherd in the Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks proposal? Giano has basically camped out there, and it was really at his invitation that I reviewed the Blenheim Palace article. I think it might be a little unreasonable to stop me from using the incivility blocks talk page, given that I've been driving it through. Really, Giano has said some horrible things about me, and managed so far to derail discussion at every turn on that page. Would it be reasonable to ban me from Giano's article but allow me to edit the proposed policy page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  No. Your moving his comments around as "shepherd" of that page is part of the problem. If it's a good policy proposal (in my view, it's awful), it will be fine without you "shepherding" it. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I believe you made this point before, to which I responded and you then told me I was harassing you. Did you wish to discuss this now? I can if you would like. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Would someone get this guy to let it go? I'm tired as hell of dealing with his continual deflections. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Er, you raised the point about the move of the talk thread, not me. My question is whether I get to continue editing the Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing that up; my take on that proposal is that it is clearly intended to be a mechanism that is to be first-employed as a schedule for blocking Giano which, of course, requires an incident to invoke it. Who's involved in all of this? Jack Merridew 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not at all - in fact, if you look at my comments in the start of the talk page you'll notice that when his name was brought up I couldn't work out what was being talked about. I more had editors like Nothughthomas in mind. I guess this might apply to Giano, I don't know as I'd not block him myself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I know that you've had a few years at a lower level of participation and that you've probably missed stuff. There's enough on that page, that you now know where to look. You guess this might apply to Giano?? It seems tailor-made for a down-on-Giano agenda. And there are all those ANI threads someone ought to post a list of. I guess this page needs clerks. Anyway, I'm glad that you see that you're not one to be doing any blocking of our bear of an editor ;) Oh, I vaguely recall Nothughthomas, but not the details; I note that the user is blocked, but didn't look at by who or why. I'll assume it's for the best. Anyway, I'm not signing above as I hope you'll be agreeable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (see today's userpage;)

  You are rather seeing a conspiracy that doesn't exist, or at least I have not been involved if there is one. The only thing I remembered about Giano was how upset he was when years ago I took his article to FARC, because I thought it more like an essay than an article. I distinctly remember him insulting me then, as he does now. But really, the incivility block proposal has nothing to do with Giano and I wasn't targetting any one editor. I was genuinely surprised when his name was mentioned. If I knew the drama that would ensue, I wouldn't have asked for clarification, believe me on this one. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Could be; I've not stepped through those pages in detail. You say above that you're tired, and I see why. Take NW's advice, below, and get some rest. I'm pretty sure this isn't going to stick but if you persist, something will. Overall, I'm not much fussed about language; they're just fuckin' words. See my new userpage; it's dynamic like my talk page edit notice, but *moar*. Come back in 8 hours after sleep and then caffeine. Jack Merridew 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I freaking love that talk page notice. I'm seriously going to steal it some time, if you're OK with that. Time for bed - I can't believe I've stayed up all night because of this! Damn. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ya, you can use my code; any time after I hit 'save' at least. Use other quotes, though; LotF is mine ;) Jack Merridew 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Subheaders in this thread

• Hey, why is this being subdivided up again? Another admin took out the divisions - I don't really think we need an unofficial artificial section header. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What is your problem? I'm trying to offer the thread a bit of organization with some subheaders. Why are you removing them? I've left the discussion subheader removed, but the others can stay. Why have you removed them? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:40, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not really long enough to subdivide. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • And if I think it is? It might not be all that long, but it is confusing to look at, especially to those who aren't privy to the situation. Do you have any particular reason for objecting to some subheaders? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:42, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think section headers will cast any real light on the situation. Perhaps you might like to rewrite the summary to make it more clear why you are proposing the ban? Wouldn't that make things clear to the uninvolved editor? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Do you have any reason to object to subheaders? I didn't ask if you think they'll help. Will they hurt the situation in some way, even if you don't agree they'll help? Why have you reverted them? Or are you just being difficult? Equazcion ^(talk) 20:46, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
            • I've re-added the subheaders. There's no reason to remove them. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:48, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
              • People are adding more and more comments to the bottom of the thread. I do hope you will be maintaining a new section heading for each comment, or this could get confusing. Up to you, it's your baby! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
                • Dude, I was about to reply to Ludwidgs, but you are moving comments around so much I can't find them! Can you please remove the subheadings? They are getting in the way of discussion. Seriously. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Tbsdy, I know this isn't really your fault, but can you please go off and do something else for a while? Fixing this one page isn't really that critical of a matter. If this thing can die down, we can resolve it amicably in a few days or weeks. NW (Talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm actually about to go to bed. But, uh, I didn't start this ban proposal! It's really got nothing to do with me... others decided that they wanted me banned, so I don't really think there's much I can do about this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Page creation problems

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this question:

Is there a technological way to prevent an editor from starting new pages? We've got an enthusiastic newbie that has started a number of stubs. Most of them have been promptly redirected back to the main article. For example, Symptoms of influenza was redirected to Influenza#Signs and symptoms within a couple of hours. There is usually far less information in the new page than at the original one.

The editor has been told, by myself and others, that he (or she) needs to search for existing articles and to add new information to the existing articles, and the advice has been received politely, but it doesn't seem to affect his behavior. Is there a way to simply turn off his ability to create new pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way to do that that I am aware of is to block them. I tried to get policy tweaked to require autoconfirmed status to create new articles but the proposal was rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the only ones who can't create pages are IP's. Note that this particular editor has 1500 edits so the autoconfirmed thing wouldnt affect him anyway. —Soap— 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• That's untrue. I've seen several pages created by IPs. HalfShadow 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mainspace pages? I mean, they can create talk pages, but Im pretty sure they cannot create new articles. If I go a title like dghdfhgdfgsfd as an IP and try to create the page, I get the "Unauthorized" message telling me to create an account so that i can start the article. —Soap— 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Older pages I'm sure. I think the restriction that you needed an account to write an article was put in around 2005 or 2006, soon after whenever the Seigenthaler thing happened. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may be looking at either talk pages (which can be created by IPs) or pages created through the AFC process (in which an IP can create a page and have it moved to the mainspace). TNXMan 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I'm sure I saw one a couple of days ago, but it was deleted pretty quickly, so I can't even prove it one way or another. I'll assume an error on my part, though. HalfShadow 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles created through the Articles for creation project would show up as having been created by IPs. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nodar Kumaritashvili

I'm on my way out for the rest of the day, but I just fully protected the article on Nodar Kumaritashvili, the young man who died on the luge course in Vancouver. I expect there to be a lot of requested edits, and there is at least one user who already wants to AFD it, so the more eyes on this while I'm off at the local homebrew competition the better. I'll check back in when I'm over my hangover tomorrow. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Administrator user page message

Anyone who knows this administrator, please look into this.

(Note: The above edit took place after [removed link/topic deleted] an exchange on Talk:Jimbo Wales] took an unexpected turn/tone.)

Someone who knows this administrator's history can perhaps interpret the situation appropriately as to response.
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 03:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could apologize? Just a thought. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:30, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

We can examine the rhetorical dynamics of the exchange later — the concern now is the interpretation of the reaction, and whether any steps should be taken regarding any implications. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no steps to take, in my opinion. The user is pissed off, and according to their talk page they'll likely be back after some time and some sleep. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:38, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, better safe than sorry. Let sleeping dogs lie. Outback the koala (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@Equazcion You are looking at a message from 2 days ago on the talk page. (Not the responses today). Proofreader77 ^(interact) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you think it's unexpected after your comment here [23]. Your comments were pretty unhelpful. He has plenty of latitude on his own talk page so I wouldn't worry about his edits. RxS (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're right. Still, I'd venture to guess the user is still simply pissed off. Nothing needs to be done as it's pretty clear he's still alive. Let's wait and see if he comes around. In the meantime, to facilitate that, it might be nice if you'd apologize, regardless of whether you feel you should need to. Rod seems to have been through some bad crap and your comments seem to have pushed him a bit hard. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:46, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Mischaracterization, Equazcion, frequently rises to the level of standard operating procedure in this realm (and in our public culture in general) ... and if I called bullshit on all of it, my time would be completely consumed with repetition of that one word.... yada yada yada

Now, as for the situation at hand, if editors who know this administrator's history and general patterns of behavior believe the situation requires no special action, then let this topic be closed, perhaps hat/hab collapsed.
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader, your philosophies aside, it would nevertheless be nice if you apologized to Rod. He seems pretty hurt by what you said, and again, he seems to have already been through some bad stuff. If only to keep him from perhaps doing something foolish, you could take it upon yourself to make a gesture that you don't rightly feel you should justifiably need to make. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:10, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, your initial comment to Rod was a completely gratuitous jab apparently made to give you a chuckle, which is keeping with almost every comment of yours I've ever seen on en.wikipedia. Then, after his obviously distressed reply, for you to go and say this is just gross. Treating fellow contributors with a modicum of respect is pretty essential to this project, and you were several light years away from doing that (starting this thread only compounded your original thoughtlessness). Personally I don't think people with you attitude belong here, and I'm disgusted enough by your actions to support banning you outright, particularly seeing as this is just one case and there seem to be a number of earlier troubling incidents. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

New users are regularly in the receiving end of such comments, and nobody cares when they say they will leave wikipedia. Sole Soul (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(12 hours later) the admin reverted their message

Now that the message has been clarified as a virtual message rather than a real emergency, an analysis of the situation can proceed if one is desired. (An administrator replacing their their user page with "

" for 12 hours in response to an interaction is a serious matter.) Note: I have prepared a first draft of diffs and analysis in a sandbox, should it appear they will be useful. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader77, what do you suggest be done to Rod? Can you be more clear? Sole Soul (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I bet you were made fun of alot in high school. I know because I used to talk like this too, before I decided to join the rest of humanity. There isn't much to analyze, and yes I took a look over your sandbox notes. Regardless of the administrator's overall editing history (which you could take up at RFC/U or ArbCom if you really feel he should be de-opped), you were acting like a dick (which as Bigtimepeace points out is not out-of-the-ordinary for you). No amount of clinical analysis of the past is going to change that. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:54, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sole Soul
I brought the message here initially because I did not have sufficient knowledge of the administrator's history to interpret that action (was it an emergency?).

I believe the most popular issue is now, not what to do about Rod's message ... but what to do with Proofreader77. :-) With respect to this situation, we can address both at once — but as for previous matters, I suggest all interested in expressing outrage regarding Proofreader77 wait for the RfAR regarding "Three bad blocks."
--Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

En attendant Godot ? Mathsci (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader, what we'll do with you is quite simple. You will simply shut up. One more word about this affair from you, and you'll be blocked for trolling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Proofreader, this thread should have been closed before Bigtimepeace decided to bring his grudge here. Just ignore them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill I assure you I have no "grudge" against Proofreader77 whatsoever. The only interaction I ever had with that editor previously was a lighthearted one (see for example the top of my talk page). Nonetheless I'm quite bothered by their interaction with Rodhullandemu, and there are clearly past examples of similar problematic behavior, hence several blocks. Surely you realize it's possible for one editor to have a problem with another's behavior without there being some sort of "grudge" involved, and I have no idea where you are getting that from. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Documentation for ArbCom: Current revision as of 20:06, 14 February 2010 Future Perfect at Sunrise (→Administrator user page message: warning) Allegation/aspersion of "trolling" for bringing serious matter to AN regarding administrator behavior. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the warning was regarding comments made before and after you brought the serious matter here, Proofreader. ArbCom isn't so stupid as to treat the heading of a section as a wholesale representation of the entire discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:16, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Proofreader's comments were pretty innocuous, and certainly didn't deserve the over the top response from Rod. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. I'd gladly swap lives with you, but I'm not sure you'd have the fortitude to resist the slings and arrows... etc. Rodhullandemu 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There isn't really any objective way to look at it. Comments are as innocuous as anyone feels they are. They clearly bothered Rod significantly though, and once that was clear, they shouldn't have been repeated, so long as they were part of an exchange that had no bearing on any Wikipedia process. That's part of what being a dick is all about -- doing things you know are bothering people, in the pursuit of nothing else in particular. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:23, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Appearing to threaten suicide over a jibe about Monty Python is pretty dickish in my book. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's only one editor acting like a dick here and it's Proofreader. I cannot believe anyone is spending a split second defending him. RxS (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I fully agree with Bigtimepeace's analysis above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you've ever been sufficiently upset to make that kind of statement, you'd know that Rod's and Proofreader's respective intents were very different. One was making statements he knew were pissing someone off, while the other was reacting to those taunts by being frustrated and irrational. There's only one clear dick in that scenario, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:35, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill your tone-deafness here is pretty mind-boggling. Rod obviously had some serious real-life difficulties of late (did you maybe miss that?), pointed that out after Proofreader made a snarky and utterly gratuitous comment about him, and then Proofreader continued the snark, before starting a thread here about the whole matter. Like RxS I can't see how on earth anyone can defend that. It's not an official rule around here as far as I know, but one would think that it's common sense to treat each another like human beings. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We usually block editors who make suicide threats, and quote "Wikipedia is not therapy" at those who use their real-world troubles to excuse outbursts on Wikipedia. Plenty of editors have very grave real-world matters affecting them but manage not to bring them onto Wikipedia. My advice to Proofreader is that the next time he sees an admin threaten suicide he keeps quiet and lets them get on with it, instead of coming here to ask if anyone can help. This thread should have been closed as soon as we saw that Rod was alive and editing normally again, it is a shame that Bigtimepeace chose to re-ignite it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the outburst policy, I don't really see an outburst, just a tag in userspace, which isn't something I'd call disruptive. And, threads often begin about one thing and become about something else, ie. WP:PLAXICO. Proofreader did the right thing coming here, but that doesn't excuse his prior behavior, which partially led to him even having anything to report. If you stab a guy in the leg and then call the cops when he threatens to jump off a building, you still get charged. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:53, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out for the record that, after some disruptive postings to this thread which were reverted, Proofreader77 was blocked for 48 hours by Future Perfect at Sunrise. This led to further posts by Proofreader77 on their talk page, and now User:Gwen Gale has blocked indefinitely. If this block needs any discussion I suppose this is as good a place as any to do it. Personally I support the block given Proofreader77's history and this latest incident. If there was an indication that the editor understood why their behavior was problematic I'd probably feel differently, but so far there's no evidence of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is occuring currently at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Proofreader77_Indef_Block_consensus_review. Probably best to keep the feedback over the indef in one place. --Taelus (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My broadband went down last night (presumably under the weight of Valentine messages) so I never got to add - why on earth does anyone think "go away, I'm dead!" was a suicide threat in the first place. Given the editor in question. Or perhaps its just not appreciating English (very)black humour? As for Proofreader77, I'll add my comments in the other place, but I won't miss him if he's gone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FPC closure request

Featured picture candidates normally close after seven days. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/French_mutilé,_1918 has remained open more than three weeks, mainly because most of the closers reviewed it. Anyone could close. Seeking closure, please. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed as promoted. Will need some help updating all the pages that need to be updated at closure; feel free to chip in or guide me on my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Will ask for a review at FPC talk. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 17:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A Change of Hands

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

---

Resolved

So I'm going to go to bed soon (It's been a long day) and I'd like for this to see the right eyes. A simple and short summary of what has transgressed so far. A new user creates an article in his/her namespace and then moves it into the mainspace and then I came along and moved it back into the namespace and requested a delete of the resulting redirect. The move was because of the low quality of the article in question. I'm not entirely sure I have done a very good job of informing the user of the reasons behind the move and resulting CSD request as I currently dead tired. So just passing this along so I can get to sleep and not have to worry. Rgoodermote  21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the mainspace redirect (and talkpage) and noted the existence of the article in the editors userspace. I find that giving the full address to new editors more helpful, since they might not know to click on the blue linked "here". I also note the welcome template you provided, and have suggested they review the "help" links while they continue adding to the content body. I would hope that what we have done is sufficient to allow the editor to continue contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (and from memory) all it takes is a small kick in the right direction and the rest comes second nature. They have the amount they need (plus the helpme template). I don't think there is much more we can do. I thank you for your time. Rgoodermote  01:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic/interaction ban of User:Tbsdy lives

Proposal

Based on his treatment of User:GiacomoReturned at Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise and this ANI thread, I propose a topic ban be imposed for User:Tbsdy lives for the article Blenheim Palace, and an interaction ban imposed on both users from interaction with, or comments regarding, each other.

Tbsdy has shown an inflammatory attitude towards Giano that has grown into a volatile situation. Against all recommendations both at the aforementioned ANI thread and at the article talk page, Tbsdy insists on continuing to scrutinize Giano's edits. Specifically, Giano has, in response to difficulties at the Blenheim Palace article, announced that he's preparing a userspace draft. Tbsdy announced in response that he'd be scrutinizing that draft once it's placed into mainspace, which further inflamed the situation.

There also seems to be some further history regarding some alleged hounding, harassment, and/or deliberate baiting by Tbsdy of Giano. The myriad of ANI threads posted by Tbsdy regarding Giano have been pointed out, along with some other pages and comments:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Giano/The spooky "Curse of Giano"
• ANI thread
• ANI thread
• ANI thread
• ANI thread
• Talk page comment
• Talk page comment
• Talk page comment

Tbsdy was told by several editors that it would be best if he laid off the article for a while, and ceased interaction with Giano. He's nevertheless made it clear that he intends to do the opposite. His subsequent interactions with users at the article talk page, and in multiple frivolous ANI postings, have been tendentious and unyielding. Therefore I think it would be prudent to solidify the aforementioned suggestions into a topic and interaction ban, so as to avoid further unpleasantness.

Giano is probably not entirely innocent in all of this. However, Tbsdy's attitude regarding Giano has escalated to the point that he doesn't seem to be seeking any sort of resolution, as he tends to further inflame the situation at every opportunity. I feel Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise offers a somewhat adequate picture of this. I'm coming at this from an entirely uninvolved standpoint, as before my interaction with Tbsdy on Talk:Blenheim Palace, I've had no significant previous interaction with either editor, so far as I can remember.

I propose the following:

• User:Tbsdy lives is banned from editing Blenheim Palace and Talk:Blenheim Palace for a period of 3 months.
• User:Tbsdy lives is banned from interacting with, or commenting about User:GiacomoReturned, for a period of 6 months.
• User:GiacomoReturned is banned from interacting with, or commenting about User:Tbsdy lives, for a period of 6 months.
• On Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks, a page on which both users have been participating, the users are banned from responding directly to each other's comments, or from speaking about each other, for a period of 6 months.

All the specifics are of course up for discussion if there is disagreement over appropriate time periods or whatnot. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:16, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Response from Tbsdy

I am disturbed by the assumption that I have been either trolling or baiting Giano. Others may make their own opinion, but as this has been raised before I would ask the following:

• Have I ever been incivil or rude to Giano on the talk page in question?
• Have I ever displayed trollish or baiting tendencies before - am I such an editor? I don't believe I have been accused of this before, and I don't agree that is what I am doing now.
• Have I ever made personal comments about Giano or asserted article ownership on the talk page of that article?
• Was my attempt at a compromise acceptable, and if not why not? I made this attempt in good conscience. I note that compromise is a two way street, I said that I was willing to leave the article alone, but that I would research the topic and when Giano was finished I would be happy to copyedit and provide references to improve the article in an attempt to get it to FA status.

Now given that I was trying to find a compromise, isn't this article ban discussion a little premature?

There are also a number of questions I think we should be asking about other parties that are involved in this ban discussion. Specifically I ask the following:

• Has Giano been rude or has he ever tried to intimidate myself or other editors on that article? I believe that he has, and there is evidence of baiting and hounding of Labattblueboy who has since disengaged from the article entirely, simply because of feeling under attack by this one editor.
• There were issues where a bounty board template was repeatedly removed. I filed an ANI case about this as the one reverting refused to discuss the matter (the editor is Unitanode). Unitanode originally filed the initial ban, yet he was in the process of edit warring. Is this proper, and was it proper for him to have asked for an interaction ban as well as an article ban on an article talk page? I have asked this a few times in the previous discussion, this was never answered.
• Has the nominator of this ban ever communicated via email or any means off the wiki in an attempt to coordinate a ban of me from this article with any other editor?
• Why did the nominator canvas all those who supported my ban last time, but not Ludwigs2 et al., who did not support the ban?

I will refrain from commenting further on this topic (unless I am asked directly about something) and I bow to the consensus of the community. My only ask is that this discussion be allowed to go for sufficent time that a number of editors can give feedback. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to note that I have a long-winded and extended summary of what I believe has happened to me in the past few days. It was written while I was exhausted, so hopefully it makes a reasonable amount of sense. It can be found here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Tbsdy, implied allegations against the nominator in the form of questions are unhelpful. Please desist from them. If you have any reason to think Equazcion has been conspiring to get you banned by means of off-wiki spamming, it's better to come out and say so. Bishonen | talk.

I suspect this to be the case. User talk:Unitanode#Ping and User talk:Unitanode#Ping again are the reasons. I would like them to confirm or deny this. If they don't want to, fine I suppose. If they want to deny it, then my question is answered. I leave it to their own conscience to tell the truth. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a good question to me. I wonder what the answer is. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My answer is on Chillum's talk page for whoever is interested. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:25, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

So the answer is yes. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Respond to my answer on Chillum's talk page. I'll be glad to either confirm or deny or provide an explanation for whatever your question is there. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:54, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that you are responding to my question on Chillum's page. You brought this thread into being. Why not just respond here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've answered that question on Chillum's talk page as well. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:04, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• The above accusations of bad-faith are simply more examples of problematic behavior from Tbsdy. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You were one of the ones doing the emailing. There is evidence you don't like me, you called me a "master-baiter", and when you were pinged on it you got very upset. I found the comment amusing, but many others did not. I can only assume you were trying to get me mad and get a reaction out of me. In other words, you did what you have accused me of doing, time and time again - baiting. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh stop. You're just trying to muddy the waters some more. As for "doing the emailing", it was little more than, "Do you want to help me redraft the proposal?" "No, but ping me when you've done so." "Okay, will do." That's obviously a paraphrase, but there was nothing nefarious. Scottaka UnitAnode 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • You said I was a "master-baiter". Later on you admitted you meant it as a pun. You were trying to needle me. Are you saying otherwise? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd say it's pretty clear he doesn't like you, Tb :) And yes he was one of the ones doing the emailing. Emailing is allowed around here, Tb. Don't assume bad faith, that the emails must have been a part of the perpetration of some violation. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:19, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • Now why would that be something to smile about? Emailing is allowed, but not to coordinate a ban discussion. I don't know if you recall, but it's very bad form to make admin decisions on the IRC channel. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • You've been told what the substance of the conversation was. You're choosing to willfully misrepresent (read: lie) about it now. You need to stop doing that right now. It's wildly inappropriate. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Emailing isn't allowed to coordinate a ban discussion? If you point me to that policy I'll concede that it was poor form and apologize. And I'm not an admin. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:18, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• I find this a tad unsatisfying. Tsby might have some issues with Giano, but he's frankly quite right that Giano has ownership issues over his article; the drafting of a userspace draft is unhelpful and uncollaborative in any respect, and I find it disturbing that the solution some propose is "there's plenty of articles, let Giano have this one". That's avoiding the underlying issue in part; what happens when other editors make the mistake of blundering into Giano's articles? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  Giano decided on the userspace draft only after his {{inuse}} tag was removed (not by Tbsdy), allegedly because it was seen as an assertion of ownership. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:58, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  What about this comment? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes please. TBSDY needs to leave Giano alone. TBSDY is either being disigenuous about his actions or he is completely unable to understand correct behavior (I suspect both). Giano is not blameless here, but TBSDY is absolutely the root of this problem; his baiting and antagonizing of Giano is unacceptable. ÷seresin 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as Tbsdy has shown a propensity to drag disputes with people he dislikes to completely unrelated pages, and to open unactionable ANI threads regarding the same people. Additionally, he has indicated that he will completely ignore the unanimous opinion of those who commented at Talk:Blenheim Palace that he refrain from editing that article, and leave Giano alone. If he won't honor that unanimous request, then it needs to be formalized in this manner. His harassing and baiting of Giano is unacceptable. Scott aka UnitAnode 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• support as a practical way of dealing with it. I expect that 6 months from now both editors will be otherwise engaged DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks as though this issue has gone away of its own accord; no need to stir things up again with a topic ban. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Tbsdy has promised that once Giano enacts his draft in mainspace that he'll "poor (sic) over it with a fine tooth comb". He's also stated that he "watches him ([Giano]) with interest". So although the arguing has died down in the past day, I don't think that's an indication that it's over, and there's a good chance it'll flair up again once Giano enacts the draft. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:39, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  I have already stated that was just poor wording and that I was only saying this because of the high standards of FAC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Those aren't recent diffs, E. I think this proposal just stirs up the drama again. Sorry. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  They're from yesterday. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:48, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  They're from over 30 hours ago, from before the dispute appears to have ended. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  That's a bit ludicrous. Tbsdy has made it clear he's going to keep hounding Giano, and the only reason he stopped was because NW basically demanded that he do so for 24 hours, with the understanding that this discussion would open after that point. Scott aka UnitAnode 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  I have never said this or even expressed such an opinion. For the record, I have never had nor do I have any intention of trolling, baiting or insulting Giano. I have previously expressed the opinion that I believe him to be corrosive and nasty, it was unwise of me to express these private opinions in a public setting and I have already apologised to him for this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) (to SlimVirgin): I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think this particular day-long break in the fight is an indication that it's over. The dispute seemingly "ended" a little over 24 hours ago only because User:NuclearWarfare requested that everyone take a 24 hour break from it. See the thread on his talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:00, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  My thinking is that once people have slept on an issue, they often decide not to revisit it—so long as it's left alone by others too. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  It's very encouraging, though, that when NuclearWarfare requested that everyone take a 24 hour break, they did. – ClockworkSoul 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed, as he requested this, that is what I did. I find it interesting that this has been raised again, I am also quite concerned that this was raised on the article talk page with the attitude that it there was a predetermined conclusion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think you did. This is from after the request was made... and after you agreed to it. Plus, the comment made to me (there are two comments in that diff) seemed like a baiting attempt. I said I was willing to wait 24 hours before resuming, to which you said "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, huh?" If you agree to wait, you're not supposed to make a comment that's likely to invite more argument. I don't see how that was constructive at all, and it's that kind of behavior that has me worried for the future of this dispute. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:04, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  I think resolution is better than control and wonder if control like this will stop the issue being resolved naturally. Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed. It seems to me that the past 24 hours at least suggests that both parties are not entirely unreasonable, and therefore probably capable of resolving the issue without administrative action. – ClockworkSoul 01:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support Equazcion's proposal. It doesn't matter which of the editors is most at fault; WP:HOUND is policy, and tbsdy is bound to follow it. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC).
• I'll support this with the durations as written. Tbsdy had the option to actually write revised text and show it out for consideration, whichever space it was in. That would have been an actual challenge. Instead they chose to just keep talking about what might happen next weekend, to no great purpose. Send 'em off to separate corners sez I. Franamax (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• I think something needs sorting here. I've discussed this with tbsdy and know that he was stressed due to being up too long. I'm hopeful that he will voluntarily agree to, ah, change tack. Giano's away for a few days, so the timing here is not best. I may revisit this tomorrow. Jack Merridew 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – While I would have expected better behavior form such experienced and respected editors, every single one of us has, at some time or another, been caught in the moment and taken things too far. As each of us also knows (or should know), administrative solutions like the one proposed tend to have unintended negative consequences; doubly so for bans with such long durations. It seems to me that reasonable persons might be "scare straight" seeing the discussion here, and as such I strongly recommend – for now – a stern community warning, which can also lay the groundwork for swift action if things don't quickly improve. I would hate to see yet more otherwise good, productive editors be driven from the project by either conflicts or their solutions. – ClockworkSoul 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding the suggestion that it might die down on its own since people have had time to sleep, and because they responded well to the request to take a 24-hour break: NW's request wasn't heeded initially. NW had to lock his talk page to get the dispute to stop. Also, this problem has been ongoing since at least 5 days ago, so presumably people have been sleeping during that time on occasion, and yet it has continued. Just pointing that out. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:52, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Could NW comment on this please? Was this due to any one participant? The comment above implies it was locked due to a particular party - was this the case? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I locked my talk page because all three participants (Tbsdy, Equazcion, Unitanode) were continuing to engage each other after I requested that they stop. This is the relevant diff. NW (Talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • All due respect, but my only comment following the request was to say I was willing to heed it. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:50, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • Err, you are probably right. I didn't exactly look too hard at what each of you was saying; I had just started to get annoyed that I was getting orange-barred every few minutes after I had explicitly requested that you guys cease your argument. Still, I think that it was a positive sign that the discussion ended after my 15 minute page protection. NW (Talk) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I'll have to apologise here, I didn't see the warning that you didn't want to discuss the matter any further. I never actually noticed you'd protected the page as I'd stopped responding there (I think I went to sleep, not sure of the exact timing of things, I was pretty tired). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No real basis for such an action. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose without prejudice pending actual dispute resolution. A couple of days' flurry of talk page threads and (mostly misfiled) admin board complaints are not the type of thing that should result in a sanction unless a substantial prior history of problems is demonstrable. Try WP:RFC, please. Preferably regarding the content, or resort to conduct if that fails. Mediation is another option. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sorry it had to come to this for Tbsdy. But it seems that history keeps repeating itself. Giano somehow acts as a magnet for weird occurences. The cummulative effect of this, the latest series of unfortunate events, is that the venerable Blenheim palace has now morphed into the O.K. Corral of editing decorated not by baroque-style ornaments but by silly pirate cartoons with birds on their shoulders announcing bounties custom-made for Giano as if he were not the Wikipedia editor he is, but Billy Clanton with Wyatt Earp on his trail. Obviously this nonsense has to stop, hopefully by mutual agreement and not by the use of the banhammer. However recent history, if it is any guide, is not very encouraging in that regard. But even the not-so-recent history involving Giano points generally in the same unfortunate direction. Unless cooler heads prevail, a showdown is inevitable followed by the usual drama of bans, retirements etc. I hope it will not be déjà vu all over again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Sigh I am hoping that this settles down.....hopefully this won't be needed. I am undecided about the need for this but the next few days will be enlightening hopefully. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a very small amount of activity to warrant imposing such bans, and in any event, the fireworks seem to have guttered out. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Other methods of disupute resolution have not been exhausted, and I don't see evidence of a long history of problems that would indicate that these recent incidents warrant this level of sanctioning. Hand out a few trouts, suggest nicely that both users retreat to a neutral corner for a few days, and lets see if this doesn't blow over on its own. Seeking proper dispute resolution should be a step in here, and we shouldn't jump to interaction and topic bans at the first sign of trouble. --Jayron32 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, tentatively. I'm a long-time reader, first-time editor, so my opinion may be worth little, however, I once observed this interaction between the admin in question and another contributor which seems eerily reminiscent of this current one. This type of aggressive interaction with editors seems to be the modus operandi of the admin in question. This was followed by a knock-down, drag-out combat with another admin in which the admin in question really became completely unhinged. There seems to be something not quite right here. The admin in question seems to feel a high-degree of ownership over wikipedia, which is great, but is being taken way too far and too often. I voted support but I would be fine to see some alternate arrangement if the admin in question agreed to some type of anger management counseling. Longtimelurkerfirsttimeeditor (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) (stricken sock vote -tarc)
  • As I suspected, this is a currently blocked editor. This has now been confirmed as Nothughthomas. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Longtimelurkerfirsttimeeditor for more info. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• support the admin has a history of these sorts of behaviors if you look at his old account. hard to believe he was allowed to regain admin status. typical of wikipedia though. --- 69.211.3.12 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You know, I was an ass for doing that, I can't disagree. It was an incredibly poor display of judgment, and definitely a violation of WP:POINT. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tbsdy isn't the problem here. Jeni ^(talk) 10:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Any Admin. caught up in this sort of strife is wholly unacceptable to me – regardless of provocation. Leaky Caldron 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – I don't think such drastic action is necessary. Restraint can be exercised without the formality of a ban here. XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- I would rather see them work it out without the need for control . Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: - I have some insight here that's rather recent. Tbsdy's tenacity is both commendable and frustrating (if you're on the other side). However, I don't think sanctions are necessary as they were not necessary in my entanglement with Tbsdy. We were able to take a break and resolve things quite amicably and I have no doubt that similar results could be found here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, -- i.e., support no action, since this has obviously become a poll. I oppose because four proposals were made and polls are therefore misleading if most arguments center on one of them. I see no sign that Tbsdy is unresponsive, requiring community action, but if there is going to be action based on consensus, let it be clear what single action is being supported or opposed. --Abd (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem with bringing it here

Herein lies the problem with bringing this discussion here. There are people commenting, who clearly haven't bothered to read the Blenheim Palace talkpage, and the surrounding problems that Tbsdy has caused in regard to Giano particularly. I knew this would happen, and that's why I thought the discussion should be limited to those who were participating at the page from which Tbsdy should be banned. Of those people, I can't think of more than 1 or 2 that expressed any support for Tbsdy's methods and antagonism of Giano. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I've read the talk page and a few of the other pages this discussion branched out to. As far as the Blenheim article and Tbsdy's interactions with other editors on its talk page go, there seems to be a fair degree of overreacting and drama going on, but that's not solely from Tbsdy's part. I don't think we need to go through the formality/harshness of a topic ban in order to resolve this matter. Of course, I might be wrong. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can actually understand the opposition due to the duration of the problem. Many of those familiar with the situation do support it though, and I think to some degree the opposition is coming from people who aren't entirely privy to it. It's my belief that this situation won't solve itself. Tbsdy has IMO shown a personality type that won't allow it. Nevertheless if this proposal is defeated I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:31, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Resolved

WP:UAA has a very large backlog of 29 names, and really needs tending to. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleared now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:91.198.174.201

I think one of the AIV Helperbots is editing while logged out. Jus' sayin' caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this might sound a little drastic, but have we ever considered anon. blocking the toolserver IP, but allow logged in accounts to edit? This would stop this sort of thing. Not sure it's a huge issue though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Though, even when logged out, the bots edits are still useful. Moreover, the IP's userpage is suitably tagged, so anon blocking strikes me somewhat as a solution in search of a problem; so long as the bot doesn't malfunction any further than that. What would be more useful is seeing if an IP could be flagged as a bot, to avoid cluttering up the recent changes. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think someone commented a couple of months ago that the standard Pywikipediabot code checks whether it is blocked in a way that would be triggered by a block on the IP. That is, it was claimed that blocking the IP would disable many useful tools. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate article move, after discussion with no clear consensus at

A contested move just went through (Outline of Palestine --> Outline of Palestinian Territories), even though there was no clear consensus on the matter. ] -- please see the move discussion. This clearly should have been closed "no clear consensus" per WP:RM, but a [User:Ucucha] who supported the move, went ahead and did the move anyway. (I'll also note that I did not notice the move discussion until just now, and didn't take part in it, but would have voted "Oppose" myself as well, for many of the reasons given there.) I think the move should be undone, until a move discussion results in consensus about this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)