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

GoRight

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the wikilawyering on display at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/GoRight_on_Pcarbonn is exactly the sort of thing that Viridae's indefinite block 0f 01/04-01/06 was intended to prevent. GoRight was given a last chance, and that's been blown. I think an indefinite block would be the best solution here. GoRight has a history [1] of engaging in battles, tendentious editing, and wikilawyering to the detriment of the project. I have no idea why GoRight chose to involve themselves in the Pcarbonn situation. Editors with histories of blocks or restrictions for disruption should not be tolerated when they muddle community discussions by backing each other up. I feel that I've been wrongly sanctioned, so I'm going to try to disrupt the placement of sanctions against anybody else is a form of WP:POINT. Does any uninvolved administrator or editor object to reinstating Viridae's block? Jehochman ^Brrr 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

←The current procedural disruption by GoRight seems to be a continuation of his "mock" mentorship of Abd and all the disruption surrounding that. GoRight seems to be gaming the system and wasting a lot of other users' time. MastCell has explained to GoRight why the decision on Pcarbonn represents consensus.[2] If GoRight does not understand what consensus means and why points that have already been discussed at length cannot be endlessly revisited and dissected in a legalistic way, perhaps wikipedia is not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplement to the above: specific diffs, for the diff-oriented.[3][4] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris, I've tried being friendly with GoRight,[5] but he's just not listening. My block finger is getting that itchy feeling. Shall we get evil and vote on the merits of a block, or should we start an WP:RFC/U, or go straight to WP:RFAR? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

GoRight Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support pending GoRight agreeing to a restriction that addresses the concerns raised regarding tendacious opposition and commentary where there is an existing consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the issues raised in the original section. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Months ago, after Jed (surname withhold) was banned from Cold fusion, GoRight raised all of sort of technicalities to contest the ban, saying that Jed was being treated unfairly, etc. GoRight never addresed the actual reason for the ban: that Jed was an unrepentant POV pusher who had posted that he came back to wikipedia just to annoy us and also posted that he had no intention of helping to write the article (yeah, Jed actually wrote that, no, I'm not going to go through 35 pages of archives to locate the diff). I see that during all this time GoRight has been doing the same in other topics, raising procedural points with no regard to what actually improves the encyclopedia and its content. This is not one isolated obfuscation over one issue on an otherwise good contributor, this is a long term behaviour of disruption. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Opposed GoRight maintains faith in others and wiki principles in the face of those who chose to ignore them with prejudiced attack. An indefinite block is abusive for an editor who openly discusses concerns and has shown productive reform for good Wikipedia ways. The block itself is not helping wiki and is creating a disruption, it should be removed and folks should move on.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, though not surprised. GoRight should know by now that "unrepentant POV pushers" are only allowed on the "good" side of a contentious topic. Perhaps, instead of altering behavior, GoRight should instead alter his POV, flip sides to the other side of the GW debate, and within a month I'm sure he'd be lauded as a gallant defender of the wiki. ATren (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Expressing views in a AN/I process should not be actionable. Also, since consensus was not reached above, this block seems unwarranted. JPatterson (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know why we're listing these opinions under bullet points, but obviously GoRight should be required to conform to community norms before he is unblock him. Oh wait, didn't he agree to do that when he was indefinitely blocked by another administrator just a couple of weeks ago? How many last chances does he get? --TS 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't help but think of being arrested for "resisting arrest" - I once told 2/0 that he is too biased to be overseeing the global warming related articles, and this selective vision of his even more proof of that statement. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support (but why are we !voting anyway?). Viridae blocked GoRight indefinitely not long ago because of exactly the same problems. At some point you just have to say "enough is enough" and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: at this point, the difference between "indefblock+request to 'agreeing to a restriction that addresses the concerns raised regarding tendacious opposition and commentary where there is an existing consensus'" (as LVHU puts it) and the "community sanctions" previously discussed, is not that great. There is a long-term pattern of problematic behaviour, and at this point the editor in question needs to muster enough self-awareness and self-control to agree not to continue in the same vein, and then to stick to that promise reasonably well. Rd232 ^talk 01:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose GoRight has been under attack by a faction of editors for over two years. I don't see a way that this will resolve short of ArbComm, and it's likely to be messy. Typical of the actions GoRight was questioning, and of his own block now, are personal judgments made with inadequate evidence, without dispute resolution process or warnings by neutral editors or admins. What happens is that an involved editor or admin provides a warning, which is ineffective because the bias is obvious and the warning is (maybe correctly!) seen as bullying. There are editors who have commented here who shouldn't have touched this with a ten-foot-pole, but they have heavy axes to grind, and it will come out, it will be obvious when evidence is compiled. Please be careful, folks, it's easy to make snap judgments about this that are dead wrong. I'm not going to argue here, this is my only comment, but if anyone has questions -- not useless debate, but, say, a request for explanation or evidence -- my Talk page is open, and so is my email. --Abd (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Block review of User:Jpat34721

See also: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

NOTE: This user is blogging comments related to this discussion here. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for some more eyes on the indefinite block just implemented on this editor by Jehochman. I had been following a discussion initiated by the editor on the COI noticeboard about User:William M. Connolley here. The point, which I understand has been raised before, is whether WMC has a COI relating to Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident or related articles that should affect his editing. The discussion was, as far as I can see, unhelpfully heated on all sides. I posted my assessment here, and the discussion sat for about 24 hours before Jpat left two more responses. He was then indefinitely blocked by Jehochman, who left his reasoning on User_talk:Jpat34721. I am concerned in that the three edits listed, here, here and here do not show any egregious or even inappropriate behavior that I can see. As such it is unclear to me why he has been indefinitely blocked; I think in indefinitely blocking an editor the reasons should be clear. The user had once been blocked as a sockpuppet, but was then cleared by checkuser Alison after offering his real name.[6] I am raising it here for review at Jehochman's suggestion. Mackan79 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, this editor had recently been subject to a community sanction as a result of edit warring. He then simultaneously launched an appeal against the sanction and a Conflict of Interest complaint against another editor. Despite broad hints, he proceeded to make wild and insupportable accusations, leading several editors to opine that he appeared to have conceived a vendetta against his target. --TS 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"wild and insupportable accusations" - Hmmm, where else might this type of thing be found. Enough said. --GoRight (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole scenario seems to be a direct result of attempts to stifle dissenting opinion on global warming articles ultimately resulting in the indef block of an editor that feels these articles are being controlled by a group of editors. This pattern seems to follow these articles from what I can tell resulting in numerous blocks and bans of editors wishing to include information that does promote not AGW. Even worse is that this opinion has been noted outside of WP and this is just another example that would give them evidence that these articles are indeed being controlled. Arzel (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty much nails it. ATren (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringe points of view are not given equal footing with mainstream, reliably sourced ones. It is an issue that comes up time and time again in politically-charged topic areas. Those that come here with a battlefield mentality, as these users are clearly doing, are going to wind up frustrated and blocked, and deservedly so. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change sceptics are engaging in a long-running battle to elevate the minority view to parity with the overwhelming majority view. To suggest it's being stifles is fatuous, it already has coverage way above its actual traction in the real world. There have been WP:BLP violations, special pleading, original research, tendentious editing, civil and uncivil POV-pushing and sundry other kinds of battleground behaviour on both sides. Everyone is subject to the same rules but as it happens the sceptics are the ones who keep popping their heads over the parapet, so they are the ones who keep getting shot at. The problem is that the sceptics seem to see it as some kind of religious duty to defend the world against the scientific establishment's view that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. We've seen the same over creationism, that took a very long time to damp down. We've also seen it over homeopathy and various other pseudoscience topics. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nahh, it's a good block. . . and the only times I've seen it noted outside of wiki, is by people one person; with the wherewithal to publish unsubstantiated opinion after unsuccessfully trying to push their POV here. Not that it'll do much good- but I'll come out of lurking mode for a bit to support this block. Some people are not here to build an encyclopedia -they're just here to further real-world disputes. -R. Baley (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this block is completely unwarranted. There is absolutely nothing actionable on those three diffs. Unless there is some further evidence coming from the blocking admin, he should be unblocked immediately. ATren (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The accusations that this is part of some anti-anti-GW stifling is absurd. The block is for conduct, not a political view. These arguments seem very much like soapboxing and are counter-productive. I can understand asking for the blocking administrator to clarify matters, but getting into conspiracy theories is likely to get you ignored. Personally, I wouldn't have made the block, though I do believe that the COI accusations were done as retaliation and JP should have withdrawn sooner. In his defense, myself and others had asked him for specific diffs to show disruption from WMC and he was attempting to do so when he was blocked. The reason I haven't unblocked is that Jehochman has implied that JP was violating a topic ban, and I don't know enough of the situation to say that isn't true. -- Atama頭 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be useful to have the administrator who placed the topic ban comment here. I'll leave them a notification. To me the subsequent activities looked like "pushing the envelope" or testing limits of the topic ban, and disruptive to boot. An aggravating factor is that the account has been here since 2007 and has only substantially edited two highly controversial political articles. From all appearances they are here with an agenda that does not mesh with Wikipedia's agenda. Browse the user's contribution history. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I think we need more than generalities to indefinitely block someone from editing Wikipedia. Browsing the history I personally see very little evidence for anything, since they have only edited for such a short amount of time. In any case, to indefinitely block someone who has made a small amount of edits, because their edits do not show sufficient breadth or value, is not a passable idea in my view. The reason to indefinitely block someone from editing Wikipedia is that the problems with their editing are irreconcilable with a reasonable amount of effort. I become concerned when admins start to say it's enough that someone's failed to show their worth in a short amount of time. Mackan79 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The block requires review. It appears to be for Vandalism (by tag), where the editor was making constructive edits. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that the rationale for the block is because the editor was topic banned from the article in question, but then posted a COI notice about another editor who is a frequent participant in the same article. I think the question that needs to be answered is, "Does a topic ban prohibit the banned editor from engaging in dispute resolution with another editor from the same topic?" I believe that we (no nosism intended, I mean the community) usually allow banned editors, including topic bans, to continue to use the various dispute resolution forums. If so, then this block should be lifted and a note should be left on the climate change probation forum making it clear that bans do not prevent banned editors from pursuing dispute resolution with anyone in the appropriate resolution forums. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Actually your question should be: "Is there a dispute between the editor and the other party?", before asking whether dispute-resolution is reasonable or not. As far as i can see from the COI board, there wasn't, and the editor failed to provide reasonable evidence for his claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I guess we'll have to disagree on that one, but I've already given my opinion in the other board thread, so I won't repeat it here. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Failure to achieve your standard of "reasonable" is not a blockable offense. He believed his claim was valid, he used dispute resolution, he provided more information when requested, and for all this good faith editing, he was rewarded with an indef block. That's completely unsupportable. He's also a new editor, making this particularly biting. ATren (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Let me get the ball rolling; I don't think this was a great block, and would support overturning it. It seemed a bit premature and over the top; I'm not sure the user did anything concrete to result in the sort of send off he got. Yeah, he was being a bit vexatious in his pursuit of WMC, but I'm not sure a "GTFO" block was warrented here, especially with the somewhat unpleasant comments left by the blocking admin when the block was administered. I don't think this user had yet passed into the unredeemable bin yet, regardless of the problems they have caused while here. I am in no way excusing the problems they have caused, but this block seems out of proportion to those problems. --Jayron32 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think the article ban was an overreaction in the first place, and now this indefinite block too. I don't think they're improper in the sense of being out of process or against policy, just harsher and with less attempt to warn and counsel the editor than necessary. Even if the block is good, given the editor's subsequent apologies, explanations, and promises to disengage[7] I don't see anything to be gained by continuing the block. The editor is clearly trying to be a good citizen, engaging, and listening, so a block serves no preventive purpose. Nevertheless, to avoid possible mistakes I would suggest waiting for Jehochman to comment, and treat this as lifting a block rather than overturning it as such. Also, a gentle reminder - if this is an article probation issue isn't it best forum-wise that we get in the practice of discussing probation enforcement on the probation enforcement pages rather than here at AN? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• He was being disruptive and wikilawyering about it. He was asked several times to drop the stick but continued to lay about the horse carcass. A block is not really a surprise under those circumstances. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• What Guy said. Also, what Jehochman said. Also, what Guy said above. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I find these comments disappointing. "Wikilawyering" is a Wikipedian term of art -- one of dozens -- that does not exist anywhere else in the world that I'm aware of. It's also a classic fault of new editors, since basically it comes down to wielding policies clumsily. Are we an organization that creates concepts and then bans editors for not quickly picking up on them? Mackan79 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The term is well-enough understood, it means debating the finer points of the letter of policy in order to violate the spirit of it. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not involved in this particular dispute but it seems to me that the offence that's been committed here is the persistent hounding, despite requests to desist, of an editor who has through no fault of his own become something of a hate figure in the right-wing blogosphere. About all that can be said in Jpat's favour is that he acted naively (at best). Is an indef block the best solution to that? I'm unsure, but at the least an interaction ban with WMC would have been justified, as was done with Jettamann (talk · contribs). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this be demonstrated? As noted here, Jpat contested WMC's actions in pursuing the initial article ban against Jpat. If Jpat had any history of pursuing WMC, I am not able to find it. Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are a couple non-obvious things going on. One is that the conflict of interest noticeboard is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Dispute resolution is for content disagreements, not for repeating blogosphere troll memes, such as User:William M. Connolley has a conflict of interest with respect to climate change articles because he's a professional climate scientist. This would be like saying Daniel Pearly (a professional astronomer) has a COI when editing gamma ray burst, an article that never would have become featured without his help. I see that User:Jpat34721 wants to edit melanoma. That's a good sign, and I am willing to fix the block length to 24 hours, on condition that he ceases all hounding of WMC. It was very clear that Jpat34721 disliked his article-ban, and sought out the "leader" of those he perceived in opposition, and went head hunting. That sort of behavior is unacceptable, and should routinely result in a block. Those who haven't been policing this dispute may think this response harsh. Well, get involved and see what it's like before you criticize those willing to do a hard, dirty job that you aren't doing. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • So the article ban is maintained, and a ban on interaction with WMC? I'd support that. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's see what people say, especially uninvolved people, and then somebody should log the result. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a reasonable outcome. It is not unreasonable to maintain the existing article ban or to require Jpat to steer clear of WMC. I suggest also requiring him to stay away from the William Connolley article, as was required of Jettamann (talk · contribs) when he was sanctioned under the CC article probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

        Just my $0.02. I note a disturbing trend forming here and elsewhere to build a wall of invincibility around WMC to shield him from criticism. We must all accept the public criticism that is foisted upon us. That is, in part, how this place works. WMC is anything but a wilted lily who needs to hide behind community sanctions. If WMC does something that deserves to be criticized he should dang well have to accept that criticism like everyone else.

        So, in this circumstance and recognizing that COI charges have been considered against WMC many times in the past (by others) and rejected, I should think that an assurance to drop the current COI case and to avoid unnecessary conflict in the future should be sufficient.

        If an interaction ban is to be enacted it would only be appropriate if it went in both directions for the obvious reasons. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would support Jehochman's compromise solution above. Commute the block to "time served", with the note that a short block was likely warrented given the hounding issues. Institute an interaction ban to run concurrent to the current article ban, and lets see how this goes. This latest solution from Jehochman is much better than the GTFO-block we started with here. --Jayron32 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • About five hours ago I reset the block to 9 hours so it would total 24. The fact that the user wants to continue editing other subjects is an encouraging sign. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think you did right there. I don't believe him to be evil or bad, but he was in serious danger of donning the proverbial Spider-Man suit. Hopefully he has now backed away from the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise, Jehochman. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of editors seem to misunderstand WP:COI. COI is allowed, en.Wikipedia would grind to a halt if COI weren't allowed, but an editor must be very heedful when editing an article in which they have a COI. Anyone editing in their respective professional field has a COI, which may or may not be a worry, following how they edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen's exactly right. That's why myself and others asked for evidence of disruption to show that WMC shouldn't edit the article (which is a moot point since it has been said that he had voluntarily withdrawn from the article anyway). I support the unblock, I don't think it's completely fair to say that JP didn't put the stick down because his most recent contributions to the COI report were an attempt to provide diffs that were requested of him. In any case, if he moves on to other things, then that's fantastic. -- Atama頭 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Many core topics on en.Wikipedia are way slanted owing not to the COI of editors, but because they edit towards their own sundry interests. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to pursue this at the moment, but I'd like to opine that there remains no basis here for any sanction. First, the issue Jpat raised was not a general one that WMC should not edit in the area because he works in the field. It is, at least as far as I understand, that he is a contributor to a blog that is part of the controversy and, as I understand, that WMC works closely with those who have faced accusations. If true, that is the kind of COI where one could look more closely at his editing, and numerous commenters at the COI noticeboard said as much. One commenter suggested that the link between RealClimate and this controversy is negligible, but the point has not been clarified as far as I can see. Regardless, the issue raised is not just that WMC is a professional in the field. Besides that, with Jpat, it appears that WMC requested sanctions against Jpat and then went to request for a specific administrator to evaluate the sanction request. Some editors have suggested that this is fine. I disagree; I cannot imagine arguing for a sanction against someone and then picking out an administrator to see if they would evaluatethe request. Even if WMC was utterly scrupulous in picking someone whom he did not expect would have any bias, this looks awful, and for that reason alone it is completely unreasonable to suggest that Jpat should not have questioned. Finally, we remain without any difs of any misconduct. I'd like to see where this goes, but it strikes me as another exmaple in a frankly indefensible trend of assuming bad faith, and banning editors without any real effort to work with them. Mackan79 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When people make mistakes in their assumptions, one of the key factors that I use to figure out if they are adapting their argument to the facts or the facts to the argument is if one of the base and key assumptions is proved false, do they change their position, or does the argument adapt. With that in mind, I feel it's my duty to inform you that I was the one who raised the report about this user. Difs of misconduct were presented in the report, though I was chastised by 2/0 for filing bad reports, and in fact, he basically rejected 3 of my other reports. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was eventually able to find the original report. The problem is not just if someone initiates a request however (which is not what I meant to imply), but equally if they are an involved editor taking a position in favor of it. I am not saying it is necessarily wrong either, but merely that it would look quite odd on the other side. An explanation that the admin was the one who usually handled these requests would probably suffice. But to pick someone out of a hat, and make the request in a way that suggests a prior relationship, with no other indication of why that admin was requested, would not inspire any reasonable person's confidence; in fact the more clueful the person, very likely the worse it would look. I consider that a useful metric: what would a reasonable but uninitiated person think, looking at this situation? Mackan79 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So if you were made aware that 2/0 was by far and away the most active admin notifier and closed a vast majority of the four previously closed reports, you'd have no problems with WMC going to him? Good! I'm glad we all agree that anyone who looked into the situation in its totality would have no problems at all. Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. The users contacted were 2/0 and BozMo, and BozMo was the one who then proposed the sanction. When I query BozMo's edits I see his most edited page is Global Warming, and in running a search of him on the talk page I see him being criticized for a lack of impartiality. Here he suggests regarding the CRU controversy, "I guess so far we have only learned some sceptics are prepared to law break to try to muddy the water which raises questions on lesser moral standards like telling the truth." This is not a criticism of BozMo; no one is impartial on every subject, and few seem to be on this one. But it is to question WMC's impartiality in requesting that BozMo evaluate this request, and if we discourage canvassing, I would think we'd discourage involved editors from requesting specific admins to resolve specific requests. Or at least we'd expect people to complain. I'm glad to say that issue is moot now, in any case. Mackan79 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have apologized to the two admins involved for my implication that they acted in bad faith. I stand by that but I am glad to see some sympathy for the position that recruiting admins by those involved in requests for sanctions looks bad. Requests for sanctions raise blood pressures and when you add on top of it the appearance of unfairness, it aggravates the situation and makes graceful acceptance of the sanction much more difficult. I would like to see some policy clarification that discourages this kind of thing. JPatterson (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Often, these editors don't understand the policies, so they'll quickly go enough astray that a block can be supported, but in truth they were blocked only for their PoVs. This has been going on for years. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that because it has been going on for years it should be allow to continue, or that a stop should be put to it? Please clarify. --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't support it, if that's what you mean. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if you don't support it, what specifically does that mean to you in terms of the current block and topic ban of Jpat? What should be done for each because of this perspective, in your opinion? --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought Jehochman helpfully thought about what had happened and cut the block down to a much more fitting 24h. The topic ban should likely be looked at again soon, now that Jpat seems to have a deeper understanding of policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if in future it would be better to redirect discussions on climate change-related sanctions and blocks to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. This might be a useful way of drawing in admins with a fresh eye. --TS 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Several people here have said things roughly equivalent to Regardless, the issue raised is not just that WMC is a professional in the field and no-one has yet pointed out that this is false (given that we are not, at the moment, talking about Bluetooth). It isn't hard to tell this; a visit to my user page will do William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User name question

I just noticed that an editor has registered the user name Hirohitito (talk · contribs), which appears to be a reference to Hirohito, Japan's emperor during World War II. If anyone registered a close variant of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini they'd probably be blocked for having an offensive user name - is this in the same category? The editor's only contributions so far have been to create a short stub on British war crimes, which when combined with the user name suggests that they're here to POV-push. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've knocked the stub into shape, should be neutral now. I found this when looking to see what linked there. Usernames should be discussed with the user on their talk page and the username noticeboard is that way. I've notified the user of this thread. Fences&Windows 23:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, it would be horrible to pick the name of an emperor who presided, post-war, for 35 years over a peaceful country. How dare he! --Golbez (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A little sensitive, Herr Goebbels? ☺ - Nunh-huh 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:General Tojo would be probably a better equivalent to those others; Hirohito did not really have a great deal of control over the actions of the Japanese government during the war. And General Tojo was, in fact, declared to be an unacceptable username, although it looks like that account had some other issues as well that led to its block. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

/b/tards planning a new sneaky attack.

This was posted to AIV. I am moving it here without comment. --Jayron32 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

/b/ is planning another attack--Strabismus (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This can be mitigated by reviewing the lines of Special:Log/upload and Commons:Special:Log/upload that contain "new version". MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a vicious circle. If they got girlfriends they'd quickly have something else to occupy their time. Yet, their essence precludes the possibility of ever getting a girlfriend. Or laid. Anyone feel like springing for a few streetwalkers? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's it, poke the bear with the stick. That won't cause any problems. --Golbez (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The thread has already made it past Page 15, so there shouldn't be much more to worry about... for now. Besides, is anything /b/ does considered "sneaky"? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's news to any Admin, then I have another one for you: the sun plans on rising tomorrow! Everyone make your plans accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration clerks

The Arbitration clerks welcome the following users to the clerk team as trainees:

• AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs)
• Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs)
• DoriSmith (talk · contribs)
• MBK004 (talk · contribs)

The clerk team as well as the committee would also like to congratulate the following clerks who have been confirmed as "full clerks":

• Dougweller (talk · contribs)
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs)
• Seddon (talk · contribs)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

McCready topic ban

Resolved

 – No consensus to alter the indef topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Per McCready's own request for a vote, which has been started below. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [8]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Ban imposed here [9] and here [10]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [11] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [12] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [13]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [14]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [15] and Virtual Steve [16] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [17]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at [18] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [19]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[20], including with an IP[21][22] (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[23]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.

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

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

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

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[24] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

• FloNight [25] [26]
• MastCell [27]
• David Ruben [28]
• FeloniousMonk [29]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [30])
• Jim62sch [31]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [32])
• Friday [33]
• Jefffire [34]
• Arthur Rubin [35]

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

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[36], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Quick Summary

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

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

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

The bot for this page archived [37] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [38]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [39] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarification: should we let the ban stand (and come back for review after X period of time a/o when Y conditions are met), lift it with the condition that it can be re-imposed if needed, or something else. User has been notified [40]. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Richard Dawkins (8)

Ubiquitin (8)

Osteochondritis dissecans (7)

Talk:Water fluoridation (7)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)

Missy Higgins (6)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)

Fiat money (5)

PubMed (5)

Lee Myung-bak (5)

Karl Kruszelnicki (5)

User talk:Collectonian (5)

Silicosis (4)

Antireligion 4)

Meningitis (4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the numbers:

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

2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy

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

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

5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,

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

7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

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

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

12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

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

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

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

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

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

Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban

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

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

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

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

All of these ban reviews have had common responses from Mccready indicating he has not yet and likely never will consider the opinions upholding any topic ban to be of merit (indeed, he apparently believes this "wasn't a 'community ban'"). Comments by Mccready directed at admins that have upheld editing restrictions often fall along the lines of "[a particular admin has shown a] refusal to engage in a logical discussion" presumably because s/he hasn't come to the conclusions desired by Mccready [41]. This has been a pattern of repeated forum shopping and tedious wikilawyering, with multiple instances of aggressive and uncooperative behavior spanning a couple years.

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

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

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

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

Procedural note

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

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

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

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

User:HandThatFeeds has now marked the whole Mccready thread as resolved. I have made an entry at WP:RESTRICT as shown above to document the old restriction, which remains in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Decide his fate here

Per McCready's expressed wish here, (removed here), I am starting the procedure which McCready very clearly wished and as he suggested, using his own words.

Basically one should vote "support" for one or the other. A "support" in one section automatically counts as a vote against the other, so negative votes are unnecessary and would only be confusing. A vote to support him staying here should include what conditions he should edit under, for example a topic ban, other condition(s), or no conditions at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't do votes, so I've rejigged this a bit and retitled it. --TS 13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• McCready should stay,

• Support Broad indefinite bans on broad areas do not work, and are counterproductive. Specific terms for specific areas make more sense, and should not include article talk pages. Collect (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support a site ban. He has good abilities as an editor (and as a skeptic of alternative medicine and chiroquackery I actually share his POV), but his attitude is so bad and contentious that he doesn't belong here. His parting rant gives good evidence of that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since Tony's refactored it, this discussion can now be closed. We arrived at consensus for a topic ban already, McCready's WP:ULTIMATUM does not address the basis of the topic ban in any meaningful way. He may choose to interpret the topic ban as a siteban, that is his problem not ours. There is absolutely no need to reopen this discussion just because he's threatening to throw his toys out of the pram. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm okay with that. As I understand it (somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) McReady asked for his topic ban to be lifted (note emphasis). There has been much discussion but no consensus to lift that ban has emerged. There seems to be no serious discussion of a site ban (again note emphasis). One could make an argument that the suggestion of such a ban was extremely unhelpful. --TS 13:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, I was only following McCready's wish. Since he still doesn't believe the topic ban is correct, and has violated it, he seems to be suggesting that the only choices he'll accept are no topic ban or a site ban. Maybe I'm interpreting him incorrectly, but his history here is consistent with that interpretation and I think we should honor this. I'm not going to push the issue and will let you guys decide since you don't seem to mind his continued disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The ban has consensus, if he violates it he can (and should) b blocked, if he wants to appeal it then he can go to the ArbCom ban appeals subcommittee. I don't think anything's going to change here other than his getting blocked for violating the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• As an uninvolved editor in any of this conflict, I don't see this vote as being beneficial to anyone. He can still contribute in other areas outside of his topic ban, should he choose to do so once his block expires. He has a month to consider whether or not he wants to pursue the issue of what he feels is an invalid topic ban or move on to other subjects. On the other hand, if a majority of the votes are for him to stay, but not all mention any specific details as to editing restrictions, he may see that as a way to invalidate the topic ban he has been vehemently arguing against. Let the block expire and give him the option to contribute in other areas, and let his actions after the block be a factor in his participation, not a vote he requested when he was in a rather agitated state. HAZardousMATT^toxic 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• No offense intended, but the fact you are uninvolved may limit your understanding of the history behind his contribution history here. The matter isn't resolved and needs closure. It's not everyday a disruptive editor of this format actually requests to be banned or not. We shouldn't pass up this opportunity to let him know, and I obviously feel we'd be better off without him. I believe most other involved (=know his history here) editors feel the same way. Those who are uninvolved (=usually means they don't know much about this) needn't get involved. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war and insisting on original research by user:BehnamFarid

Edit war and insisting on original research by user:BehnamFarid in Masoud Alimohammadi. (I have no time to follow up my complaint) --Taranet (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

BehnamFarid indeed has a highly problematic history of aggressive behaviour in all kinds of conflict situtions, and in the present case he is again obstinately refusing to understand the principles of WP:OR. Moreover, with this edit, where he uses a reference to an old real-life harassment campaign against me in order to intimidate me from intervening in the situation as an admin, I feel he has seriously crossed a line. I would appreciate if some other admin could have a look into this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Custom signature violates guidelines

Resolved

 – Signature updated. Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) custom signature specifically violates guidelines Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color -- it blinks. Two editors have requested he change the signature User_talk:Dave1185#Your_Signature. He had indicated he will ignore the request. Gerardw (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For lack of a better word, please stop being a DICK. I said I'm ignoring you but I didn't said I'm going to ignore the signature issue, get your facts right. Jeez! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: If you want to do something right, you have to do it yourself. That is precisely what I'm doing now, trying to get things right before I switch to another sig. Mind you, ROME wasn't built overnight, ya'know?)

NB, nothing in your talkpage reply indicates that you intend(ed) to do anything about this, so I think Gerard's facts are correct. A reasonable reply would have been, "Oh, sorry, I didn't know about that rule, I'll change my signature now." Clear. Simple. Polite. Unambiguous. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Right... just because I'm not replying in the way you want me to, doesn't mean that I'm not looking into the issue. Agreed? If that is the case, Jimbo should have made it a policy, right? Give the man some time... and by dragging me here is not helping either, wouldn't you agree? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (NB: That was me trash talking with Bugs, your fault was that you think too much without clarifying things with me first. Cripes~!)

• Block him until he agrees to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. (And I don't particularly like the tone of his comment above or the accompanying edit summary...) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• So by blocking me for something so minuscule is going to solve the problem? How brilliant~! And by that, do you mean that I can't even experiment with a new sig before I switch to it~? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: My bad... the "M" is something like a default setting that had been left in the "ON" position, by default on my Firefox browser.)

It's been three days since the issue was brought up on your talk page. When do you think you're going to find some time to work on a new one? Would you consider simply removing the 'blink' from your current signature? You can then take your time figuring out how you'd like your new sig to look. --Onorem♠Dil 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, it is done~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anything else to still be done here then? --Onorem♠Dil 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is, get them to drop the stick and move on! I mean it's just a sig, come'on! And was I wrong for calling that thread starter a DICK? I don't think so... he could have clear things up with me instead of rubbing me the wrong way. Jeez! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But it was a 'M' minor edit summary, so surely inconsequential? I really wish people would be more careful about marking edits as minor. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dave1185 is obviously aware of the issue now. I suggest that if he reuses the non-compliant signature, he be blocked. If he changes it to an acceptable version, we can mark the issue resolved. His recent edit-summaries don't reflect well on him, but I think it would be better to simply ignore them unless such conduct is or becomes a pattern. Abecedare (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I find all "fancy" sigs disruptive. They are hard to read and clutter up the edit box. TT's is just as annoying as Dave1185's to me. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear how you find a slightly colourful signature irritating on a par with an entirely colourful and oversized and animated signature. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It goes on for ages, isn't clear what links where, changes all the time, and clutters up the edit box, making replying harder than it needs to be. That said, although I can be an arse sometimes, I don't think I'd be such an arse as to try to get someone blocked for their vanity. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your edit-summary of "you did ask" – I did not, in fact, ask to be called an arse. I asked a perfectly legitimate question to which you have, in all fairness, made an attempt to supply an answer. However, your answer does not explain how a signature which "goes on for ages" is annoying (mine satisfies the length-limit in WP:SIG), nor how the fact that a small element of it changes each time used (as some other users' signatures do) qualifies the signature as annoying. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So it doesn't bother you that it clutters up the edit box and it's hard to know what links where in it? The lengths of it is uneccessary and simply serves to make your name stick out more than others, and the changing wording is just confusing. Strikes me that you care just as much as Dave for criticism of your vanity sig. DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Per his earlier recommendation for me: Block him until he agrees to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. Note also that I subscribe to WP:DENY. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Of course I agree to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. I have always agreed to this, and my signature does comply to the standards. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this been discussed dozens of times before and come to the conclusion that editors matter? There's a difference between a custom signature and this custom signature (The voice oɟ mud^{I am your voice!!}). This page explains the rules for them. This discussion is regarding Dave1185's signature. Please start another discussion if you wish to discuss custom signatures in general. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, to discuss Dave's signature: I don't find it any more disruptive than most other custom signatures. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I say, stop wasting your time and get back to improving them articles~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Dave, that is a good idea. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some editors of custom sigs don't understand that what they see on their own display often doesn't look the same on other displays (and might even be unhappy with what they saw, after all the careful and fun tweaking some have done), owing to how boldings, sizings and default font groups can and do vary a lot across browsers and OSs. Either way, I do think blinking is far beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing what Gwen Gale has posted here. I recently saw that one of my earlier sigs looked horridly misshapen if Cleartype wasn't turned on in Windows... font parameters can vary rather drastically when you take into account the various browsers, operating systems, and settings that people have on their computers. For example my sig's font doesn't display in Windows XP, but displays in Windows Vista and Windows 7. If it's an older OS like XP, it simply displays a "normal" font of sorts. One needs to make a sort of compromise, taking into account these variables, and the rules laid down in the signature policy... The Thing _{Vandalize me} 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)