Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Cold fusion: closing discussion; ban was already implemented yesterday.
Line 270: Line 270:
::: It isn't a punishment. Since Pcarbonn hasn't used the period of his ban wisely, and is still abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of advocacy, the consensus is that the ban can be made permanent, for the sake of Wikipedia's coverage of fringe science. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::: It isn't a punishment. Since Pcarbonn hasn't used the period of his ban wisely, and is still abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of advocacy, the consensus is that the ban can be made permanent, for the sake of Wikipedia's coverage of fringe science. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::: Bald assertions do not evidence make. Put some actual evidence on this page so that it might be properly examined. Until then your claims remain unfounded. If you wish to ban someone you should be expected to actually make a case for it. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::: Bald assertions do not evidence make. Put some actual evidence on this page so that it might be properly examined. Until then your claims remain unfounded. If you wish to ban someone you should be expected to actually make a case for it. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::The case has been made, in a fashion that's convinced virtually all of the commenters (who include a substantial number of previously uninvolved individuals, I might add). Pcarbonn was determined to be promoting an agenda at variance with this site's policies and standards. He was given a lengthy topic ban in the hopes that he would a) branch out from his narrow agenda, or b) moderate his approach to advancing that agenda. He has evidently done neither. It thus makes sense to formalize an indefinite topic ban. The objections here amount to demands for an ever-increasing quantity of shrubberies. I think you're letting your zeal for legalistic argumentation, which has been remarked upon previously once or twice, get the better of common sense here. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


=== Hold on, not so fast if you please ===
=== Hold on, not so fast if you please ===

Revision as of 23:21, 12 January 2010

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice


    McCready topic ban

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

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

    No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [4] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [5] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [6]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [7]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [8] and Virtual Steve [9] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [10]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant discussion should be at [11] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [12]. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).
    This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[13], including with an IP[14][15] (see checkuser results).
    I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[16]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.
    sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    @Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)
    Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick Summary

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

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

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

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

    I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Brilliant,_fabulous). It seems to me that McCready is still obsessive about pseudoscience topics and I am not comfortable with lifting the topic ban as it's close to impossible to keep a lid on those topics already. I've modified my opinion from above because in looking through the archives I find a fair bit of evidence of previous ban evasion and other nonsense (including recently editing in this area without the ban being lifted); that is not a good sign. This may be a case of "give a dog a bad name" but I really do think that these articles are better off without McCready's input. I don't think it's a problem necessarily of whether he can make properly neutral edits to this content, it's what happens when anyone disputes his edits that causes the problem. I think the WP:TIGERS are best kept in their cages on this one.
    The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)
    Richard Dawkins (8)
    Ubiquitin (8)
    Osteochondritis dissecans (7)
    Talk:Water fluoridation (7)
    Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)
    Missy Higgins (6)
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)
    Fiat money (5)
    PubMed (5)
    Lee Myung-bak (5)
    Karl Kruszelnicki (5)
    User talk:Collectonian (5)
    Silicosis (4)
    Antireligion 4)
    Meningitis (4)
    New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

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

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

    And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)
    Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read WP:COI. Members of X profession may edit articles on X topic as long as they're not POV-pushing, and no admin ever found that I was. However, if you're right about there being a "matter of record", I'm sure you can email me the diff(s) off-wiki, right? And if you can't, I'll take your silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Here are the numbers:

    1. Guy who is adamant that the "ban" stays until Guy judges I have done enough editing
    2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy
    3.. Sandstein – withdrew from discussion on grounds I didn’t provide links (since it’s all on my talkpage which I’ve referred to multiple times … has obviously not made himself aware of the issue
    4. Elen of the Roads – has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,
    6. SlimVirgin – an if statement does not support Middle8 and Guy
    7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    10. Brangifer says supported in past when he used a different wikiname, doesn’t comment on now - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    11. The Hand That Feeds - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy
    14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

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

    • You are showing, once again, your combative nature, excessive tendency to personalise and factionalise disputes, and fierce determination to edit these articles. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Mccready, you will not go back to the topics you are banned from, otherwise I will block you. Understood? The community ban is still in place until such time as it is formally revoked. There is no consensus for doing so here and indeed a plethora of solid arguments have been put forward for keeping it in place. Moreschi (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kevin, that's a pretty deceptive summary. The point is that we are all against you editing in the area of your topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Predictable, I guess. I hold by my original thought that what we need to see is evidence of the ability to engage in civil debate with people he disagrees with. As I read it, the main problem was that he kept flying off the handle every time someone disagreed with him. I can see why, fringe-pushers are incredibly vexatious and persistent, but losing your temper has never fixed that yet and is unlikely to start any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Procedural note

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

    Given the reactions from the editor above, I think that what you 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Cold fusion

    Resolved
     – community topic ban enacted by overwhelming consensus; subject of sanction can appeal to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    From the RFAR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Agree, and tend to support a community topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support siteban or topic ban. Either/or, it seems six of one, yadayada. Auntie E. 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As per Aunt Entropy, with perhaps a slight preference for a siteban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this should be relatively uncontroversial; this editor's record over a prolonged period of time suggests to me an interest in using Wikipedia to promote a personal agenda in a way that contravenes this site's content and behavioral policies. There isn't any evidence of interest in contributing to or building the encyclopedia outside of this narrow agenda. This site doesn't seem to be a good fit for what this editor wants to accomplish, and I think it's time everyone moves on. I don't see any functional difference between a topic-ban and site-ban, given that the editor appears to have no interest in contributing to topics beyond cold fusion. MastCell Talk 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since no one has put it into words, lets say that the ban should read:
      • Pcarbonn's former topic ban is returned under the same terms as before, and extended indefinately, with no automatic expiration set.
    • That ought to solve the problem. Comments? Supports? Opposes? --Jayron32 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, obviously. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has it been a year already? Nothing has changed at all. Therefore, extend the restriction to indefinite. Jehochman Brrr 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Since this will indicate whether the editor is interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, or is a single purpose account for advocating a pov I would prefer to add in a "broadly construed" terminology to avoid the problem noted by Guy in his editing while previously restricted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone might want to mention this discussion to Pcarbonn, as that hasn't been done yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support extention to indefinite - relatively uncontrovertial imo, for exactly the reasons that it was imposed in the first place. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef. Pcap ping 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also support indef topic ban. We don't need advocacy SPAs on whatever topic.  Sandstein  18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support long-overdue site or topic ban. Skinwalker (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block, per Jehochman, Ale_jrb & Sandstein. Maybe I'm getting cranky in my old age (or because I am spending a lot of my waking hours looking after a 2 year-old), but when someone gets a one-year topic ban & fails to change for the better afterwards then nothing will convince her/him to play nice with the rest of Wikipedia. Let the user find another outlet for her/his energies or advocacy. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support outright indefinite topic ban, effective immediately. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban - the editor refuses to drop the stick, apparently, so we have to take the stick away somehow. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Let me just say that most of the support come from involved editors, and I invite the non-involded admin to carefully review the situation, and in particular my edits since Dec 17, before taking action. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A good deal of it comes from uninvolved people and I've seen nobody support your return to editing that article. Sanctions which fail to affect the behaviour of the sanctioned editor have a tendency to be extended, that seems to be what people above are saying. Unsurprisingly I agree. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing Guy. Of the accounts currently involved in the discussion on Talk:Cold fusion, only Enric Naval has posted both here & there; of the parties involved in the RfAr case, only Jehochman was involved both here & there. I'd also like to point out that when Pcarbonn was topic-banned from this article, she/he practically stopped contributing to Wikipedia (she/he made some edits to her/his monobook.js file), & as Guy pointed out above returned to the Cold fusion article -- without ever venturing into another subject area. in other words, I don't see any evidence that this editor has tried to figure out how to work within the rules of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He says "I find this decision unjust and unfounded, and a harbinger of great danger for Wikipedia, its editors, and its readers." And note his userpage where he listed a number of "suppressed statements" and is crossing them off as he weasels them into the article. Chief among these is the pretence that the DoE 2004 report was much more ambivalent than it actually was, elevating comments from the body of the report above the headline conclusions, which were unchanged from the previous report and firmly against cold fusion. So, no, he has learned precisely nothing, in fact repudiates the outcome of the arbitration case, and is still on precisely the same mission. But he was not entirely absent during the topic ban - he went to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science to argue his case again. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also support indef topic ban, from pseudo-science topics broadly construed including all related meta-discussions, or siteban if that isn't practical. Sustained single-minded agenda editing should lead to blocks far more often and far more quickly than it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose the topic ban. The evidence isn't convincing enough.  Dr. Loosmark  12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban. I concur with Future Perfect on all points. I am uninvolved, BTW. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the topic ban. These relentless pseudoscience crusades wear down the community. Tom Harrison Talk 20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comments in response to GoRight. The user seems to be uninterested in doing anything except advocate on the subject for which he was topic banned. --TS 20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Unless and until a substantive case is presented based on recent evidence. Essentially all of JzG's allegations above have been shown to be false on their face below. I will be more that happy to address any specific evidence that JzG wishes to being up but without some sort of a recent case this is just dredging up the past for no good reason. --GoRight (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      For myself, I responded with my reasoning based on recent evidence. It can now be found on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GoRight on Pcarbonn. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Enacted, by notifying Pcarbonn. (I don't think my previous "support" opinion bars me from doing this, does it?) I think there is also a consensus that the ban should be somewhat broader than just "Cold fusion" alone, to cover disruption like that in the "Fringe science" Arbcom case, so I'm taking the freedom of proposing the following wording: "all contributions related to "fringe science" topics, including but not limited to Cold Fusion and related pages, their talk pages, as well as related meta-discussions". Is that okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not ok, just because you don't like his POV it doesn't mean he should be slapped with a wide topic ban.  Dr. Loosmark  12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The is a WP:SNOW close. There is no doubt that the community supports this remedy. It doesn't matter who closes. If you don't like the result and cannot accept it, please file an appeal. Do not needlessly lengthen this thread by repeating the same arguments multiple times. Jehochman Brrr 13:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This has already been to arbitration once, to persuade any meaningful number of people that a ban is not warranted you will need to show that Pcarbonn accepts the outcome of the arbitration and has changed his behaviour accordingly. Since he has repeatedly said that he does not accept the outcome, and his behaviour on return is, to my eyes anyway, indistinguishable, this might be a little difficult, but you're very welcome to try. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Naughty: [44]. Soliciting for editors to proxy for him. Not good. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have topic-banned Dual Use too, for 2 months as a start. Whether or not he was going to actually proxy for Pcarbonn or whether or not he already was doing so, his editing seemed virtually indistinguishable from that of P anyway. Same pattern, same disruption. This from a self-described alternate account that won't reveal his prior involvement is just too fishy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd not spotted that - that looks like one of the proscribed uses of alternate accounts to me. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any special advice on whether (or how) to strikeout or revert recent contribs by these banned users? LeadSongDog come howl 20:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can just move any finished threads to the archive, or use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, otherwise ignore and move on. They are not unpersons. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I strikeout only the edits of socks, specially the socks of fully-banned users, and specially if it's the nth time that they are socking in the same article. I usually leave alone the comments of topic-banned editors, I just leave a dry neutral note mentioning that they were topic-banned and a link to the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what was he actually banned for, other than advocating an opinion? I would like to see evidence of actual disruption since the previous topic ban ended. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Pcarbonn. --TS 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was banned for precisely that: advocating an opinion. This project isn't for advocating opinions. Persistently advocating opinions is ipso facto bannable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was also banned for precisely one year. That time is now up. If a NEW BAN is to be imposed it must be for recent activity that rise to the level of the ban being imposed. I have seen no such evidence presented here. --GoRight (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a punishment. Since Pcarbonn hasn't used the period of his ban wisely, and is still abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of advocacy, the consensus is that the ban can be made permanent, for the sake of Wikipedia's coverage of fringe science. --TS 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bald assertions do not evidence make. Put some actual evidence on this page so that it might be properly examined. Until then your claims remain unfounded. If you wish to ban someone you should be expected to actually make a case for it. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The case has been made, in a fashion that's convinced virtually all of the commenters (who include a substantial number of previously uninvolved individuals, I might add). Pcarbonn was determined to be promoting an agenda at variance with this site's policies and standards. He was given a lengthy topic ban in the hopes that he would a) branch out from his narrow agenda, or b) moderate his approach to advancing that agenda. He has evidently done neither. It thus makes sense to formalize an indefinite topic ban. The objections here amount to demands for an ever-increasing quantity of shrubberies. I think you're letting your zeal for legalistic argumentation, which has been remarked upon previously once or twice, get the better of common sense here. MastCell Talk 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on, not so fast if you please

    Extensive essay and responses moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GoRight on Pcarbonn
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Damiens.rf block review

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

    Creating userpages for other editors

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

    The relevant guideline is the WP:UP#OWN section of WP:UP: "In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your user page, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." Personally I think that WP:UP#OWN makes it clear that creating user pages for other users is not advisable, unless done so with their permission or to add a sock tag or similar. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion also. I'll ask the editor, who I am sure is acting in good faith, to stop. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I typically delete this per G6 or G2 whichever seems more appropriate.  Done in the present case. –xenotalk 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think creating user pages for new users is a bad idea all around, the red user page is one of the markers that recentChanges patrollers look for for changes that need a closer look. Since the user's response to Dougweller made it seem like they were planning to continue doing this, I left them a further request to please stop. –xenotalk 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is only appropriate if the editor as requested help from another editor to create their userpage. That's a totally different matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've suggested we've tightened up our guidance at Wikipedia talk:User page, the more comments on that the better please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bureaucrat rights: adding desysop

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

    Refactored the header to make it more clear what this RfC is about (pretty impossible to tell from the current description posted here). Nathan T 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You might enjoy...

    a quote I came across as a usenet sig:

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

    — Oliver Wendell Holmes

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

    It's worse than that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An aside: apparently, and incredibly, the English Wikipedia does not have an article on communicating vessels. There are reasonably good articles on German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias (and several more, if you follow the interwiki links), with very pretty pictures (and a rather nice counterexample picture on the Dutch wiki). The Italian Wikipedia has even an article on Stevin's Law, which apparently nobody on English wikipedia has ever heard about. And then they say that Wikipedia is full, and all basic topics are actually covered -- eh? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up: the Italian Wikipedia even has an article on the Hydrostatic Paradox! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See this link for the original context of the quotation. Chick Bowen 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or this. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But of course Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself linked to the Illuminati, is widely known in popular culture. Coincidence? Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a conspiracy, Tom, keep it dark, they're not supposed to know. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    juice plus

    Resolved
     – Very stale! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite old but was on the ANI talk page. Feel free to archive straight away... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    urgent need for admin help at juice plus talk page

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

    The talk page is not the place to put this. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've marked it "resolved" and "stale" – it's a bit too late for anyone to do anything now! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock review request - User:Neutralhomer

    User:Neutralhomer was indef blocked by User:Jehochman for "Disruptive editing: Wikihounding". Jehochman asked that admins considering unblocking speak to them first or obtain "a consensus based upon a substantial discussion (e.g. 24 or 48 hours) at WP:AN". Neutralhomer requested unblocking, but this request was denied by Blueboy96.

    Although Jehochman stated that they had been "giving one last chance" to Neutralhomer before blocking them, Jehochman subsequently unblocked Neutralhomer. I have requested that Jehochman discuss their decision on AN just as they had requested of other admins, but they do not appear to wish to discuss the issue.

    Neutralhomer has been indef blocked three times and has a long history of blocks and admonishments for harassment, sockpuppetry, and other violations of policy, with similar blocks as User:Orangemonster2k1. As the most recent target of Neutralhomer's harassment, I do not think it is appropriate to accept the promises of a user who has already failed to live up to similar promises. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am free to refactor my own blocks without asking permission. This thread is useless conflict-making. As an unblock condition, Neutralhomer has agreed to stop commenting on Delicious carbuncle. Sadly, DC has refused my request to let Neutralhomer go in peace. Jehochman Brrr 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is not for myself, nor is my motivation some kind of "revenge" on Neutralhomer. There is a very clear pattern here. It is only reasonable to expect that we will see it played out again and again unless Neutralhomer either retires or is blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are typically permitted to revert their own actions on their own remit... Has there been problematic behaviour since the unblock? –xenotalk 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I often disagree with JeHochman, and I have nothing to civil to say about Bluboys admin practices (which are ridiculous, note i'm still not sorry BLueboy). I do however agree with the lifted block. Perhaps DC should drop the WP:STICK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Xeno, I'm not questioning the ability of admins to undo their own blocks, just the wisdom of this particular unblocking. Given that Jehochman asked for other admins to seek consensus for unblocking and that another admin declined to unblock, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a discussion of this decision. There is no need to look for problematic behaviour following the most recent unblock, since Neutralhomer's block log indicates that this is not the first time they have agreed to abide by such conditions. Just look over the blocklog and the history of complaints at AN and ANI. I am aware that some admins feel protective of Neutralhomer, but even their staunchest advocates must admit that it is only a matter of time until they are blocked again. And then likely unblocked in short order because "they promise not to do it again". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to say this, Delicious carbuncle, but sometimes you just have to put the stick down and let it go, for now at least. HJMitchell You rang? 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Delicious Carbuncle's request below to comment on the unblock request, I see absolutely no problem with Jehochman's unblock. He undid his own block, based on terms he set. I see no problem with that at all. An admin can't wheel-war with himself! --Jayron32 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban request: User: Delicious carbuncle

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Result: Consensus to enact Gladys' topic ban of Delicious carbuncle.  Skomorokh  14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • DC, I am going to echo what others have said here, albeit a bit more emphatically. NeutralHomer has been placed on strict orders to stay away from you, under penalty of blocking. I have ZERO dogs in this hunt--I feel "protective" of neither Homer nor you, nor for that matter PCHS-NJROTC, around whom the original conflict centered--and thus I am an "uninvolved" admin. With that being the case, I am hereby proposing that in the matter of those two editors, you be placed on the same terms imposed upon NeutralHomer. To wit:
    User User:Delicious carbuncle is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of the users PCHS-NJROTC and NeutralHomer, either together or separately. This means: You are not to interact with them, discuss them, raise issues about them, comment upon issues they raise, or follow them around. As in NH's conditions, if they engage you or show up at an article you are editing, you may respond to them, calmly and appropriately.
    And please, don't worry: if NeutralHomer antagonizes the community or violates its norms, the rest of the community can deal with it when the time comes. You no longer need to trouble yourself about this editor at all. It did not have to come to this, but you've shown a nearly-complete lack of self-restraint in discussing these two users, despite pleas from numerous members of the community. It's got to stop, and I encourage the rest of the community to support this proposal in order to bring about that end. GJC 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: As proposer. GJC 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with a understanding that this isn't a free license for the other editors to bait him into breaking a sanction. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, its growing weary. A mutual interaction ban for all of these parties would be best, with, of course, HIAB's caveat. --Jayron32 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was going to make a similar comment, in that concerns relating to other editors less than optimal conduct is too often conflated by Dc into time sapping postings when the results are not what they desire. I didn't because I felt I have previously been involved in the PCHS-NJROTC matter. However, since an uninvolved admin has commented I would like to make clear my belief that issues that might have been resolved by some judicious sysopping have been rendered into drama fests by Delicious carbuncle, in pursuit of his pound of flesh and more. Time to place a lid on it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In pursuit of his pound of flesh and more"? Far from trying to impose my will on the outcome, I have brought the issues to the appropriate forum, supported my allegations with evidence and diffs, avoided making personal attacks, tried not to respond to the personal attacks and accusations coming my way, and made clear that I was willing to accept whatever outcome the community felt was appropriate. I am not seeking revenge here, just asking for a calm reevaluation of an admin's decision in a single case. My issue in the PCHS-NJROTC matter (and apparently I'm about to experience it again here) is actually the failure of most participants to actually deal with what is presented and instead allow things to develop into something that is annoying to all involved. If you don't think there was anything wrong with the unblocking of Neutralhomer, just say so. No drama required. I find it a bit troublesome that admins are so willing to hand me a topic ban yet so unwilling to review the unblocking of someone who has been blocked several times for harassment including my own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your last sentence negates your previous points entirely. The reason why you want the unblock reviewed is because you don't like it; you cannot point to any policy or guideline. You have very recently acted in exactly the same manner with regard to another editor whose sanctions you did not agree with. You want Neutral Homer and PCHS blocked, possibly banned, for an extended period; the community wishes for the disruption to stop. Sanctions have been enacted upon the other editors to this end, and now we are discussing including you for that purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I have my opinions about what would be appropriate for each editor, but I have not attempted to force my view on anyone. I believe that PCHS-NJROTC should have been very clearly told that it is neither appropriate nor correct for an editor to unilaterally ban another editor (especially after specifically agreeing not to do so). I don't think a block would have accomplished anything. I also believe that PCHS-NJROTC is obviously lacking the judgment and maturity required for WP:AR and related activities, so a topic ban would be appropriate. I accepted the proposed voluntary topic ban (which apparently doesn't include WP:AR and has no specific terms that can be enforced). I believe that Neutralhomer has violated the community's trust too often and should have remained indef blocked. Again, asking for a review of their unblocking is not forcing my opinion on anyone. I am unlikely to change my opinions, so perhaps this should be a ban discussion, not a topic ban discussion. I am getting tired of having to defend myself against these distortions, so if someone wants to close this up, I'm not protesting. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DC: "I have brought the issues to the appropriate forum, supported my allegations with evidence and diffs, avoided making personal attacks, tried not to respond to the personal attacks and accusations coming my way, and made clear that I was willing to accept whatever outcome the community felt was appropriate."
    Yes. You have brought them, and brought them, and brought them, and brought them. You have "supported" your allegations over, and over, and over, making clear only that any actions short of the ones you sought would result in yet another resurrection of the same issue, as soon as the current iteration was archived. And if, as you say, you "avoided making personal attacks", eventually your insistence on bringing this dispute became IN ITSELF a personal attack. And incidentally: I do not think there was anything wrong with the unblocking. I also don't think it was even remotely wise for you to have opened this thread. The fact that he was sanctioned in the first place, for most people, would have been enough to ameliorate the anger at his original actions; bringing this here smacks of vengefulness, not "dispute resolution". GJC 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Gladys j cortez seems to be conflating three distinct incidents into one event, which fosters the impression that I am the problem here (which is unnecessary, since I have annoyed enough people that the ban will be enacted regardless). I opened a topic on ANI about PCHS-NJROTC's unilateral declaration that a user was banned (and I dug it out of the archive because it was never addressed). I attempted to open a new thread asking for a topic ban on future vandalism-related issues for PCHS-NJROTC. And I opened this thread about Neutralhomer, which, again, is unrelated to PCHS-NJROTC. The circumstances surrounding each issue are very clear, should anyone take the time to actually read the evidence I presented. You may not agree that anything need be done about them, but I would hope that you see the cause for concern. I know that I am not alone in my opinion, but the point is moot since no one seems willing to act in the face of the obvious dissent.
    Perhaps part of the problem here is the assumption that I am angry. I am not angry. I am frustrated with the way issues are being dealt with here, but my frustration is not directed at Neutralhomer or PCHS-NJROTC. That comment only adds to that frustration because it makes some invalid assumptions, not just about my state of mind, but also about my motivation. I am neither seeking revenge nor attempting to ameliorate a dispute, I am attempting to prevent more of the same abusive behaviour that Neutralhomer has demonstrated in the past and is highly likely to do again in the future. Is the Wikipedia community so dysfunctional that it cannot recognize the pattern?
    At no time in this have I asked for anything but a considered discussion of the issues at hand, and I have been very clear that I will stand by whatever outcome the community decides. "Drop the stick" is not a considered response to a new thread. Why are people surprised that I am dissatisfied with the outcome when the outcome seems to be "I'm not reading what you wrote because you're only trying to cause drama". I doubt LessHeard VanU means it in the same way, but I agree that a little sysop action early on would have prevented a lot of what followed in the PCHS-NJROTC issues.
    Clearly my actions have annoyed a lot of people and I apologise for that. Bring on the topic ban! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason these issues have been conflated--and I highly doubt that I'm the only one that's done so--is that they all arose around the same initial issue. Oddly enough, when you raised the first notice re: PCHS-NJROTC's actions, I was in agreement with you. I had dealt with what I felt to be his overzealous vandal patrolling and entirely over-the-top sleuthing efforts in regard to the Mmbabies vandal, and I agree with the sentiment that the talkpage connected with that issue is fairly horrifying. I also felt that the user's reactions were way, way out of line, and agreed that it seemed like there was a bit of strategy behind that reaction (namely, to deflect attention from the real issue). However, something went wrong, and here's how I see what happened....When Shell seemed to endorse PCHS's actions, you got pulled into a back-and-forth with PCHS which ended up biting YOU in the backside. One of the very useful senses that one develops by watching AN/ANI for a while is the sense of when another user is shooting him/herself in the foot, which (IMHO) PCHS was very well on his way to doing at that point. Unfortunately--and please understand, I completely see how this happened and I honestly can't say I might not have gotten caught up the same way--you made the classic mistake by the person who actually cares about what they're trying to fix--you allowed yourself to get involved in the back-and-forth-ing and unwittingly drew negative attention to yourself. Had you stuck solely to the message, namely "I feel that this user has developed a needless focus on one brand of vandalism and in trying to ferret it out, has violated many core WP policies"--had you done that instead, between your calm insistence and PCHS's increasingly emotional defenses, I believe you might have accomplished what you were looking to do originally.
    When that didn't happen, though--when people started focusing on your responses to PCHS--it seems as though it stopped being about "this person is damaging Wikipedia in these ways..." and ore about "this person is damaging Wikipedia and pissing me off, and furthermore nobody is listening and that's pissing me off even MORE..." and it seemed to become more about WINNING than about solving the original problem. And at that point the whole thread just started spinning out of control. I've said this to a few users, and I'll say it here as well because I think it's applicable in this case: When you call attention to a problem, and you don't get the reaction or outcome you're looking for, and as a result you get more and more insistent about the magnitude and urgency of the problem, you quickly stop being seen as part of the solution, and begin to be seen as an entirely NEW and SEPARATE problem. I think this is what happened to you here, just about the time the first thread was archived back around Christmas. There were still a couple of places you could have stopped the speeding train--by leaving each thread alone once it was archived, or by disengaging from people who posted on your talk page against your wishes, or by disengaging on any of the several instances when you were requested to do so...but unfortunately those were not the actions you chose to take. The comments you made before in regards to your motives--that you were neither vengeful nor angry or even that the PCHS issue was unrelated to the NeutralHomer request--all of them may very well be true, and I'm willing to accept those assertions--but all of those statements in my original posts represent, I believe, a reasonably fair picture of how these actions have been interpreted by the community. Opening the thread about NeutralHomer, while ostensibly unrelated, does in fact have its genesis in the PCHS issue--because what was NH posting on your talkpage about in the first place? The PCHS issue. And especially after NH had promised as a condition of his unblock to stay away from you--here was another place where the train could have been stopped. Had you waited for an example of NH violating the ban on interaction, an example which you seemed to believe would happen regardless--had you waited til then, you would have found yourself fully on the side of right again. By opening it when you did, though, you brought focus back to yourself once again, and as Jehochman said, it looked as though you were the one who wasn't going to let it go.
    I realize that this is WAY past TL;DR stage, but if you internalize some of what I've said here, I think it will do wonders in smoothing your Wiki path. Please, before you bring or re-instate any issue in the future, please take a moment to consider how the community as a whole might view the thing you're doing. Will they see it as you MEAN it--as an honest attempt to solve a problem--or will they see disruption due to your timing, your tone, your phrasing, your manner? Far from "angry power-hungry admin", I'd actually just like to get everyone off your back too--and a ban on further interaction seemed like one way to both end the trainwreck in progress, and to get your attention long enough to pass along information about how, in my completely independent view, you ended up in the soup. Truce? GJC 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, GJC, for taking the time to write that. It helps me to understand why people are so exercised about my recent posts. Let me clarify two points. First, I have some faith that Neutralhomer will be able to stay away from interacting with me if they are under the threat of yet another block, so that does not figure into my belief that their block should not have been lifted. Second, Neutralhomer's animus toward me predates anything to do with PCHS-NJROTC. Neutralhomer had an earlier, unrelated episode of repeatedly posting on my talkpage despite being asked not to (and with me simply deleting the posts unread). Again, this isn't about me, it is about preventing this from happening to someone else in the future. Let me say "I told you so" now, since this topic ban will prevent me saying it when it happens.
    Not surprisingly, your analysis of the situation is disheartening. You seem to be admitting that there are genuine issues here, but that you are willing to ignore them because I appear to you to be trying to "win" and you don't want to give me the satisfaction. Another admin said basically the same thing, except saying that I appeared to be "bullying" PCHS-NJROTC, so they would not act on my concerns lest they appear to be supporting bullying. Great. Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?
    The topic ban is inevitable and I accept it. It is unnecessary if the aim is to prevent me from interacting with PCHS-NJROTC or Neutralhomer, but it will prevent me from continuing to discuss the issues addressed here, which seems to be fine with everyone. I will consider the topic ban enacted as of right now, so I will be unable to respond further here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have already clearly declared that I have no desire or intention of interacting with Neutralhomer, so this is unnecessary. The issues with Neutralhomer predate my invovement with Wikipedia, let alone any interaction with them. This is unrelated to PCHS-NJROTC in any way. It's pretty clear that the community doesn't appreciate my persistence, but to sweep this under the rug and contend that I am the cause of the problems instead of the reporter of the problems is not going to resolve the situation. If people are actually so concerned about "drama", why not simply deal with the unblock review in good faith, rather than starting topic ban discussions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is necessary to stop you writing about these editors, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but I think I would have figured that out on my own. Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion here, I actually have no trouble restraining myself from discussing these editors. I thought that the community might appreciate my bringing these issues forward, but apparently I have seriously misjudged what the community values and strained everyone's patience at the same time. I dropped any mention of PCHS-NJROTC after the earlier AN thread was "resolved" with the help of Jehochman, only to find that PCHS-NJROTC was being wrongly associated with this request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Been here too many times under this subject. Wknight94 talk 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support minimise disruption. ViridaeTalk 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support so the drama can end and this poor horse can finally have a peaceful rest. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's necessary in some cases to stop editors interacting with each other when it is clear that they can't get on with each other. DC, would you prefer this, or an indef block, because that is where this is headed if you refuse to let the dead horse be buried. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppport: DC cannot seem to disengage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • MAke it so. Bilateral interaction bans are the obvious solution here. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's enough of a pile on to close this thread. Could another administrator please do that. Thank you. Jehochman Brrr 13:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Jpat34721 Topic Ban

    I request my topic ban be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Please consider:

    • None of the points I made in my defense were addressed by the admins, including the fact that I self-reverted the edit in question prior to being reported in violation of 1RR
    • My edits have been constructive and I think a fair reading of them would show that they have improved the article and moved it closer to WP:NPOV
    • This cozy exchange on the the 2Over0's talk page (and a similar one on BizMo's) is problematic:

    Things are starting to back up at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Needs some uninvolved admin intervention (that's you!) rather than the usual suspects bickering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    I have started but would like some second opinions. --BozMo talk 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    The above gives the appearance of administrative meat-puppetry. We have an involved former admin, recruiting intervention from two sympathetic admins (and in fact the admins who administered the ban) requesting they do what he ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley] is no longer able to. This is unethical and unfair.

    • This accusation in the comments sections by WMC is untrue
    WMC (again) I think this is fairly simple. J had broken the 1RR parole on this article very clearly by the time of this report. After* this report he has continued reverting [69].
    The edit in question was not a revert. We had reached consensus that contentious labels should be avoided. My edit simply removed one that we'd missed when we went through the article to eliminate them.
    • I volunteer to take a 1 week break from editing if my request is granted.

    Thank you JPatterson (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looking over your contributions history, and the discussion at the Requests for Enforcement page, it does not appear you were sanctioned for a single edit as you appear to claim above. I see discussion of a history of tendentious editing at the article in question, and your request for review therefore does not seem to substantively address the concerns noted. I am neither-here-nor-there regarding any sanctions over this issue per se, but if we are going to discuss your sanctions, don't you think you need to address the issues you were sanctioned over and not merely over the last edit you happened to make before you were sanctioned? --Jayron32 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The request for enforcement was for violation of the 1RR rule. If I was banned for another reason, a new action should have been opened so I could have an opportunity to respond to those charges. The tendentious editing comment refered to other editors, not me. My only edit of this section was an attempt at compromise. (The other revert was in a different section). I didn't even think it was a revert because I didn't undo, I tried to synthesize the two competing versions (by other editors).I have edited on both sides of this issue. My primary focus has been in trying to get other editors to agree that we should be chronicling and not judging the controversy. (e.g. here JPatterson (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC with below) Actually, I don't see where exactly it says violation of the 1RR rule was the only issue being discussed. In the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section there seems to be problems with regards to tendentious editing at the intro to the article in general and not just a single revert by yourself, which serves as the locus of the dispute. Two admins, BozMo and 2/0 both agreed that there was a general problem as uninvolved admins and enacted the sanctions. Besides William M. Connoly's request to BozMo and 2/0, what evidence do you have that those two were materially involved in the article in question? Do you have diffs that show they have involvement in the dispute, or have expressed an opinion about which side they are favoring? That someone involved asks another admin to review a situation does not automatically make the second admin involved. I'd like to see more evidence of involvement by BosMo and 2/0, especially as defined by WP:INVOLVED, before I can decide heads or tails of this. I am not dismissing your claim, I just want to see evidence why these two were inappropriate in enacting such sanctions... --Jayron32 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The notice that was posted on my talk page say it was for violating 1RR. The sanction page says it was violating the terms of "Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation", which near as I can tell is the same thing. probation = 1RR. I am an inexperienced WP user and do not have the skills to provide the evidence you ask for. I question the propriety of an involved, and highly controversial ex-admin recruiting other admins to act (what do you think he meant be "this means you"?) on his behalf. JPatterson (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Jpat34721, but I started looking into Jpat34721 (talk · contribs)'s contributions about twelve hours ago (not continuously, obviously), as some of their edits had struck me as problematic in light of the recently-imposed community sanctions. Jayron32 is absolutely correct regarding my reasoning as closing administrator. I also stress that this is a ban from Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident only - your contributions to other climate change articles and other areas of the encyclopedia continue to be welcome. A quick glance at my talkpage and recent contributions indicate that I have been heavily involved in trying to restore a more normal editing environment in this topic area. There were several open requests, and I had not commented there for four days, which I assume is why WMC requested that I take a look. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a hotly contested article. Tempers have flared. If you'll read my talk entries you will find that (for the most part) I have tried hard to keep a cool head and keep the discussions moving towards consensus. Note too that this ban was instigated by one strongly partisan editor who made three requests for bans in one day, all against editors he perceived to be hostile to the changes he desires. Not one specific problematic edit of mine has been raised, either here or on the request for action page. Just nebulous charges by Connelley of misbehaving prior to his recruitment effort. JPatterson (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, what evidence do you have that BozMo and 2/0 were involved admins in the dispute before they enacted the sanctions. Being asked by an involved editor to review a situation does not make them automatically involved. Do you have any evidence that WMC specifically sought them out for a specific result, rather than the WP:AGF idea that he sought them out because he believed they would make a neutral, dispassionate review of the situation and act accordingly. What evidence is there that these admins misacted besides the request from WMC to review the situation? --Jayron32 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. Don't you think, given the controversy surrounding this editor, that the process would be better served if he would let it run it's natural course. He didn't insitute the request for action, why is he getting involved at all?JPatterson (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You state above that you are inexperienced? Come now... You've been editing since January 2007, long enough to learn how to read the history tab on an article. Are they active editors at the article? Have they expressed an opinion as to which side of the debate they fall on? I am entirely unfamiliar with the dispute myself, I just want to know what makes the conclusions of BozMo and 2/0 invalid? --Jayron32 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edit three articles with a three year break in between. I am not an experienced editor by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps I am misusing the term involved. I don't know how to tell if someone has edited in the entire global warming space or if there is a pattern of cahoots here. It just seems unfair when someone who is clearly involved recruits in this manner. One doubts he went looking for a neutral ear.JPatterson (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I hadn't judged the bredth of your editing, I just checked when your account had been registred. Regardless, it looks like we're just going around in circles here. I'm going to disengage at this point. I really have no idea about the merits of your complaint about the way that the sanctions that were enacted. Perhaps another admin who cares more about the climate change articles could review and decide if these sanctions were enacted appropriately. The catch-22 here is that truly uninvolved admins lack the background to make a full assessment of the dispute, and any admin who knows enough about the dispute to make a judgement is likely too involved to do so. Sorry I could not have been more help here, but this is clearly going nowhere from my end, so good luck and lets see what other admins have to say on this. --Jayron32 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your timeJPatterson (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JP needs to slow down. He is waaay out of line in breaking the Climate Change probabtion, and it is far more than just 1RR - that is just the most blatant violation. JP is familiar enough with wiki to wikilawyer, though not very well, but unfamiliar enough not to clearly understand what a revert is (maybe. I'm sure you can see the obvious problem with The edit in question was not a revert... My edit simply removed one...). He isn't blocked, just banned from a couple of articles. If he edits productively elsewhere and drops the lawyering, I'll be happy to support a review of his ban in a week.

    But he does need to stop the lawyering. I contacted 2/0 in an entirely neutral manner that didn't even mention JP by name [45]. Describing it as "This cozy exchange", or as "meat-puppetry" is entirely inappropriate.

    William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If as you imply, any change counts as a revert then I'm guilty as charged. But then so are a large number of active editors on that page. Yet the only ones who seem to get sanctioned are those not actively pushing the tempest in a teapot meme. If article probation supersedes WP:Bold and WP:BRD, it should say so somewhere. If any change, no matter how small and no matter if consensus has been reached is a revert, it should say that somewhere as well. JPatterson (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to recognise that Jpat's description of events above is supposed to describe the same process I was watching. He's lucky only to be banned for such a short period, if it were up to me that would be an indefinite ban from all climate change topics. We just don't need mission posters in this area right now. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: JPatterson has initiated a discussion regarding William M. Connolley on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard under the heading William M. Connolley re Climategate article. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jpat34721 appears to be forum shopping. I'll ask him to knock it off. --TS 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not for this.
    • Briefly: the last thing climate articles need right now is people with an axe to grind. Jpat34721 is doing a fairly good job of portraying himself as someone with an axe to grind. Therefore I think the topic ban is reasonable. MastCell Talk 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that it's not actually a topic ban; he is merely banned from a single article and its talk page. In the light of the ongoing problems with this editor, should this now be extended to a general topic ban from climate articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a rather tired and involved editor I've not been paying too much attention to Jpat34721|JPatterson edit warring, and have no complaint about sanctions being imposed. Jpat needs to accept that 1R is a maximum, not an entitlement. However, I would note that Jpat34721|JPatterson has made a number of helpful contributions to the talk page, and on that basis a review of the sanction in a week's time would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't followed this too closely but I do think the topic ban, though within the reasonable discretion of the community to enact and of an administrator to judge as having consensus, was perhaps a little harsh and hasty. The new article probation is being enforced rather more sternly than the Obama article probation on which it is based. We'll see where that goes. As a process matter, I think that appeals should be made directly on the enforcement page rather than choosing a general-purpose administrator meta-page. If we need more eyes on it, a courtesy notice here, at AN/I, and/or the general sanctions page would be helpful, but not forking the discussion to multiple pages. Even more ambitious, if there is a volunteer clerk in the house it might make sense to develop a system for logging active and closed requests, actions, and appeals. Kind of a miniature, tiny, community-organized version of Arbcom's RfE pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    George Reeves Person/BoxingWear again

    The user described here is now continuing his disruptive editing as ChessMasta and IP, see the discussion here. --84.162.249.158 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are anonymous IPs talking on Talk:Bartłomiej Macieja about checkuser results on ChessMasta? Was there even a request for a checkuser? And I see no notification to the accused ChessMasta concerning either checkuser or this AN. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Woooo!

    We need a redirect from Woooo! (protected) to Woooo! (How I Met Your Mother episode). -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Tan | 39 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    and WP:RFPP is thataway, for future protection needs (or {{editprotected}} on the talk page). Syrthiss (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dontdeletecontent

    Does this constitute an attack? Or should we continue to monitor until contributions eventually lead to AIV or AN/I as I suspect they will. Disruption is surely impending in the name of The Truth. SGGH ping! 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please inform the user of this thread. Tan | 39 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. SGGH ping! 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've nominated the page for deletion at MfD. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=337486793"