Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive399

Improper block

Hello administrators. User:Raul654 has blocked User:NCdave for a week. This block is in response to some edits NCdave made to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. However, as NCdave pointed out on his talk page, and as I repeated on Raul654's talk page, Raul654 did not have the authority to block NCdave, as Raul654 has been involved in content disputes with NCdave at the aforementioned article. Wikipedia's blocking policy states that:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

Please review this situation and take appropriate action. Thank you. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, the more important question is whether NCdave needed blocking, and the answer to that question is clearly "yes." He's been engaged in tendentious editing across a wide range of articles for a long, long time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• After a quick review of not the whole thing, a some kind of block for disruption seems appropriate. The only inappropriateness was that an "involved" admin performed it. NCd needs to be mindful of collaboration, and that topics around evolution, and intelligent design draw from the most arguementative selection of wikipedia users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 has a history of blocking users with whom he edit wars. There is no reason to believe any other administrator here is willing to inform Raul654 about proper procedures here, because here at Wikipedia users who have a persona that can fallaciously be appealed to, procedure does not matter. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you prepared to back up this canard with an RfC or RfA, or will you just hand wave and not provide proof of your claim? Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What good do you think an RfA will do when people only appeal to authority? Look around, the evidence abounds. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not willing to back your words, then you're in serious violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Corvus cornix_talk 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14964 Here is a forum where the issue is discussed. Not much hard evidence is given, but UBeR's opinion seems to be shared by others. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now THAT is a reliable source. (note: I removed the linkage.) Corvus cornix_talk 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you do that? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to that particular website are deprecated. Corvus cornix_talk 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the BADSITES pseudo-policy that's deprecated; it was soundly defeated, in case you are unaware. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it was my edit that NCdave replaced, I don't think a block was necessary, and I doubt that an uninvolved admin would have given it. No disrespect for Raul, but NCdave is an editor as well, and a one week block seems excessive to me. Mackan79 (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for using that link to WR. I wasn't aware that WR is an anti-Wikipedia site. Also, I apologize for suggesting that Raul654 regularly misuses his admin powers. I have no evidence of that. I know that Raul654 is a valuable editor who has contributed much to this encyclopedia and has been here far longer than I have. This is in fact the first time I have disagreed with Raul654 over a blocking. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do have evidence. As User:The Evil Spartan stated here:

If he has a problem with my previous actions, come out and say it. Otherwise, it's clear that they are what they are - empty claims, without merit.. I do have a problem with your previous blocks. I believe you have repeatedly blocked users with whom you are in an edit war or whose edits you found disagreeable, under sometimes misleading edit summaries, and always for far longer than allowed by WP:BLOCK. Since you asked for examples, I will provide almost every non-checkuser, non-maintenance, non-vandalism block you have done in the past several months:

Special:Contributions/88.97.182.121 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) 1 week for "vandalism and POV pushing" for this. No warning, Raul directly in an edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/24.99.55.240 - (WTC) 1 week for "vandalism" (in fact, was POV pushing, had no warning, did not deserve block).

User talk:Obedium - (Global warming) - As stated on the talk page, "Really, the problem is that Raul654 is in an edit war with this user, and blocked him inappropriately. The indefinite block is only an extension of that. ~ UBeR (talk) ". Raul in a direct edit war with thisuser.

Special:Contributions/199.82.243.71 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked, apparently, for having the chutzpah to state this. Reverted by Raul. Raul in a direct edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/69.29.207.159 - (Intelligent Design) blocked for this innocuous mistake.

Special:Contributions/204.9.255.65 (Intelligent Design) "vandalism" - blocked for this and removing a small section, without warning. Article which Raul edits, giving opposite point of view.

Special:Contributions/Mawest217- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for "vandalism" for having the chutzpah to add an {{NPOV}} tag to an article you routinely watch: [1]. Reverted by Raul, in a direct edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/204.52.215.13- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for POV pushing for again, adding POV tag: [2]. Speaking against Raul's POV on an article he routinely edits.

Special:Contributions/67.180.115.190 - (Intelligent Design) blocked for "POV pushing" for [3]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/207.250.84.10 - (An Inconvenient Truth) - blocked for inserting the word "controversial", with a source, and after using the talk page, and in a direct edit war with Raul: [4].

Protected article - (Global warming) protected your own version of the page: [5]

Yqtb: (Intelligent Design) locked his talk page for removing a message from you: [6], which is allowable by policy (not to mention blocking him 24h for quite mild vandalism on an article you were involved in).

Special:Contributions/70.144.68.148 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for "POV pushing": [7]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

User:UBeR - (global warming) -blocking for 3RR, etc. on an article which you clearly have a stake: [8].

Special:Contributions/Brittainia - (global warming) - edit warring.

User:Rtc - (Intelligent Design)- blocked for "trouble-making" (which, as every time, involved a point of view opposite your own)

User:Iantresman (ultimately global warming related) - blocked for "harassing" a user whose POV you agree with on the articles they were editing.

Special:Contributions/65.202.145.2- (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for a week for POV pushing for this (reverted by yourself of course, which is not POV-pushing, and certainly not justified without a warning, and most certainly not from an admin who is POV pushing in the opposite direction.

Special:Contributions/68.145.124.154 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for edit warring with you.

Special:Contributions/Zeeboid - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocking an editor with whom you were in dispute, and losing a good contributor for it while at it.

Special:Contributions/216.67.29.113 - (ID)[9], etc. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Admin_blocking_a_user_with_whom_he_was_in_an_edit_conflict ANI thread.

At this point, I tire of going any further back than April (I believe the mountain of blocks above suffices). So, no, to answer your questions, my statements were not "empty claims, without merit." The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Naerii 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the edits above were clearly problematic, and should have been instantly reverted.

Most also don't count as simple vandalism, though, by anyone's definition. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm...half of the list above are sock puppets of User: Scibaby. Calling User: Zeeboid a "good contributor" must be some kind of joke - he was the meat puppet of a radio talk show host only here for provocation. I've looked over the edit history of "Expelled". Raul has made 10 edits in the last 4 month, and as far as I can tell, only one of them (the latest) reverting NCDave. That is a mighty low-intensity edit war.... Raul has warned him against tendentious editing two weeks ago, however. We cannot interpret "being on the other side in a discussion" as "being in a conflict" - its normal that our good editors are on "the other side" of POV-pushers. Also, a participation on a talk page does not "a conflict" make - we want our admins to communicate before they take out the banhammer, not to hover over the pages and strike without warning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that in response to me? Because if so it makes no sense. Perhaps you've put it in the wrong place? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's in reply to Naerii quoting Spartan - I got confused by the indention level. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, TheEvilSpartan's summaries of the above blocks are highly misleading, if not outright false. I'm not going to sit here and jusity every block, but just to give a few examples, consider this edit that EvilSpartan classified "an innocent mistake". An anon changed every instance of teleological (the correct word) to theological (the wrong word) - something he shouldn't have done anyway. He somehow managed to spell "theological" correctly in the edit summary, and mispelled it every single time thereafter. That's not an innocent mistake - that's intentional vandalism with a false edit summary. User:216.67.29.113 I blocked because I caught him with checkuser gaming the FA process, disrupting an article while logged out and logging in to file an FAR claiming it was unstable. The only relavant question on the AN was whether or not the account block should have been indefinite. (It was upheld). Obedium, a user I blocked for POV pushing, turned out to be a Scibaby sock. Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV. Iantresman is community banned for POV pushing (and the arbcom has twice upheld it and refused his appeals). Brittainia I blocked because - at Raymond's suggestion, I ran checkuser and found out "she" was a sockpuppet of user:Rameses. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

As to the current block, NCDave has been warned on three separate occasions that his editing is tenditious.[10][11][12] In fact, there was an entire talk page thread at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed dedicated to his problematic editing on that article. He was given more than sufficient warning. At the time I issued his final warning, he claimed I was involved in in a dispute with him (he collected every edit I had ever made to the article - regardless of whether or not they pertained to him - to claim I was involved in a personal dispute with him). Claiming he is involved in a dispute with an admin seems to be his favorite tactic to prevent admins from sanctioning for his behavior. At the time, I informed him that this was not the case. He continued his disruption, culminating in today's block. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to make one final note that I find JBFrenchhorn's actions here very fishy. He filed this complaint here and never notified me, as is generally expected and/or required. Raul654 (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, although I did state my opinions on the issue on your talk page, I did not notify you of this thread. I should have done so, and I apologize. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, why are you suspicious of anyone with an opposite viewpoint? I read over your history of blocks and many of these constitute admin abuse. I mean, come on! A WEEK LONG BLOCK!? The second edit he made was one that several users thought should have been made. Are you going to block them too? If you want someone blocked that you are disputing with then please let someone else handle it and don't abuse your admin powers! Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I make no judgment to the previous blocks which seem to have been generally reasonable, but I would note that the two warnings other than Raul's here come from "Angry Christian" and FeloniousMonk, which suggests they may not have been entirely neutral (I believe both are on the other side of these content issues). The other seems related to another page. As to the specific edit, it was entirely appropriate, adding the word "reportedly" to a characterization about a movie that hasn't come out yet. I think an unblock would be reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never edited at the intelligent design (ID) related articles until yesterday after DaveNC was blocked. It seems that he was blocked for objecting when several editors tried to insert into a Wikipedia article that ID is an "intrusion" in science classes.[13] I agree that it is an intrusion, but DaveNC was correct that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and is not a place for POV-pushing. DaveNC may have violated some other Wikipedia policies, but I feel very uncomfortable about a 1-week block for opposing blatant POV-pushing. Incidentally, the vast majority of courts in the U.S. have held that ID is not an intrusion in science classes at private schools.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, your understanding of the law is faulty. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. (Courts of subsequently interpreted "Congress" means the "government", both federal and state); hence public schools (and an arm of the government) are bound by the first amendment not to allow religion to be taught as fact in a s science classroom. Courts have not ruled that ID violates the first amendment in science classes in private schools because the constition does not apply in private schools.

Second, you description of the events on that article is equally faulty. "Intrustion" is the word that has been used in the article for a while. Mackan79 and later NCDave were POV pushing by trying to change it. Raul654 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I agree with you that "Courts have not ruled that ID violates the first amendment in science classes in private schools...." So, why should this Wikipedia article assert that ID is an "intrusion" in science classes, if it's perfectly legal in science classes at private schools? Maybe solipsism would also be an intrusion in science classes, but should Wikipedia really be taking such a position? Again, I agree that ID (and solipsism) should not intrude in science classes, but that's just my personal opinion. The word "intrusion" has been in this article for awhile, but the talk page shows that it has been controversial, and for good reason I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You confuse the legal with the semantic. Courts have ruled that ID is not science. Hence putting it into science classes makes then "science plus crap" classes. You cannot "include" it and still call it a science class. Private schools are allowed to teach religious crap in the US - that does not make it science, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally speaking, if any court ever said anything about the propriety of ID in a private school science class, then it was pure obiter dicta not binding on anyone. It's probably true that ID does not belong in a "science" class like physics or biology or chemistry. But by the same token history is not "science" either, and yet it's not really an intrusion when a physics teacher discusses the history of a great scientist's life. Anyway, I think I've pretty much said all I wanted to say here. Thanks for the opportunity.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Intrude means to put it somewhere it doesn't belong; the court said exactly that in the Kitmizller case. Changing it to 'include' is a pretty clear attempt to water down the (correct) language in the article, and is POV pushing. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a nonsensical argument. Cooking is not science either, but you can discuss the science of cooking. ID proponents floated the idea of creation "science", which is not science at all, in order to undermine evolutionary biology, which they see as a threat to their religious beliefs. I'm not aware that anybody sees the history of science as in any way incompatible with the teaching of science. It's perfectly acceptable to discuss ideas such as phlogiston and Descartes' principles of natural philosophy without asserting that they are anything other than outmoded staging posts on the way to modern understanding. When Hooke demonstrated that one of Descartes' principles was provably wrong, proposing instead what became known as conservation of momentum, it was considered quite a big deal by the Royal Society. Hooke's experiments and methods merit study as the pattern for much modern experimental practice - Hooke and Boyle, for example, were the first to present the results of an experiment in tabular form with the expected and observed values compared. This is an extremely interesting field of considerable relevance in the teaching of science and experimental practice. What do you think the teaching of intelligent design adds to the understanding of the development and methodology of science? Guy (Help!) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I regard the teaching of intelligent design to be an intrusion in a science class. However, disagreement exists.

Many great physicists believe that the fundamental laws of nature are by the design of a creator, and it's not absurd to suppose that someday biologists might find something similar going on in the evolutionary process. I doubt it will happen, but it could happen, and I don't see anything wrong with a biology teacher mentioning such a possibility. When we pick our mates, we are in some sense helping to design offspring, and science is developing ever-more-powerful methods for us to create a designer baby; I cannot say with 100% certainty that no intelligence beyond our own is affecting the evolution of our race. Life is a mysterious thing, and we don't know all the answers. Anyway, JzG, someone once told me that smoke is an essential component within many electronic devices, the proof being that whenever those electronic devices cease to function there is an observed escaping of the smoke....Wikipedia would be entitled to say that a theory like that would definitely be an intrusion in a science class.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To correct, Raul, I didn't edit anything related to the word "intrusion." If your view of my comments is based on the idea that I did, I'd ask you to reread them. Even so, changing "intrusion" to "inclusion" isn't exactly awful, since both would seem to share a roughly equivalent amount of POV. Mackan79 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following the intelligent design articles at all, nor this argument, but a week long block for just one edit, that in fact seems to be an obviously good faith edit (which appears to have been instantly reverted by the Admin who claims he is not in an edit-war with NCDave), seems a big overreaction. Yes there were (apparently) earlier problems, but the fact that it's been at least 2 weeks since any of the problematic edits occurred makes it difficult to claim that they are justification for a block, you don't block someone after a 2week delay....Restepc (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

replying to myself.....the review by.....I've forgotten the name now......ah yes, Mango_juice, points to NCdaves actions on the talk page, so perhaps my above point is not as relevant as I had thought. Restepc (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I'm here too, and so is JBFrenchhorn. All FOUR of us believe that the word intrusion was POV pushing. The word inclusion, does not push a POV in any way. Saksjn (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The best way to solve this problem is to apply zero tolerance to advocacy of fringe views in mainstream articles. Virtually the entire problem here has been people promoting content that goes against the dominant mainstream view. The same is going on around parapsychology / paranormal articles, articles on fringe scientists, any form of pseudoscience, 9/11, vaccines, chronic fatigue syndrome, asperger's, water fluoridation, anything to do with creationism, and that's before we get to the religious and ethnic feuds. Wikipedia is the single most important place to get your fringe POV validated, all controversy tends to be massively over-represented and quite often accorded substantially inflated significance within articles, and we seem to be giving more consideration to ever-so-polite people who keep requesting the same invalid changes with the same invalid arguments month after month, than to people who enforce NPOV and try to prevent hijacking of articles by fringe advocates. Are we going to do something about this at some point? Or are we simply going to wait until each mainstream defender loses patience and ban them one by one for incivility, leaving the place free to the soup-spitters? The place to advocate parity of ID is Conservapedia. The place to advocate parity for global warming denial is ExxonMobilpedia (OK, maybe we don't have an article on that yet). WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are the policies here, and people who wear out the patience of everyone in sight while trying to weasel their way around those policies are a problem. So we need to deal with it, without endlessly spinning it out. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No the best way to solve this is to simply abide by the Block policy and don't block someone with whom you are in dispute, even if you are an admin, crat, checkuser, arb, or demigod. Simple as that, no big hullaballoo needed. All the discussion about whether this speicific block (or the dozen others listed) was otherwise good is completely beside the point -- there would be no drama at all if an uninvolved admin made the block, which is exactly why the block policy forbids this. Discussion of the content dispute itself has no place here on ANI at all. Unit56 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation in Kina Grannis

I found this note on my talk page today. Apparently, there has been conflict over some material in the article. This is a serious violation of the 3RR. I thought I would bring it here to see what everyone else thinks should be done. I suggest, since an IP is involved, semi protecting the page and a issuing a warning (poss. level 2) to all involved parties and watching the page. However, I'm new to something like this so maybe I'm wrong. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the IPs involved might have a point on this one. A 5 year old source, that doesn't mention the article subject by their full name (although I do agree it's a logical assumption), is being used as a reference for who someone is currently dating. I think that the statement shouldn't be included unless a current ref can be provided. --Onorem♠Dil 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however, they still need to act within policy, or if they disagree, they need to contact an admin. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The people restoring the information need to act within policy. Removing violations of this nature falls outside 3RR. The article is now protected to ensure that the violations are not restored. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They also shouldn't have been socks of one another, either... Daniel (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question by email

Hanging out at WP:Help desk, WP:Editor assistance/Requests, WP:New contributors' help page, etc. I try to help editors with problems. By email I received this question, which I pass along.

An editor was involved in a content dispute with another editor. It happened that the other editor was an admin, who blocked the first editor for being disruptive.

Question: Is it proper for an admin to block another editor when he himself is involved in a dispute with that editor? I always thought that the admin should seek an uninvolved editor to make the decision and block if appropriate.

The editor was warned by that admin about a week ago. The editor politely requested the admin to identify the inappropriate edits so that he could learn from his mistakes. The admin never told him what edits were wrong.

Some admins are so trusted by the community and have been here so long, they might block someone editing an article they're both involved in and cause only a brief flurry. However, most admins should never block editors with whom they have been editing content on the same article, but ask another disinterested admin to review (some admins post here seeking a review). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: How can an editor improve his behavior if he does not know what edits were improper? Shouldn't an admin help an editor to learn from his mistakes?

The editor in question did not give me permission to release his email so I have to ask these questions in rather general form. I hope you can offer meaningful help without examining the specifics of the case. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin should clearly tell the editor what was thought to be untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If he wants help, he is going to have to release something so people can look at the situation. Or if you want to help him on the basis of what he sent you, look yourself and judge the appropriateness of the block. If you think it was inappropriate, and he won't let us see, he might be willing to email arbcom. DGG (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to offer any worthwhile comment without something a touch more specific. Generally, though: sure, admins should strive to avoid using their tools to gain power in content disputes, and should try to make their rationale for admin actions reasonably clear. Hard to say whether any of this happened without knowing what happened at all. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins should be extremely careful in exercising admin powers in relation to a content dispute. This does not mean, however, that an admin cannot block an editor just because they have interacted before.

It is not common to block a user without their having being warned first. Warnings will usually indicate the article where the problematic edits were made, and roughly what the problem is.

All editors should be prepared to explain their edits on request. This applies double for warnings issued, and triple for admin actions like blocks.

If a user feels a block is unfair, they should use the {{unblock}} template on their user talk page and an uninvolved admin will review. In some cases the user talk page may be protected (which happens just a shade too often for my preference), in which case they should use the unblock mailing list. See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

That's really all that can be said without details. Would it really be improper to identify the user who was blocked? Bovlb (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm being wikistalked

I think that User:62.64.200.97 (contribs page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.64.200.97) is wikistalking me. S/he has been going to articles that I was the last to work on and removing my edits without putting in any reason. Not only has s/he been doing that, s/he has also inserted deletion tags as well as changing my edits back, and I would hardly think that s/he would bother to remove my edits as well as tag the articles if s/he didn't have some kind of grudge against me. I left a message on his/her talk page asking why they were doing this, but I'm kind of freaked out and I'm not totally sure what to do. Suggestions? Asarelah (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left the IP a note about this. Whois stuff means nothing to me (need to learn some day, I do) but it seems to be a static IP. If they continue disrupting, a block may be warranted. What can you do? I'd say the best thing is just keep an eye on their edits, remove incorrect prod tags, and ignore them otherwise. (See WP:RBI and WP:DENY for some philosophy.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm new here, but I think I can be of some help. I did a whois and it says the ip is registered to Tiscali UK Limited, so it's from England, and it says "Concerning abuse and spam ... mailto: abuse@uk.tiscali.com".--Jaeger123 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiscali UK is an ISP that assigns an address from a large pool every time a subscriber logs on - blocking Tiscali ip's is not effective, as all a vandal has to do is log out and get a reassigned address. I know this as I am a Tiscali UK customer. I would also comment that if their efforts at tracing an individual abusive account is as good as their spam filter... well, best of luck! (You'll need it!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits ... again

Hi all. Various people are once again edit-warring over the contents of banned editor, Vintagekits' userpage. I've no interest one way or another in this matter, but I'd like the community to decide one way or another as to whether the page should be blanked or kept. One side thinks it's useful and of historic interest; more useful to the community than a blank page. The other side says that banned editors have no right to a userpage. All the while, the original Vintagekits is happily socking away. The last time I caught him was Wednesday.

Either way, I've fully protected the page at the customary Wrong Version. Can we have some decision here, or this page will end up on ANI on a weekly basis. The last time was just over a week ago. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 08:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, MFD? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not really a question of deleting or not the page (nobody thinks the page history should be deleted). -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy on wp:en to systematically blank the user pages of banned editors ? That would sound logical (because blocking means deligitimisation) and that is the practice on wp:fr. Ceedjee (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• As his page testifies he has written literally hundreds of good pages, on uncontroversial subjects. If people reading those pages want to check the authors details I can see no possible harm to his sig linking to a page giving those details, albeit with a banned template. Most of VK's last (legal) months at Wikipedia were involved in dispute with those editors now seeking to have his page blanked. This group of editors, which centred on the now banned (and worrying) David Lauder, have constantly sought to influence Wikipedia's pages with their own very right wing British political POV, this has included pages on their own relations. This has caused many problems, not only with VK. VK was not and out and out pure vandal - most of his contributions were of great value, that finally he succumbed to constant war with these editors is regrettable, and history. However, there is no good reason for his page being completely blank, but by all mans protect it from his enemies. we owe him that in return for his many good contributions to the project. This petty behaviour of blanking and warring over his page seems to me to be akin to smashing a dead enemy's tombstone. Not a sport in which I would be proud to indulge. Giano (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• In reply to "we owe him that in return for his many good contributions to the project", so what do we owe him for his disruptive sockpuppetry, a shrine? There have been editors with thousand upon thousand of edits who got indefblocked and thier userpages are no more, what makes this userpage so special to you, or are you just doing vigilante work against The Enemy® as usual? If there is useful content on the page, feel free to hit the edit button, copy and paste it in your own space, and stop trying to make an indefblocked sockpuppeteer sound like some kind of martyr. — Κaiba 09:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not a shrine. An undeleted user page, which makes it easy to see what has happened. And please skip the amateur psychoanalyzing or innuendo or whatever it is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Couple things, 1) You obviously don't know what psychoanalysis is if you think that was applied in my comment, two, it was hardly innuendo as that requires an innocent party, one Giano probably doesn't fit under, and three we don't owe a disruptive user a damn thing, but if your going to play that card, the history wasn't deleted it was blanked. Any content anyone wants to look at is the page history and revert warring over whether it is actually visable is petty. — Κaiba 12:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

owe ? wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and this "wikipedian editor" has no particular notoriaty on the web, has he ? why would somebody arrive on that page to see the work he would have done. As it would be a "start point" of his study ??? I expect any reader is more interested in the content... That is not the way wikipedia is assumed to be used... Ceedjee (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true. He was abusing Wikipedia and should be thankfully all his edits have not been reverted! Blank it. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not customary (or indeed practicable) to revert all the edits of a prolific editor. Or do I miss your point? -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have any particular notoriety on the web. Because he's not notorious, a page seems harmless. Somebody might arrive on that page from a comment he made in a talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

True, it's not practical, I'm not saying it should be done; but is it not allowed? Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting every edit by VK would be a grotesque proposition. If VK edited a given page once, taking it from stage A to stage B, and if it had thereafter been improved to stage C, then the obvious options would be to take it back to A (simple but counterproductive) and to adjust C in terms of the change from A to B (requiring human thought). Multiply that by a few hundred or thousand. Or are you asking whether blanking is page his not allowed? (Good of you to ask, though you might have asked it before you blanked it.) Putting aside what is and isn't allowed, you may wish to explain the advantages of blanking it. The obvious place for such a discussion is, I suppose, its talk page; but I see that somebody has already deleted that and might not take kindly to its re-creation. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to engage in conversation with someone so keen on twisting what I say. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent)The point is the only editor not allowed to edit Vk's user page is Vk. Anyone else can and is entitled to put factual content onto it ([14]) so until the policy on banned editors' user pages changes to permanent protection on a blank page then your stuck with it. - Bill Reid | Talk 10:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Alison- keep it blank, there's such a thing as a page history and anyone wanting to read the page as the other editors want it, can easily find it there. It's not like the info has been removed, with the click of the 'history' button it's there.Merkin's mum 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I assumed we had a policy that users were allowed user pages and that non-/banned/indef-blocked users were not. If Giano wants the "useful" content from the page (a list of boxing-related articles?) then they could be put on a subpage of Giano's userpage with a redirect from VK's userpage. Otherwise, if someone is really interested, there is always the page history. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why Guy is ignoring this discussion and has recreated the page anyway? --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickelback and Landon1980

User:Landon1980 is continually changing the genres on Nickelback so that they are separated by line breaks. He cites WP:MOS and is edit warring. He refuses to discuss the matter and is edit warring just to get his way. I explained to him on my talk page why the genres should stay as they were (separated by commas) and asked him to respond, but instead he just reverted my edit, citing WP:MOS again. He needs to understand that the genres should not be changed, and I'm hoping he will be more inclined to listen to an admin or some editor other than me. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. Timmeh! 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, either commas or line breaks can be used. Grsz11 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Today I made an edit, and left a talk page note related to this very issue. It really doesn't matter what delimiters are used as the discussion about it ended with no consensus. Just like you shouldn't change words from English to American spelling, you shouldn't be changing delimiters. It is pointless. Much less, no one should be edit warring over this. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

While it's pointless to be continuously making this edit, Landon hasn't broken 3RR. He's made the edit once in the past 24, none in the 24 before that, then twice before that. Grsz11 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Landon continues to believe that genres should be separated by line breaks for bands and commas for solo artists. He refuses the discuss the issue and keeps reverting my edits changing the delimiters back to commas after explaining to him why the genres should stay as they originally were. He only reverts when I change the genres back and I'm really getting sick of it. He also has recently made false accusations against me on User:Hoponpop69's talk page saying I only revert his and Hoponpop's edits because I believe that they are the same person. Although I am not convinced they are the same person, they sure do act the same way: refuse to discuss issues and edit war before consensus is reached stating their own reasons. Timmeh! 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is possibly aproaching lamest edit wars. Both of you need to ask yourself: which format best serves the reader? Personally, using linebreaks looks a little more organized. — Edokter • Talk • 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann on Egyptians

Looking for opinions. User:Dbachmann was edit-warring on the article Egyptians after being solicited by User:Funkynusayri to make changes that had not yet gained sufficient consensus on the talk page. He broke 3RR after I left him a note, reminding him of that and his latest arbitration. Another editor is now blocked, but not Dbachmann. The blocking admin is saying that I might have broken 3RR myself, though looking back at the history again I don't believe I have [15]. Still would like to address Dbachmann's conduct here. I consider his comments on the article's talk page to be attacks rather than constructive criticism. In the past, I would have said that these types of eruptions were out of character, but lately I'm not sure. Discussion with blocking admin is here. — Zerida ☥ 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any attacks. I do note, however, that I copped it from someone on that page for accepting your definition of them as "pan-Arabist". Apparently that was an attack - by you and I. Which should remind us all not to throw the word "attack" around. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I almost never use the term "pan-Arabist" which is only a subset of Arab nationalism. Most Arab-nationalist wikipedians are self-proclaimed judging by their comments on talk pages. Among the many points that Funkynusayri consistently misses, however, is that I hardly have him in mind specifically when I use that term casually. He might think I do because he has been religiously stalking me for months, but the fact is that this type of disruption and tendentious editing has been an on-again, off-again problem by a few editors who associate with each other (the most problematic being this one, who was a close friend of Funky). Now that I recall though, in one of his many instances of soapboxing to that article's discussion page, Funky does indicate something to that effect, so it's hardly presumptive.

Getting back to the main issue of this discussion, I do consider these comments by Dbachmann blatant personal attacks: "we get it already, the author of the article doesn't like Arabs" (an odious charge that forces me to defend myself when I shouldn't have to. At least if it were true, I would not have put up on my userpage the second barnstar that an Arab admin gave me in large part *because of* that article) and "with Zerida 'defending' his 'Pharaonist' article" (whatever that means; must be a kind of circumstantial ad hominem to which one resorts when one runs out of logic or has nothing substantive to say in the face of reliably sourced information). The comments were clearly insulting and belittling, but I take confidence in that my edit history, the quality of my contributions and the level of scholarship that I have established on the main Egypt-related articles, and pushed for during Ancient Egypt's FA nomination, all speak for themselves.

This incident is just one manifestation of the problems that plague Wikipedia as a community. That someone who has been through multiple RFCs for questionable user conduct and an arbitration is still given free rein as an admin to continue to act in violation of our core policies is quite symptomatic. Admittedly, when I first came across the arbitration case I was conflicted. I had even previously invited him to help mediate an article when I still respected him as an editor. Some of those who set up the arbitration case themselves had been trying to force an Afrocentric POV at every corner. The problem, however, is that many of the points raised against him were valid. Watching the article Race of ancient Egyptians as an example go through many rewrites month after month of discussion, several drafts and RFCs until a modicum of consensus was reached by editors with very disparate points of view and, let's face it, didn't like each other very much, only to have these efforts repeatedly disrupted by Dbachmann because they did not conform to his own opaque Eurocentric view of the topic, and of ancient Egypt in general, was to say the least frustrating and tiresome (not that the article is in any good condition right now, but for different reasons).

The truth is I've found myself sometimes having to spend too much time cleaning up after Dbachmann on Egyptological articles due to his poor editing and poor knowledge of the topic. But that and a guy with a bruised ego are the least of my worries around here. His ability to list a litany of Wikipedia acronyms on style guides doesn't impress me either when his edits don't comply with any of them. His continuous edit-warring on articles that he targets, however, or asking help from his associates to do it for him to get around policies, is what really needs to stop, especially when an admin blocks an editor for 3RR but not him, then makes threatening comments to those who take the blocking admin to task for it. — Zerida ☥ 22:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangup & Count Mospak

Vandal User:Graf stefan, who is most likely a sock of User:Mospak and User:70.16.121.81 (based on identical edits and identical reposting of deleted edits), keeps vandalizing Mangup by cut-and-pasting the entire content of the WP:HOAX article Count Mospak, which is currently up for AfD:[16]. This extremely annoying vandal keeps adding the cut-and-paste hoax to Mangup, no matter how many times it's deleted. A block of all three accounts is probably in order, along with protection of Mangup. Qworty (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The true vandal is this Qworty who should have a sock placed in his mouth. The fact that this common computer know it all has failed to provide any proof that he has any personal knowledge on the workings of the Orthodox Church or nobility brings great question upon his self appointing ability to block users or content.

LBHS Cheerleader(s)

Resolved

 – No admin action required: Sockmaster is already blocked, vandalism from IP is very old and the IP is shared. -Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just detected 71.51.95.164 (not blocked) behaving as another sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader. Do we need to ban her or continue to revert, block, and ignore?

The sockmaster is allready blocked. As for the IP; it is a shared IP and only a single abusive edit has come from it (over 15 days ago) I don't think a block of it is mandated. -Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

shared = no, dynamic = yes GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Piercetheorganist

Resolved

 – Consensus is to keep indef blocked

User:Piercetheorganist has been indef'd. I support this block, but he's asking for an unblock and I think input would be helpful given it's at least somewhat related to the worries brought up through the GStS thread above. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yamla has declined the unblock citing an example diff. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that diff, this user needs to never come back. Grsz11 18:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's the same example diff that Guy used, and that according to the user has been "moved on from". (Certainly not current.) And the AfD nomination was, in Dhartung's words, "borderline A7", at the time of the nomination. So is that the only recent "disruptive" act you can come up with? Sounds like a misunderstanding to me. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have considered the unblock if the user categorically promised never again to act like that. But the user was not willing to make such a promise. I grant that the multiple violations were some time ago, but with no reason to believe they won't continue in the future, I couldn't support an unblock. --Yamla (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another "misunderstanding" for you then - [18]. Does this sound like a user we really want? I don't really think the fact that it was 2 months ago is relevant at all - a leopard doesn't change its spots in that time, especially given the screed he posted on User talk:God Save the South in the last 24 hours. Blocks are preventative - preventing someone making an edit like that (or the one above) to a BLP is quite within WP:BLOCK. Black Kite 18:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the analogy to child rape in the unblock request probably tells us everything we need to know here. Wildly inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• And that one was five days ago. Case closed, I think. Black Kite 18:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec^n) Yeah, can't fault that one. Thanks. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And I know it's not on-wiki, but his belief that feminists are pagan whores, combined with the refusal to state he won't continue his behavior makes it hard to believe he can be a constructive part of the community. E kala mai. --Ali'i 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be "baby-killing lesbian feminists" in particular, I think. No wait, he says those are the ones to be put to death.

Wow.

No, I don't see this gentleman being able to work while assuming good faith of fellow-contributors. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, case closed. Did he think he could hide that? Grsz11 18:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An excellent block, there's simply no way we should be considering unblocking the chap in question. Nick (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Very strong endorse. Looking at his talk page history and the original version of his user page, I'm surprised this guy wasn't bounced sooner. As a North Carolinian and an African-American, I say away with him. I've gone further and placed {{banneduser}} on his user page, as there is no scenario where I can imagine him ever being allowed back. Blueboy96 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's really sad is that he was a decent editor on organ related pages, and many of his uploads were of pretty good quality. I could see a situation where he categorically stated he would cease his racist edits, and could be unblocked, with the banhammer coming at the first sign of a continued disruption. Perplexing really. --Ali'i 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the last version of his talk page before he archived it, I don't think even that chance is in the cards. Blueboy96 19:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

When I saw those diffs this morning, I was amazed he hadn't been blocked already. Thanks to this IP editor for noticing them - the edit summary is fairly priceless too. Black Kite 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block / ban until he agrees that this is Wikipedia, not Wikkkipedia. _GB^T/C 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. I recall having a minor run in with him over this version (now deleted) of his userpage. I figured he was headed for trouble and the diffs cited above are absolutely unacceptable.--Kubigula (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh! I like. A restriction to organ-related articles and no BLPs on non-WASPs would mabe work if he's at all helpful there still, but I prefer not to leave others having to monitor every edit of bigots who can't check their prejudices at the door. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. A Jekyll and Hyde editor whose evident bad far outweighs the admitted good. If he had not taken down that previous userpage (advocating in apparent seriousness the mass execution of political opponents) after Kubigula and I objected this may have come to a head sooner. I am unwilling to extend further grace. Acroterion _(talk) 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. It helped. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack, other issues with Rbaish

Resolved

- The claimant is satisfied. Adjourned. the_undertow ^talk 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A cursory review of Rbaish's contributions gives the impression that this is a single purpose account. A review of the user's talk page and block log shows that the account is generally disruptive. Rbaish has recently been edit warring (again) over on the mess of an article Black supremacy. Other editors are discussing a contested change on the article talk page but Rbaish apparently refuses to do so (with the exception of one brief "vote"), preferring to edit war without comment or even an edit summary [19] [20] [21]. While technically staying within the confines of 3RR (though there are a couple of IP edits which might easily be Rbaish logged out), the user violates the spirit of it and refuses to engage in a conversation. This is a longstanding pattern.

After enjoining the user to take it to talk in an edit summary, which had no effect, I left this message on Rbaish's talk page asking him to discuss the changes and suggesting that he take a more collaborative approach to editing. His reply on my talk page (with the heading "Bite Me") was "You are a white hating assclown with an agenda as clear as the morning sun. Go jump off a cliff."

That attack is grounds for a block I think (it doesn't bother me personally - his comment is so ridiculous it actually made me laugh), and given this user's history I would recommend a rather long term one. This editor is not here to build the encyclopedia - they are here to push a racial agenda and consistently use disruptive tactics in order to further that goal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon a brief review of the editors contribution history, talkpage and blocklog (all of which revolve around the same few subjects) I executed an indef block, on the grounds of disruption. I welcome review and, if considered necessary, revision of the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's talk page, but I get the feeling I underestimated the disruption levels of the situation. For the moment, I endorse Less's block. Anthøny 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; but I am somewhat confused by the edit-war on Black supremacy where this editor was re-inserting the word "racist" (in order to make the article equivalent with White supremacy) yet kept being reverted for no apparent reason [22], including that revert by an editor who was quite happy to edit-war to add the word to the latter article [23]. Double standards, or am I missing something? Black Kite 00:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That is somewhat of a separate issue which will be dealt with at an RfC. Yahel and Rbaish both apply double standards to these articles, but like I said, the latter will be resolved. the_undertow ^talk 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for taking a look at this and to LessHeard vanU for enacting a block, which I think is wholly appropriate. As to Black Kite's question, edit warring over the term "racist" has been a persistent issue on that article (and I guess the white supremacy one as well). There was significant discussion on the talk page months ago which ended in a rough consensus that it was fine to put the term racist in the first sentence. Yahel Guhan never really agreed with that and removes it from time to time, while others like Rbaish generally revert him. I don't care enough either way to revert either of them, though clearly the previous consensus was to employ that term in the opening sentence. Anyhow, as the_undertow notes, this is indeed a separate issue from the overall issue of Rbaish's editorial practices and Wiki behavior. I view the latter issue as closed, unless of course others disagree with LHVU's block.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Rbaish requested an unblock but formatted the template incorrectly. I think I fixed it so hopefully it will show up now and an admin can review the request.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined. Saying "there is no reasoning" with other users definitely isn't the way to get unblocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd opinion requested

I blocked Luminous-Lint (talk · contribs) this morning for spamming and for having a promotional username (the name of the website he was linking to). I left him a note saying I would unblock if he would change his username, read WP:SPAM and WP:EL, and promise not to continue linking to the website. The website is some kind of rare photographer/photography repository. It appears to contain photographer biographies and large collections of their works.

He has read the policies, and agreed to change his username, but is advocating linking to the part showing the galleries of their works. I am unsure what to do at this point. Links to the photographer bios (which he was adding before) are unneeded and go against WP:EL. A collection of photography from a particular photographer would be relevant, but on the other hand this is not Commons, where the photography could be uploaded depending on the license. Check out his talk page to see what he wants to link to. He has been very civil throughout the whole process. Opinions on how to proceed are welcome. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at these photographs and the bio he's provided, there is no need to have the link. The person who took those photos died more than 100 years ago, so they're all in the public domain. It's not necessary to link to a gallery with all 101 photos, especially if he intends to put the link at the top of the page as he says; just the photos that provide particular encyclopedic insight can be uploaded to Commons and used here. I'll post this explanation on his user page, but I don't think what he's proposing is in line with policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the help. KnightLago (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dchall1 calling "vandalism"

I have the impression that Chris would like to have his private definition of vandalism. I have been trying to make clear to him that any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

• Chris' talk page
• my talk page

I request that someone tries to convince him to not "shout vandalism" when in fact he is in disagreement with good-faith editor behaviour, however misguided or rude that may have been. This only makes matters worse. Please note that I do not wish him sanctioned, just enlightened will do. (Chris and I differ on a lot of things, and I am not one he is likely to take advice from.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a standard comment added by Twinkle, which needs to be overriden manually. Corvus cornix_talk 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh... yes and no. TW gives three rollback buttons, a green "Assume Good Faith" one, a blue "basic rollback" one, and a red "VANDAL" button. The "vandalism" comment is only automatically added by the last of those three - both AGF and basic will prompt you for a reason as to why you're reverting, and the green AGF button will add a further note that you are assuming the edits were made in good faith, but you're still reverting for <reason>. It may be we just need to tell him to use the other buttons instead of the big red one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding three paragraphs of unsourced conspiracy theories to an article then edit warring over to keep them in doesn't smack of "good faith" to me. --Haemo (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Xiutwel's talk page, yes, I viewed dumping three paragraphs of conspiracy theories into the article without discussion to be disruptive. However, I left a Template:uw-unsourced1 on User talk:Jhon1000's talk page (rather than a vandalism template), along with a polite request to discuss changes on the talk page and a pointer to the arbitration case. The only place where the accusation of "vandalism" came up was in the Twinkle edit summary. Furthermore, apparently two other users took the same view of these edits. The tone of his edits was sarcastic and combative, and I believe one could be forgiven for assuming vandalism at first glance. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointless conflict with John

John keeps removing the "Afro-Caucasian People" category from Sydney Tamiia Poitier, arguing that no proper source is given. On the contrary, this info is duly sourced and relevant, as Ms Poitier is a notable biracial (i.e. : she is the notable daughter of a very notable black man, who is notably married to a somewhat notable white woman). This information is in no way defamatory and does not invade Ms Poitier's privacy. The same thing goes for Ruud Gullit, whose relevance as a "multiracial icon" I had duly sourced and Thandie Newton, whose biracial heritage is also sourced. I have found exchanges with John (who has come to the point of being needlessly agressive and threatening) to be extremely difficult to cope with, and can no longer believe in this user's good faith. He keeps ignoring any sources that are given to him and indulges in extremely tiresome debates, motivated by what I suspect to be ideological/personal reasons. I am also quite baffled by his behaviour on such a trivial detail. Since I do not want to waste my time on a nerve-wracking debate and or any kind of conflict with John, I would just like him to be reminded that he should refrain from completely pointless edit warring. Behaviors such as his are the best way to disgust users from contributing to wikipedia, their good faith notwithstanding. Thank you. Wedineinheck (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I and another admin have pointed out several times to this user the constraints of WP:BLP and WP:V. It was all at his user talk until he removed it with the summary "removing the trash talk". Alternatively, Wedineinheck, you have the right to WP:FORK and create a project with different rules where people are classified, apartheid-style, according to "race", as it seems you would like to do. I wish you well in either case, but as long as you are still editing here, please do not add or restore racial categories for which there is no evidence, especially to articles on living people. It is courteous to inform an editor whose conduct you complain about here. --John (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this editor is continuing to do what I strongly advised him not to do. Adding Category:Courtesans and prostitutes to the article on Quentin Elias seems highly questionable, and Ruud Gullit may well be notable as a "multicultural icon", but that is not the same as saying he is properly a member of Category:Afro-Caucasian people, as has been pointed out already. Maybe it is no bad thing to get some more eyes on the problems associated with contentious use of categories; other users besides this one may have misunderstood our policies. Basically, a category cannot be added unless there is good, verifiable evidence to do so. Same as everything else. And, like everything else, we need to be extra careful when dealing with living people. --John (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks that want some background on this will want to read this version of Wedineinheck's talk... The case has been made in depth that raciality has to be established by sourcing, and further, to include it in an article, there has to be reliably sourced reference material that the raciality is significant to the person's history, career, etc. Merely stating that the person is notable is not sufficient to justify inclusion. (contrast Vin Diesel where this has been done, with Sydney Tamiia Poitier, where it has not) This is essentially a content debate, except that W has been warned multiple times not to revert removal in violation of BLP, and is on a path to get blocked over it if it's not discontinued. It appears to me that W is trying to forestall that by preemptively making the opposite case but I hope that is an incorrect evaluation. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What race this actress is or isn't factually holds little importance compared to Wikipedia's role in labeling her. When we see a less common term being used in an article, we want to make sure that it's been used in independant sources to identify that person as well. Editors doing the math of "Black father plus white mother equals..." doesn't cut it. On a seperate note, I'm not seeing sources suggesting Poitier's specific racial identification as anything to do with her notability.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am rather confounded by John (and Lar)'s orwellian display of bad faith, overbearing, condescending, and threatening attitude, and obvious non-neutral disregard for the actual state of wikipedia. John's suggestion that I endorse apartheid is so blatantly defamatory that any comment is superfluous. The "eurasians" category numbers over 400 articles, so I considered a category for black/white biracial persons would be logical : hence the creation of the "afro-caucasian people" sub-category to the "afro-caucasians" preexisting category. The biracial heritage of public figures, especially artists like Thandie Newton or Melanie Brown, or very notable ones like Ruud Gullit, is obviously important to their public images : whether one likes it or not, ethnicity remains an important social/cultural construct in today's society, and only few people in the western world tend to consider that it doesn't exist or isn't important. Now, I do not care about John and Lar's pigheaded, blatantly POV attitude, nor about their personal biases and complex, nor do I wish to waste my time in any kind of conflict with them or anyone else : my only goal is to stress the problem they pose. If wikipedia wants to ignore the ethnicity factor, it should delete the "eurasians" category, as I very much doubt each and every one of the 400+ articles features sources explicitely stressing that their mixed heritage is central to their personas. Delete this category, and I will consider this as a logical policy. Don't, and I will stick to my point of view, though I consider continuing in any kind of edit war to be an utter and complete waste of time. Now, if John wishes to continue his own edit warring and then putting the fault on some else, it is entirely his problem : I do not wish to have any exchange of any kind with him. He should just be reminded that he has to treat wikipedia users as his peers and not act like he owns the wikimedia foundation. Now, if he wants to keep wasting his time in removing properly sourced information (as I spent myne in sourcing all the articles at his initial suggestion, when he still acted politely), and wants to debate the validity of "1+1=2" by asking for independent sources, more power to him : I just couldn't care less and do not wish to waste any more minutes of my time in conflicts with this particular fellow. Wedineinheck (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is mostly a content dispute with a leavening of an editor (Wedineinheck) refusing to listen to multiple experienced contributors pointing out that the categorization W keeps adding is inappropriate. Tossing around mischaracterizations of intent probably isn't a good approach for W to take but whatever. I expect most seasoned admins would tend to overlook that, chalk it up as par for the course and not care, as long as the edit warring itself stops. What W is having trouble grasping (even after being told repeatedly by many others) is that his assertions about whether categorizations are appropriate or not really aren't valid, and this is a BLP issue. He's been warned now that any further reversion will be viewed as disruptive and will result in a block. I will say that deleting the Eurasians category doesn't sound like such a bad idea, actually, though. ++Lar: t/c 05:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

this shouldn't be a redline

Resolved

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NewvanHove.png#Summary

BTW this noticeboard page is 405 kb long and takes 5 minutes to download on my slow connection. Not happy. Mccready (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do you mean by "a redline"? Also, that link is to a page on commons, this is the English Wikipedia Admin noticeboard. If you have a problem with something on commons, you need to deal with it on commons. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion the problem is that the title of the page Image:NewvanHove.png is in red, being that it's a Commons image. Wild guess. 207.145.133.34 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the articles that was linked in the description was not interwiki'd to wikipedia, so it was a red link to a nonexistent commons page. I fixed it when I saw this thread, but did not make a note here. --Random832 (contribs) 06:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP and the Mob

I'm becoming increasingly concerned that we have a lot of biographies of living people that are making allegations that people are mobsters, and criminals, and are doing so somewhat recklessly. We seem to have a lot of mafia-related articles that contain poor sourcing. Many specific allegations are unsourced and all that is sometimes given is a list of external links, often consiting of either primary sources or centering round the personal research of one Jerry Capeci. I've removed lists of associates, informers and "soldiers" from some of these articles, nominated some for deletion (are they notable?) and nuked a few under the BLP policy.

Now, I need help. We can summarily delete articles that contain only unsourced (or poorly sourced) allegations - I've had to do that on some occassions - but in other occasions a less drastic approach is needed. But there are loads of these, and I'm following links and uncovering others. We need a small task force to review these articles and delete/remove BLP violations.

To give some ins to follow for links:

• Gambino crime family - can we really list "government informers"?
• Dominic Truscello (also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Papagni - which narrates some of the concerns)
• Lucchese crime family - I nuked this one.
• Articles like John Capra Joseph Caridi Peter Chiodo John Cerrella Domenico Cutaia and that's just topick out the living people in the "C" category of Category:Lucchese crime family - I'm sure there's plenty more in Category:Five Families nevermind Category:Italian-American crime families. Many of these articles are probably fine - but some clearly need BLP checking and perhaps either speedily or slowly deleting.--Doc^g 00:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Was looking at the Lucchese crime family article ... it ought to be restored minus the questionable versions. There was a spree of mostly IP editing from February 29 on--I propose restoring everything prior to the March 3 edit. I commented out the "informants" section on the Gambino article. Blueboy96 00:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That version is still full of unsourced allegations.--Doc^g 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A notice at WP:BLP/N will get some eyeballs on these and help clean up the mess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably should have posted this to BLPN.--Doc^g 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this might have been the right way to go. Looking back at it, it seems that the main culprit is Charlir91 (talk · contribs), whose edits have been almost entirely to Mafia-related topics since he came here in September. I would think it's RFC time for this guy ... and maybe restore everything in the Lucchese article up to the August 30 version. Blueboy96 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at his talk page. Blueboy96 01:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No objections heard, so I restored everything up to the August 30 version--hopefully this pruned out any BLP problems. Blueboy96 02:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding Charlir91 (talk · contribs), I would like to note that besides getting a welcome template way back when (a malformed version of one of the IMHO over-linked templates), nobody has yet sat down and patiently explained to this editor what he is doing wrong, why it is wrong, and how to do things right. I responded to his query on my own talk page with a blurb that should hopefully start him along the right path. I have found this editor to be reasonable when things are explained reasonably to him and I believe he is acting in good faith, though his WP:OWN and WP:NPA habits need to be rectified. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think this user does not have serious civility problems, please take a look at these posts to Animagentile's talk page. Additionally, he removed a speedy template from an article that he, himself created, in spite of the fact that the text of the template clearly says not to, simultaneously blanking a nofootnotes and a blpdispute tag. He deleted another speedy tag here. These are just a few things I found while perusing his talk page and edit history.

Also, I left a note on his talk page notifying him of this discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving him that note. I agree that he most certainly does have civility problems, that's why I bought up WP:NPA & WP:OWN above. He's not the first person I've had to explain to that one gets farther by calmly discussing things like an adult than by ranting and screaming like a kindergartner. Some listen, other don't- I'm hoping he's one of those that do listen. He says he has reliable sources for those articles, if he'll learn to properly cite them in the articles those articles will be much improved. He's off to a rough start, but I'm hoping he's salvageable. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 13

Resolved.

Something is wrong with the closure of José Fidalgo, it seems that all afd's below it are closed as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page article has been semi-protected

Someone semi-protected J.K. Rowling. Generally, shouldn't Main Page articles be unprotected? Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends how hard it's getting hit. And that article is getting spanked. HalfShadow (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out this thread here from earlier this morning, it'll explain why. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should unprotect. Per WP:MPFAP, the article should only be protected for extreme circumstances and then only for a limited amount of time. Current protection runs till the 12th, which is a long time for an article on the main page. Looking at the history of the article, editing of it has virtually stopped. I think the ability to allow new and unregistered users to edit is more beneficial than preventing some troublemakers. Troublemakers who can be dealt with in the usual way. KnightLago (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Reposting what I replied to everyone on my talk page: "The article was being heavily vandalized, with no less than 37 vandalism edits today alone. This is a BLP, and with that much vandalism, temporary semi-protection was necessary. The reason the expiry is set to the end of the day is because MP featured articles are move protected - setting a different expiry time would cause the move protection to fail earlier than expected. We've already had two sockpuppets of a known page move vandal edit the article, so the removal of the move protection is not an option. We can remove the edit protection earlier, but it will have to be done manually to avoid losing the edit protection. I'll leave it up for another hour or two just in case, but then I'll remove it if someone else hasn't already." Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Only posting this once, now: semi protection has been lifted as stated above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused.... as soon as the semi-protection was released, vandalism began... yet policy states that semi-protection is rarely used unless in case of vandalism. Is this not what is occuring right now? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, and very severely so. WP:MPFAP is a guideline, and does admit that protection is necessary in severe cases of vandalism. In the hour an a half since it was unprotected, it's had at least 15 vandalism edits. I was just in IRC and nobody online objected to the protection, so this is an WP:IAR action with some consensus behind it. It's been noted before in the protection log for this article that "whenever protection expires, ip vandalism takes off," something which is only going to get worse due to the increased visibility. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Hersfold's actions here. It is important to keep this page available for all users to edit, it's also important to protect it from excessive vandalism. As long as an admin has an eye on the page and semi-protects can be lifted without sitting for too long, then placing them temporarily to discourage vandalism is a net positive. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This is an overreaction and specifically against WP:NOPRO. There is no extreme vandalism occurring here. Look at any other featured article when it is on the main page and it gets this level of vandalism and is not protected. I have also been watching the last hour and the vandalism has been quickly reverted and the responsible parties dealt with. To suddenly re-protect it now does not make any sense. KnightLago (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost of the vandalism over the last hour seems to have come from two IPs, so I would suggest that blocking could effectively be used here, and that we do not need to resort to protection. The protection summary seems to suggest that the protection is intended to last for the rest of the day. I think this would do more harm than it prevents. TigerShark (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And both were already blocked when the protection was instituted, see User:71.158.226.183 and User:192.94.73.1. KnightLago (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of all the users who have vandalized the article today:

• 68.109.156.140 (talk · contribs) - test edit
• 203.110.5.209 (talk · contribs) - removal of templates
• 219.238.212.126 (talk · contribs) - homophobic vandalism (x2)
• 75.172.91.41 (talk · contribs) - defamation
• 202.46.138.86 (talk · contribs) - Tibet stuff with misleading summary
• 152.93.66.131 (talk · contribs) - number tweaking
• 89.145.244.108 (talk · contribs) - defamation
• 212.47.82.34 (talk · contribs) - basic vandalism
• 64.15.158.233 (talk · contribs) - page replacement (x2)
• 150.214.94.102 (talk · contribs) - basic vandalism
• 168.184.244.167 (talk · contribs) - Borat (x4)
• 81.158.103.92 (talk · contribs) - possible Grawp IP
• 65.75.191.152 (talk · contribs) - new IP for 64.15.158.233 above (x4)
• Edward Haggard (talk · contribs) - Grawp sock
• Vib100 (talk · contribs) - Grawp sock
• 88.109.30.227 (talk · contribs) - defamation (x2)
• 203.145.176.163 (talk · contribs) - basic vandalism

• 81.84.247.109 (talk · contribs) - nonsense
• 212.219.19.15 (talk · contribs) - page replacement
• 116.45.65.9 (talk · contribs) - test edit
• Keepgrob` (talk · contribs) - basic vandalism
• 83.46.254.211 (talk · contribs) - spam
• 194.83.12.5 (talk · contribs) - defamation
• 129.70.14.128 (talk · contribs) - test edit
• 75.71.126.236 (talk · contribs) - nonsense
• Readingbooksisfun (talk · contribs) - content removal
• Jhvbhjvjhvjhv (talk · contribs) - AfD nomination (x2) (during protection)
• Kkxfer (talk · contribs) - nonsense (during protection)
• 168.9.72.9 (talk · contribs) - defamation (x3)
• Down Time 2008 (talk · contribs) - nonsense
• Kjrhnt4 (talk · contribs) - page blanking (x3)
• 71.158.226.183 (talk · contribs) - nonsense (x5)
• 192.94.73.1 (talk · contribs) - content removal (x4)

This doesn't look like an over-reaction to me. We're getting virtually every type of vandalism, as well as IP hoppers, socks of blocked users, defamation on a BLP, and a very long history of similar high levels of vandalism besides (prot log). A lot of these were within minutes of each other - in one instance, the article was being vandalized so fast it wasn't getting reverted properly. I firmly feel semi-protection is warranted on this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is different from any other day how? This happens everyday. The majority of the vandalism you cite above happened before the 1st semip. As TigerShark pointed out there were primarily 2 IPs responsible for the vandalism after the lifting of the 1st semi. Both were blocked before you semi'd it again. So why do it? KnightLago (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is nothing unusual and this page protection is, in my opinion, an over-reaction - this level of vandalism is to be expected on the featured article and can easily be handled. There are good reason that protection is used very sparingly on the featured article of a encyclopedia, that anybody can edit. I have contacted the protecting admin to ask whether they have a strong objection to me removing the edit protection. TigerShark (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not received a response from the protecting user, who is probably not active at the moment. Due to the time constraint (i.e. that it will only be the featured article for a short period of time), I have gone ahead and remove the edit protection. Although I would appreciate being notified if somebody re-adds the protection, please feel free to do so without a response from me. TigerShark (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for stirring up a hornets nest this morning when I requested the Page Protection. I guess what one calls "severe" vandalism is a line that can be very vague. I being a newbie find "lots" of vandalism not the same as an admin I guess. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there has been some page-move vandalism of the Talk page that needs admin attention. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it has been taken care of. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think this should have been unprotected - notice that less than a minute after it was unprotected, the article was once again vandalized. But what's done is done, and if other admins feel like playing whack-a-mole, then they're welcome to do so. Sorry I wasn't around to comment when called on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with protection. The level of vandalism is high, yes, but this is normal for featured articles. If accounts are repeatedly vandalizing the page, they can be blocked, but the rest should be dealt with via normal reverts. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". If we have an extremely popular article on the mainpage, it should be editable. --Elonka 04:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm the opposite. I'd like to see all main page articles get semi'd before they go up. Sure 'anyone can edit' but that doesn't imply anyone can edit anything at any time. I'm just bitter from what they did to my poor guinea pig article :/ the_undertow ^talk 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You lucky they do not nominate wikipedia for deletion and then have us debate why it should not be deleted..:) Igor Berger (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone championing form over function should really take a look at the contribution history of that article while it was the main page article and determine a) how many IP edits there were, b) how many of them were promptly reverted, and c) how many of them made any sort of positive contrabution to the article. Just at a quick scan of the last 100 edits on that article, I saw ONE IP edit that was not reverted. There were, shall we say, considerably more than one IP edits in the most recent 100 edits to the article. The one IP edit that was not reverted was an IP reverting a previous IP's vandalism.

I was doing recent changes patrolling for a while that that article was up, and I was getting real tired of reverting it in bursts of vandalisms stacked on top of each other. There were a couple of times the IP vandalism rate on that one article was exceeding the IP vandalism rate for the entire rest of article space. That is NOT normal for the mainpage article, it happens more like once every couple of weeks. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Exposing exact location

There is a case filed against me for at SUSPSOCK,[24] and it is accompanied by an RCFU [25], they will come to its normal closure, But i am REALLY concerned as one of the user, who is against me User:Reneeholle, has deliberately exposed my location, by giving out my IP address,[26], given nature of edits i do, this exposure of location puts me at great risk for my security.--talk-to-me! (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Before any discussion takes place please note that the IPs reported at the CU case seemed to be placed there based on their contribution history. It does not seem they were extracted through means of sleuthing or hacking. Unfortunately this is the danger of editing Wikipedia under IP addresses.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

slips do not give anyone liberty to go ahead any expose locations, if intentions are pure.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

When you edit anonymously, you see a warning just above the edit box: You are not currently logged in. Editing this way will cause your IP address to be recorded publicly in this page's edit history. If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address and be provided with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on your talk page. You've been warned. All conclusions are based on publicly-available data you personally submitted to Wikipedia. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you call the several other reports that list IP addresses? IP addresses are even listed at SSP reports. Pretty much that's all I can say. Its fairly easy to see the IP and yourself were related because you edited a similar page in a similar fashion (its been published in a public edit history). However, I'm not so sure that the CU is going to find any productive findings at this point.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

CFW, I checked both IPs, one maps generically to a rather large country without being more specific, and the other one doesn't resolve at all - while it shouldn't have been done, your whereabouts is safe. Orderinchaos 13:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem sometimes is with browser cache, it displays your username, even though you are not logged in, only difference you can notice in this mode is you will not have checkbox for minor edits. Apart from this, I would like to bring to notice of users here the hatred demonstrated by these members [27],[28]. This to me appears to be more of hate campaign rather then any discussion about SOCK, reference used here is that of orkut, which is blocked by spam filter, on wikipedia. Even though it is funny, but hatred demonstrated is not healthy at all.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand the reason for exposing IP, that too at CU ? will it not be visible to the person checking ? what is the motive for this ? helping the CU process ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Reneeholle appears to have some personal vendetta with Shashwat, who runs a blog, and also runs a community on orkut, about the topic i am currently working [29], these people (Sethie, Renee and Marathi_Mulga) were calling me by this name for quite some time, but i ignored them, considering the effect of practice they do, this happens with all members of Sahaja's in general (here is another one [30]), so i ignored them initially, and focused on completing the article, rather than getting involved with user [31], but their persistent personal attacks [32],[33],[34],make it hard to work on wikipedia, they were also reverting any attempt that I was making in completing the article, which is noted above in harassment section, for which they were blocked also. This is the reason which drove me to wikipedia at the first place, admins like Jossi, who have POV use their admin tools to enhance the POV of one side and suppress any valid information from getting out in public domain, I was sure that i will experience some resistance in what I am going to do on wikipedia, and hence i chose this user-name to make nature of my edits very clear, this does not means that I will be breaching any policy of wikipedia, as i had spend some time in reviewing the policies, and I focused more on policies when i took up this project of starting this article, when i started, i was not fully aware of history of the subject on wikipedia. Neither do i wish to get anyone blocked from editing, as i consider input of every user's is as important as my inputs are, this is what i feel is essence of wikipedia. But the numerous personal attacks, for an article, surprised me!! fortunately same concern was echoed by the admin closing MfD [35]. As such I cannot work on article, till directly involved members, focus more on user rather then contributing to article, and trying to expose locations and filing cases after cases at various notice boards, when there is no article about the subject on wikipedia till now, it is only in my user-space. This approach is not healthy for growth of wikipedia. I had made is very clear that i will not publish the article without making it pass, RfC. [36], but for that to happen i need to finish the subject, which under current circumstance appear difficult, given personal attacks. Latest attempt from Renee, to expose my location has crossed all limit, and i request some help in this regard. --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have requested for comment at the article [37], would welcome input from users here, especially for WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

When is a SPA a SPA, and using User page to attack other editors

I would appreciate more eyes on the situation with Breadh2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He is using his user page to attack another editor and POV push, imho. See User:Breadh2o#Alun Salt. The rest of his user page seems largely made up of things that he's trying to push into the Archaeoastronomy article - since they've been rejected, he's using his user space to promote his theories. I was going to just delete the stuff about Alun, but wanted others to look at this.

There are a variety of problems going on with this user, and the situation seems to have been going on for a while now: OR and POV pushing, for one, as reported here: Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#OR in Archaeoastronomy? Checking his contribs, I see he is intensely focused on the Archaeoastronomy article, has been getting into conflicts there, and as far as I can tell has no other interests or involvements on WP.

I'm not involved in the Archaeoastronomy stuff, but had cleaned up spam there so it's on my watchlist. Today Breadh2o inserted a long, problematic section into the Archaeoastronomy article, which I removed, and explained on his talk page what the problems were. Rather than address the issues, or dialogue, he simply reverted me :diff. As far as I can tell, he is largely refusing to engage with other editors in a productive manner, on either his talk page or the article talk.

His reversions can probably be handled by the others who work on the article, and if he breaks 3RR, so be it. But I am concerned with the long-term patterns here - insistence on unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources, as well as what he's doing with his user page. I view this user's editing as disruptive, uncooperative, and POV-pushing. I can see from what he has deleted from his talk page that other editors have tried to educate him, but he seems uninterested in learning to work cooperatively.

I gather an informal RfC or two have already been done. I'll see if I can get links for those. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The user has now responded on his talk page. We'll see if things improve. I would still like advice about what to do about his user page, and thoughts on where to proceed if he resumes the same pattern of behaviour. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Solving the userpage problem was fairly easy. Blueboy96 04:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm moving a bit slowly tonight. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for looking into this. Kathryn mentioned wanting to get links for the earlier informal RfCs; here's a brief summary:

On 21 March Alunsalt posted an informal request for comments on the five Wikiprojects associated with the article to establish a consensus on POV. Shortly thereafter, on 24-25 March, Breadh2o posted a formal RfC for Science-related articles, questioning abuse by "two academics". As the discussion became increasingly personal, on 30 March Alunsalt tried to address the subject matter of the article by posting a notice on the No Original Research/Noticeboard. In order to get a wide range of comments, friendly notices of these actions were posted on the Talk pages of the five Wikiprojects associated with the article.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction Needed

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong/Requests needs attention. Apparently the 'Translation Requests' has stuck inside the Image requests table. Can any administrator correct it?--Leolisa1997 (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:42, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries at large (aka nasty edit warring)

Resolved

 – Both Tulkolahten and Rembaoud cautioned to engage on talkpages instead of edit-warring --Elonka 12:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tulkolahten - there are all on my contribution list, see there. At least a dozen.

one example, where someone else also noticed this: [38] at Ľudovít Štúr.

There are more misleading summaries too, from Tulkolahten and some from Tankred, but I've reported some of Tankred's already, on april 4th. That time Tankred got a warning about this, but continued since. Both blocked multiple times for edit warring [39], [40] --Rembaoud (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is your complaint about Tulkolahten or Tankred? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually both. I already reported Tankred a week ago and he got his warning about this, so primary about Tulkolahten, and next to it about Tankred because he continued to use misleading edit summaries. Primary Tulkolahten. --Rembaoud (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in my summaries. What is misleading in them? You are using my nickname in the edit summaries [41] in articles I've never edited before? You've provided link to your contributions, eh? What they have to do with mine contributions and edit summaries? Why did you give a link to Gene Nygaard's comment when you know it has been already solved here [42] and explained by Wanderer ? I do not understand at all ... content dispute is not an incident and I do not understand what this all is about. My only one block for 3RR ever is more then one year old. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I immediately apoligized in my very next edit "undo deletion under misleading summary by Tulkolahten - anachronisms fixed again, previous was Tankred, sorry". If I wouldnt do so, Tulkolahten would never find that edit to deliberately use it against me. This tells everything about him for me, therefore I do not wish to talk to such a user now, and furthermore. I am not a masochist to go to debates to prove in lenghty, pointless battles that an anachronism is an anachronism. Nonsense, nothing to debate. Try to think for a minute: why do we have separate articles about the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic the Third Reich and (E&W) Germany? Are they really substitues of each other? Can I say that Goethe was born in Germany? In a country wich was erected 39 years after his death? No. If I would so, I would falsificate history. This is what I call "history falsification". Nor Hungary, nor Slovakia didn't existed at those times. They were one entity: Kingdom of Hungary. Slovakia was not even a successor of KoH, it was Czechoslovakia. Slovakia gained independence from Czechoslovakia, twice. First in 1938, than in 1992. Noone has born in Slovakia prior 1938 (& between 1945-1992) --Rembaoud (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed this at AE a couple weeks ago so am familiar with the case. Tulkolahten is under editing restrictions from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, but I am not seeing any uncivil edit summaries from Tulkolahten. I am seeing uncivil edit summaries from Rembaoud (talk · contribs), especially where he is reverting with summaries such as "history falsification". I am also seeing that both editors seem to be battling it out in edit summaries, rather than taking things to talk. Both are advised that whenever they make a controversial change or revert on an article, that they must ensure that they are explaining the reasoning for the change at talk. If there's no ongoing discussion, create a new section. But don't use the edit summary history like a chat room. --Elonka 03:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(followup) I have cautioned both editors about the need to engage more at article talkpages, rather than edit-warring.[43][44] As far as I can see, no other administrator action is required at this time, and unless there are any objections, I recommend closing the ANI thread as resolved. --Elonka 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih - Yet more personal attacks.

Resolved

(for now; Thamarih (talk · contribs) blocked for two weeks) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to come up here yet again. This user has received repeated blocks and warnings about personal attacks. Following his latest warning (a Level 4) he continues. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an admin should block him again, this time for a longer time or indefinitly.--Jaeger123 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his block log and talk page, I see that baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against you have led to this user's being blocked for harassment before. He evidently has not yet received the message that such behavior does not conform to Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. I will not indefinitely block him, but block him for two weeks, which is twice the term of his last harassment block. If he persists upon returning, I would definitely endorse a longer break. I would not object to the extension of this one by an admin who feels that the behavior is blatant enough to warrant longer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Linxbaijy

Resolved

User has been warned multiple times to stop vandalizing pages with debatable, controversial information on Nazism.[45][46]. I warned the user about uploading copyrighted material. [47]. The user received a final warning for disruptive edits. [48] After this, the user uploaded the three copyright infringement images which were previously speedily deleted. Account seems to be single purpose aimed at introducing improper, controversial, unsourced material about the Dalai Llama in violation of WP:BLP. Redfarmer (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The user infact targeted the article well over four times, which goes way beyond the limit for vandal warnings. Some of his edits got mixed up with IP edits. Seems reluctant to follow Wiki-policy. However, at this moment in time, I am against a indefinate block, because the user has abviously made some constructive edits in order to have the welcome template on his talkpage.Lradrama 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Infact no. His early edits were putting spam links in articles. Many of these were removed. Indefinate block? No constructive work coming from this account...Lradrama 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. An indef block is in order since he doesn't seem to be learning from his mistakes. Redfarmer (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for vandalism, spamming and violation of copyright policy despite a series of warnings. Indefinate. No constructive work has come from this account. Lradrama 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to edit a page

Resolved

 – I've reverted the moves of this page and its talk page. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to edit a page has been moved into some odd page in mainspace; can an admin move it back, please? Thanks! Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat and Persistent Posting at Closed AfD

Resolved

 – Blocked 72hr for legal threats.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Iorio, which was a messy AfD to begin with due to the subject's continued involvement but was closed/deleted according to consensus. However, an IP persists in posting after the discussion was closed and has now resorted to legal threats. I reverted the first addition after but now I think it needs admin attention. Any reason the AfD couldn't be protected since there's no reason for anyone to edit? The IP was not involved in the AfD previously -- unless of course it is the subject himself. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We could just courtesy blank it. Hut 8.5 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for the time being. Blueboy96 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just courtesy blanked it. In my mind, the potential BLP concerns outweigh the slight inconvenience of having to go to the history for information. (Or for a more paranoid justification: creating a spammy biography, then disrupting the AfD, all under a username matching someone you don't like would be a good way to attack them. Not that I think this is the case here though). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cult free world just doesn't quit

[talk:Cult free world/Proposed page&diff=205164631&oldid=205038838] he has blanked the talk page of the proposed article. Before an unnecessary block (which was sorta unblocked) I would have just undone this and archived it myself.

Now this user is asking for a RfC with half the discussion vanished. Would someone else please archive it, so when people look in, if they have the wherewithall they can look at it? Sethie (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you could accept the fact that it is part of his user page, and that you were sanctioned earlier with a block for edit warring on his user page, and for forum shopping. Perhaps you should ignore the page, and let him finish out his work on the article, and follow the advise outlined for you in earlier threads. The threads have been archived -- all one needs to do is click "History" and... there is an archived copy. Nothing hidden. seicer | talk | contribs 05:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

.....Or you could engage in dialogue instead of merely repeating yourself. You posted the same ideas about me on my talk page, I responded and you have yet to respond. I personally don't find arguments and ideas gain believability through repetition.

I would also ask of you to please get your fact straight before saying things about me. I was blocked and also "partially" unblocked (the admin noted that my block had expired AND that the block was unnecessary). As for the forum shopping accusation, I have asked you to explain what on earth that is reffering to on my talk page....

Sethie (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko back

User:Lateupdate26 is his latest reincarnation, visiting his two favorite articles Yolanda Johnson and Nicole Wray, and using the same "is anyone free to edit this page? I don't want anyone to think I'm a sockpuppet" line.Kww (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged ... could use some help rolling back his edits. Blueboy96 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Think that Metros and I got the ones you didn't. This is getting beyond irritating.Kww (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncited Information

The IP user, User:81.152.206.82, has added a lot of information as of late. However, none of them have citations for the source of the information, and checks from yahoo or google do not provide information (especially when these are quotes from sources). This information is not necessary right nor wrong, it is pseudo verifiable, and is not vandalism. I do not have an opinion on the articles that he has written on. He has written and then deleted this. A careful editor who knows the sources could verify the accuracy of his additions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New IP, same junk

User:76.88.235.195 is adding nonsense to various page related to Disney Animators and Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue.--Hailey 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, no previous edits by this ip, time to move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistant vandal && personal attacks.

Seems a user was upset I rv'd his edit that called an editor a cunt, so he's decided to be a persistant IP hopping vandal. So far they're all within the same ISP.

• 89.204.248.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.204.240.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.204.240.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Q ^{T C} 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What, we're not AGF'fing IP-hopping vandals who call people the C word? :) (Sorry...been a frustrating day on the multiple-second-chances-given-to-slavering-bigots front, and I find refuge in mild-to-moderate snark.)Gladys J Cortez 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then he started adding faggot to my talk page, so yea, that's past AGF. Q ^{T C} 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

civility in edit summaries

Are we all allowed to act like This? and this?. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it's his talk page. If he wants to remove warnings and ignore them, let him. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on who you are RxS (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sickoflies22

User seems to be impersonating the pianist Rachel Z. Note left on talk page has had no reply. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Main conflict, to me, seems to surround her birthdate. I added another ref. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:44, 13 April (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive

This appears to have been made in retaliation for this warning. I am not sure how this should be handled so I am posting it here. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it will be keep, snowball or otherwise, and pretty much otherwise an exercise in allowing some editors to up their edit count in Wikipedia space. Was it a bad faith nom? Perhaps, but why waste more time on it? If this becomes part of a pattern, then perhaps this may be worthy of an investigation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, just block. His first edit was to an AfD. The second edit was vandalism of the same AfD and then he starts to MfD pages in user space. And all this within one hour! EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) If this becomes part of a pattern... was very prophetic, LHvU. See: Special:Contributions/The Ultimate Ruler Dude. Can't deal with this, as I'm leaving in a minute, but The Ultimate Ruler Dude needs to stop or get blocked, and both MfD's closed as bad faith noms. --barneca (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard0612/talktop. Yeah. I'm closing this one, and giving a last warning. seicer | talk | contribs 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...annnnd blocked indefinitely for this edit. seicer | talk | contribs 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE - on the basis of this [49] can we block this guy already? Exxolon (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like it was being done while I was posting above. Good riddance! Exxolon (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, Seicer indef blocked following a post on his talkpage - I'm not sure, but I seem to think the block reason may be "Incoherence" or something (a lesser known subsection of Disruption, as I am sure all are aware.) G'night! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by MONGO

The situation has been resolved as far as the scope of this board goes. While it is regrettable that MONGO has left Wikipedia, and while we do hold out hope that he may return, it is now unproductive to all parties involved and uninvolved to further post here. If you have further concerns, please utilize other appropriate avenues other than this board. —Kurykh 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As an uninvolved admin, I issued a warning to MONGO to remain civil in accordance with a recent ArbCom ruling. His reaction: [50] I consider that uncivil, so have blocked him for a week. Reviews are welcome. --Tango (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gut reaction is that one week is a little long...although I'm not entirely sure what "deadminning" entails. _GB^T/C 13:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that seems way OTT. Eusebeus (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have let an uninvolved admin do it. Blocking someone because it pissed you off that they said "Get lost" is over the top. A week is very excessive. please unblock immediately. --DHeyward (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that is was in response to a warning to remain civil makes it rather more serious than "get lost" would usually be. I considered topic bans, but considered them inappropriate considering the offence was regarding a procedural matter, not a specific article. If MONGO didn't have such a long history of this kind of behaviour, I would have considered a shorter block, but he's been doing this for years and shows no signs of learning appropriate behaviour. Long blocks seem the only option. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) You might want to dismount from your tall horse. Adminship does not mean that editors have to bow and scrape when you issue a warning. Editors may evidence a bit of frustration when warned. It is a good idea to give them time to de-escalate the situation. This matter was previously referred to WP:AE. You should keep the discussion there, and abide the resulting consensus. Cheers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling does not require a concensus in advance. If there is a consensus to unblock, I will, of course, respect it. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but once a discussion is started in one place, it makes sense to let it run its course. A lot of unnecessary drama could have been avoided by letting that WP:AE thread resolve. In any case, we see a consensus here for a 5 minute - 48 hour block, not a week. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I could have requested this review there, yes, but I thought more people would see it here. AE is a place to get the attention of an admin. That much was already done. AN/I is the standard place for asking for other admins to review a block. At the end of the day, does it really matter where we discuss this? --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One week is just a bit over the top. If you think someone is being uncivil the logical thing to do is to use the discretionary sanctions to put them on civility supervision. Then start blocking. Moreschi2 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a difference between civility supervision and issuing a warning, which was the first thing I did? --Tango (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like he was blocked for "backtalking". That edit summary wasn't particularly incivil, and people are only supposed to be blocked under that ArbCom ruling for "repeated" and "serious" violations. Should not have been blocked. Kelly ^hi! 13:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's "repeated *or* serious". While this instance wasn't particular serious, the fact that it was in response to a civility warning makes it quite obvious it was repeated. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A week is far too long, but MONGO is fully aware that his intemperate language has been the subject of official disapproval in the past. Since Tango's notice was properly given MONGO had no excuse for the language of his edit summary. I suggest that the block is lifted asap, as time served for incivility, but not revoked. I will unblock providing there is no opposition in the next quarter of an hour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't oppose reducing the length of the block, but "time served" is about 5 minutes. I suggest a minimum of 24 hours. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As you are opposing I shall not unblock. 24 hours is a standard vandalism tariff - and whatever else people may think is wrong with some of MONGO's contributions he is not a vandal. I would suggest a still shorter block. I really think that an hour is sufficient to demonstrate that the community is serious about civility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Then I realised you were serious. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an hour seems too little to me, especially if the user is offline anyway. I would go with 24-48 hours. Black Kite 14:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am serious. 24-31 hours is what a vandal gets after a series of warnings, where there is no recent blocks for same. What we have here is a uncivil edit summary, given while performing an act which is permitted by WP rules. The block is sufficient evidence of the communities disapproval of that policy infraction, and making it "long" will not make it more so. I would also comment that this may yet turn into a wheelwar when one of MONGO's button wielding friends decides to act WP:BOLDly - per the "lack of consensus" here - and unilaterally lifts the block. I am serious when I suggest that this block be of hours rather than days - further infractions may get a longer tariff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Very many editors get instant, permanent, blocks after maybe one or two (vandal) edits. You people need to reed the username block logs sometime. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts are indeffed instantly, but the autoblock only lasts 24 hours. So after that period, they can make another account and continue vandalizing (or contribute positively, or whatever). --B (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A short block was reasonable under the ArbCom ruling, but (a) a week was too long, and (b) an uninvolved admin should've done it. Black Kite 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling clearly defines what it means to be involved. I don't qualify. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant "uninvolved" in the traditional sense, not from the AC ruling. Black Kite 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering this users history of civility, and choice not to change, this is reasonable. Seriously folks, this is never ever going to stop unless we simply enforce a clear standard. Perhaps MONGO will decide to be civil, perhaps MONGO will not, time will tell. I for one hope he can work within the social bounds of this project one day. That being said, while I don't think a week is over the top, I also think 2 days would be reasonable. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also folks, someone lobbing an insult at you does not make you "involved". Think about it, one could defend themselves from blocks just by insulting any admin that came by and thus making them involved... No, our blocking policy says not to be involved in content disputes, not just receiving a name calling from the person. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That at least is correct, yes. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly the way I see it and is why I didn't bother getting someone else to do the block for me. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• What kind of crazy talk is this? Blocking MONGO for a week for a grumpy comment on his talk page? Somebody has lost sight of the goal here. No, the ArbCom decision was not to block people for a week due to edit summaries on their talk page. Not even close. We seem to have taken leave of our collective senses, and be valuing false politeness above commitment to the project and its core aims. There is a massive and long-standing problem with POV-pushing, and blocking the people who reisst it due to comments somewhere else entirely is really not a great way to fix that. This is an entirely disproportionate response to an entirely predictable reaction to a cack-handed attempt to tone things down. No ill-intent assumed, but the tone and wording of the post to MONGO's talk more or less guaranteed his response, and it was gratuitous since MONGO was clearly following the ANI discussion anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, blocking MONGO for a week for being uncivil in response to a civility warning. If there's ever a time when you should be civil it's when someone's just warned you to be. There is a massive and long-standing problem with MONGO being uncivil and it's time something was done about it. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is a good illustration of how I think Wikipedia has somehow turned into a recess monitor and not an encyclopedia-building project. Tan | 39 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, if you'd posted the text of that "warning" to me I could have predicted with near 100% certainty what the result would have been. I cannot believe you were so naive as to think that a post that condescending would be received with anything like equanimity. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Condescending? It was overly formal, perhaps, but I don't think it was condescending. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" So, how about we de-escalate this situation. If the goal was to prevent disruption, this block has failed miserably. Will somebody please undo it, per consensus, and then we can let the WP:AE thread come to an appropriate conclusion. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. As a technique for either de-escalating the situation or helping to ensure policy is followed on those articles, this was, to put it charitably, not a resounding success. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was intended to prevent MONGO being uncivil. It will certainly succeed while the block is in place, and hopefully it will continue to succeed afterwards. There is no way to tell that at this early point. There is no consensus to unblock. There may be a consensus to reduce the length of the block to 24 hours. If I determine that there is, I will do so at some point in the next 23 hours. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how the block prevents MONGO from using edit summaries to kick back against patronising messages left on his talk page? That was what you blocked him for, and I don't see any evidence that the remedy will address the supposed problem. Honestly, I don't. Was MONGO uncivil in the talk page or project space debates where you asserted he was causing a problem? As far as I can see, he was not, after that posting, not least because it seems the debate was archived before the block. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Look at it this way, Guy. He removed a politely-worded request for discussion from someone whom he was in a dispute with, with an edit summary of precisely the type that we know can cause an end to polite wording, and thus discussion. When this was pointed out to him, with some formality/po-facedness, perhaps, but nonetheless with propriety, he expressed his contempt for and fearlessness of the changed circs. that ArbCom has put him and all other participants in those pages in with a "get lost". Simply put, this is enforcement of arbitration of the most basic kind. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it reduces his ability to be uncivil. Of course, he can still be uncivil on his talk page (although, if he is, I'll protect it). --Tango (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I support Tango on this one. There is a massive and long-standing problem with this sort of incivility on the project. I am disappointed as I had seen improvements since his unsuccessful RfA. Maybe this will now underline the seriousness of the policy to MONGO, who has led a charmed life thanks to the well-meaning support of his many fans up until now. Civility isn't optional, and if you have a history of incivility then delete a warning with an uncivil comment, well, you should not expect still to be editing. A week is on the long side; 48 or 72 hours seems fairer.--John (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless Tango agrees, we cannot undo the block; what we are discussing is what tariff is appropriate to minimise disruption. The block needs to be long enough to register the communities disapproval, yet not so long as to bring out the "anti-MONGO = pro-TROLL" faction. In my experience, any action relating to MONGO is a exercise of another round of WP infighting. To minimise disruption we need consensus on a tariff that will not enrage either side of the debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin community can overrule an individual admin if there is a clear consensus to do so. It's only wheel warring if that consensus doesn't exist (which, in this case, it doesn't). If there is a tarrif that balances both those goals, that's certainly what we should aim for. I'm not sure if such a tarrif does exist. There does seem to be a consensus developing that a 24 hour block would be more appropriate, so unless something changes I will probably reduce the block. As long as I do that before the initial 24 hours is up, it doesn't make any difference exactly when I do it, so I'll allow more discussion before acting. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that to be an appropriate tariff, in this instance, for a first block.LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is over the top. I cannot see what justifies the description "trolling". A week's block is clearly excessive: reduce it to 31 hours, says I, and slap a civility supervision on top. Nobody likes The Truthers, sure. But we will never make progress on these articles if the various contributors on either side treat each other with disdain. Nor is Mr Basboll quite that bad. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why Tango gets to decide when "it's time" to do "something" about MONGO. I'm not an admin, but that sounds dangerously like a retaliatory use of administrative tools. I was under the impression that blocks were not intended to be punitive, but here we have an example of a block implemented eight hours after the subject last edited, hence no imminent threat to the pedia, and no threat whatsoever to pagespace. I'm wondering what part of the Arbcom ruling gives one administrator the ability to retaliate against the removal of a warning on a user talk page because of the "uncivil" edit summary of that user. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I get to decide because I'm and admin and the ArbCom ruling says admins can use their discretion in enforcing the ruling. This block is intended to prevent further incivility. I don't know if it will work, but I'm hopeful. The fact that it's 8 hours after he last edited is irrelevant, since the block is for longer than 8 hours. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be sarcastic, but "I'm and admin" sounds like the kind of quote trolls will spit back, and I'm certain admin's discretion is not your strongest argument. I'll commend you for posting this thread immediately thereafter, because your block was bound to provoke a reaction. I contend this block has the appearance of being based not on behaviors user has exhibited recently, but instead a reduced tolerance for behaviors exhibited in the distant past, for which user was duly notified at the time. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks, does it really help the project to stop MONGO from editing for an entire week? I think the block is excessive. Recognizing that we all are capable of getting angry at other editors and saying things we later regret, is it truly the right approach to use the block button to try to let people know you believe they are out of line with something they said? You know, it actually takes more courage to try to talk to someone about their behavior than to swat them with a block. Soft words turneth away wrath, and blocks just make people angrier. Thanks for listening, Antandrus (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not right. I think we're all aware that MONGO has been talked to till the most polite individuals on this project are blue in the face. About whether it helps the project: I don't know if a week does. What would help the project is a more careful attention to the definition of the word "troll". If MONGO learns nothing else over the course of this block, however long it eventually is, than the etymology, correct use, and consequences of abuse of that word, I think that the project will definitely benefit. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally ridiculous length of time, block was totally unnecessary, if people are so precious that they can't cope with being told to "get lost" and react in such an OTT way, then perhaps they should not be admins at all. Giano (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

People have talked to MONGO about his behaviour before. It doesn't work. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• You are not God, you merely wield a mop and bucket. Adminship is no big deal. You do not have to be spoken to in hushed and reverential tones. Giano (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is important that MONGO does not address his fellow contributors on 9/11 articles in disdainful tones. If he then reacts uncivilly to a request for civility, then brief block is valid. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, if one is allowed to be uncivil they can create a hostile environment in a content dispute and thus gain an unfair advantage by driving off those who don't want to be subject to such comments. This damages NPOV in favor of the point of view of the uncivil. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

However, like everyone else, I do have to be spoken to civilly. While "get lost" would be usually be uncivil enough for a block, the fact that it was immeadiately after a civility warning reduces my tolerance. --Tango (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Your tolerance" is your problem - it should not influence your behaviour. You should unblock immediatly. Giano (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If I don't allow my tolerance to influence my behaviour, that would mean I would block people for the slightest offence. Your demand that I unblock him does not follow from that - in fact, what follows is that I should indef block him. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, this is dangerous territory you're entering. You're now saying you blocked him not because of disruption of debates on content relating to 9/11, but because he was rude to you. That is a truly terrible idea. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed anything else. I always said it was a block for incivility, I never mentioned disruption. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He said no such thing, he pointed out that when someone violates a policy immediately after they just got warned about then that is a factor to consider when blocking. Please, if you must misrepresent the position of your opponent in a disagreement then perhaps you need to rethink your position. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just tolerate incivil behavior? The moment someone launches a personal attack, we can choose to ignore it. We can just interpret it as an emotional outburst. Some people will get emotional faster than others, and some people will let emotions affect their behavior. By choosing to ignore it we have already completely neutralized it. But by trying to change a person's behavior we create a new problem. It would take counseling, perhaps some drugs to really change the behavior of someone. A week's ban won't do it, it will just make the editor more angry. The only rational reason for banning people is if not banning them would cause real harm to wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Because uncivil behaviour can drive people from the project - that causes real harm to Wikipedia. If everyone were able to just ignore uncivil behaviour, it would be fine, but that's not the case. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems the comment was only directed at - and only likely to have been seen by - you, but I don't think you're in danger of being "driven from the project" over it. Indeed, your edit count has swelled considerably as a result :) deep breath and hit random page next time. You'll be wrapped up in an article about a 7th century Chinese mathematician in no time. Deiz talk 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point, but please see my remarks to Guy above (timestamp:15:09) for an indication why they might not really apply in this case. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If he were only even uncivil to me, that would be true. However, he has been uncivil to many people. My block was not to prevent incivility towards me, but to prevent incivility in general. --Tango (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I just said, "if one is allowed to be uncivil they can create a hostile environment in a content dispute and thus gain an unfair advantage by driving off those who don't want to be subject to such comments. This damages NPOV in favor of the point of view of the uncivil." That is just one of the reasons we don't tolerate uncivil behavior, another reason is it is mean, unpleasant, and makes for a bad Wikipedia experience. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, 1 == 2, People who behave in an uncivil way are a small minority. If most others do not behave in this way, then I don't see how this will lead someone to leave wikipedia. I do understand that action needs to be taken against someone who repeatedly harasses a particular person. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked as that's where the conversation was leading. It seems the block was questionable and manifestly excessive, but the consensus was actually to unblock per time served rather than to cancel the original block (some said 24-31 hours, but I think the message has been well and truly got). This was a reading of the consensus here so is naturally open to review. Orderinchaos 15:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that was not where the conversation was heading by any means.

How has the message been got? On what basis do you say that? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a consensus to reduce to 24 hours or 2 days. I see no consensus about "time served", and stating that there is agreement that the comment leading to the block was "provoked" is just untrue, there is no such agreement. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. Please reinstate my block immeadiately - you are wheel warring. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus at all for one week - pretty much everyone agreed that was excessive. Giving voice to a community decision is not wheel warring, although I do accept that there was a considerably wide view from the community and the reduction of the block to the present certainly reduces drama - the alternative would have been to reblock him for the rest of the 24-31 hours (which creates more block log entries for seemingly little gain), which others are free to do if they feel it necessary. Orderinchaos 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Once an admin has made a decision, there has to be a consensus to undo it, not a consensus to keep it. --Tango (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To rephrase what Tango said, you seemed to have made a mistake judging consensus, to avoid the effect of wheel warring you should reverse your action now that this has been pointed out. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... what he said. --Tango (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus there. It would be best to re-instate the block to at least 24 hours to allow this conversation to continue. Black Kite 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - 29 hours, which takes it to the 31 that seemed to be closest to what most people regarded as correct. Orderinchaos 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have been nice if you respected me enough to allow me to determine the consensus and reduce the block, especially since I'd already said I intended to do so. I will not contest your new block. --Tango (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking was the correct decision. Than goodness for common sense. Giano (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the point was that no sort of consensus had been reached at all. Without that, any admin action is on shaky ground. Black Kite 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been reblocked for 29 hours, to give a total block time of 31 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

-

It would also be helpful if Tango could state that he will modify his approach to similar blocks. This episode has not reflected well on Wikipedia's admin corps. Only block for a personal slight if the editor's behavior is unquestionably egregious, and even then it's better to get an outside admin to judge. And in this case it would also have been better to follow the AE process. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, incivility is blockable for either egregious or repeated violations, not just egregious. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC

I stand by my actions entirely, for the reasons stated above. --Tango (talk)

Following the suggestion of some people here, I have placed MONGO under indefinite Civility Restriction. Hopefully that will be sufficient to control him. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have that authority. You should completely withdraw from any of this discussion, seeing as how your block was wholly uncalled for, and your defense of it has been nothing less than totally childish, culminating in a basic "I blocked him because he was mean to me." His incivility was basic at best, and certainly not worthy of a week-long block. Or 31 hours, for that matter. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, given your previous involvement in this, I think that decision should be left to neutral third parties. Orderinchaos 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What involvement? Warning the user to follow policy? Blocking the user for violating policy again? Does that really make him involved? Is there some content dispute these two users are involved in that I am not aware of? Has the admin policy expanded what constitutes being an "involved admin" beyond content disputes? Well I think I am uninvolved, and I agree with Tango's idea(or does my participation in this debate involve me?). _(1 == 2)^Until 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see the MONGO Defense League is still in good fighting condition. Nothing says balanced admin actions like letting MONGO go skipping down the lane every time he insults the rest of the editors, while giving any and all other editors a few days in the public stocks. This continues to be one of the biggest regularly demonstrated injustices in the project, and every time an admin argues that 'it's MONGO, so it's different' as has been done her, I lose respect for that admin. In this case, I especially find Orderinchaos especially worthy of calling out on this, because he not only flexed the 'But it's MONGO' defense, he also wheel-warred, deciding that his vote was Consensus by Admin Fiat, which is a misuse of power growing steadily among admins. ThuranX (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you just clarify for me how that comment actually helps the situation? Guy (Help!) 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some value in speaking truth to power. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's prettyt much it. Sorry, Guy, but that's how I see every single thread about MONGO. His incivility is infamous, and the admin response that it's always the conspiracy of trolls is just as famous. He gets trolled. But he bites, and barks, and foams at the mouth regularly. Instead of EVERY stepping back, he steps up, ratchets it up, and plays rules lawyer with letter of the law to get others toasted, but plays the 'spirit of the law' to get off the hook. I'm not anti-MONGO, just anti-MONGO's incivility and excuses. No Admin's ever shyed from slapping me with blocks; I've been blocked by editors who are involved in the existing disputes, and the blocks upheld by their buddies, so don't say there's no cabalism among admins. MONGO's like the martyred saint of admins to some of you, and that attitude towards him is big bullshit. it's got to stop. He got blocked for what others would be blocked for too, so drop it to 48 hours and let him stew in it. It's a long overdue block. ThuranX (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO has no power. Hasn't had for ages. He is, however, just about the only person who is consistently prepared to resist egregious POV-pushing on the 9/11 articles. The thing for which he was blocked was not even uncivil, "get lost" in response to a patronising message on your talk page is well within the bounds of normal human interaction. What he was blocked for appears, on the face of it, to be refusal to kowtow. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I tell you what, although I agree that he should have been punished one way or another for what he did (although I think a whole week is on the harsh side), I am not looking forward to his reaction when he is unblocked. If he is that uncivil before being blocked, well...let's hope he just takes the chin-up approach... Lradrama 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, am not an involved admin. My only action has been in enforcing the ArbCom ruling. The ruling explicitly states that such enforcement does not constitute an involvement. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that I am probably better known as a mild opponent of MONGO's, and this is the first time I've seen cause to agree with him on something. It certainly wasn't, as you describe, "letting him skip down the lane" - I was acting in accordance with other admins above who had expressed the view that for these purposes the length of the block didn't matter, and my own view that drama feeds on itself. Clearly it did matter to some, however, so I reset it to a level which I believed most participants would find reasonable. For the record I have opposed and/or undone blocks on other editors in the past when there's been a whiff of something Not Right about the whole thing, regardless of my personal opinion of the editors concerned. I should note I did read the debate carefully, and I paid attention to a wide variety of views (you'll see several which basically recommended the action I initially took), and simply misjudged - there's certainly no fiat here, as I put my own decision up for review and when some indicated they felt I had overstepped, I adopted the strictest reading of what was there. Orderinchaos 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You made an error in judgement and corrected it. I'm happy to leave it at that. I withdraw my accusation of wheel warring - I overreacted. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I believe your action to be sincere, and your response to the objection to be perfectly suitable. Nothing wrong with your admin actions today Order, nor do I think Tango was wrong because it was decided a lesser block time was more appropriate. Good work folks. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Double Standard is alive and well... depending on which side of the Clique you're on, any block or ban you may get is either roundly condemned and reversed, or approved by an amen chorus. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that certain users are more likely to be defended than others when all else is the same. This is something we need to fix. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely if this is based on user contribs that is fair enough and doesn't need fixing or even changing at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's based more on who your friends and enemies are, as well as your stands on various controversial issues (both intra-Wikipedia and real-world). *Dan T.* (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He was incivil to your comment on his talk page. Editors can delete comments on their talk page. Deleting comments on talk pages had absolutely NOTHING to do with the arbcom ruling. Justifying your anger under the color of arbcom is a serisou abuse of admin privileges. --DHeyward (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All true, but I didn't block him for removing the warning, I blocked him for being uncivil. --Tango (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, please folks please be sure you are aware of the events that actually occurred before presenting arguments, and do so accurately. There has been more than a little misrepresentation of other's positions going on here. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the ArbCom ruling intended to cover user talk pages? This seems kind of a broad interpretation. Kelly ^hi! 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an exception for user talk pages? _(1 == 2)^Until 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He told you to get lost and that you should be deadminned. That's an opinion but hardly incivil. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Try saying "get lost" to someone, and watch their face when you do it. Try it at work, or school, or some social group or club, and see what the reaction is to the person you say it to. Now imagine you have been talking like that to those people for months now. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that this was on Mongo's own talk page. It's akin to someone criticizing you in your own office at work; telling them to get lost may not be polite, but it is understandable and justifiable. (I use an office as an example rather than as one's home to head off the argument that user talk pages are not owned; one normally does not own an office either, but there is an equivalent sense of space.) Horologium (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If an admin gives a civility warning and the response is "get lost," I'd think you either block them or give up the civility policy. Hectoring Tango for this is over the top. Mackan79 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivil is "frack you" or "go away, motherfracker", not what MONGO wrote. Kelly ^hi! 16:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of conflict and stress." That could be taken too far, but I don't believe it's just a bad words policy. Mackan79 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Then any disagreement can be characterized as "incivil", if the person disagreed with is sufficiently oversensitive and neurotic, and feels "stressed" by the disagreement. Kelly ^hi! 16:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Get lost" is barely uncivil, especially on your own talk page, and "if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned" is something I'd wholeheartedly endorse. Luckily I don't see any evidence that Tango does support such abuse, but any admin who did would, in my view, be entirely unfit. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the blocking admin should have posted a request here or at WP:WQA rather than blocking themselves. Totally subjective judgment. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Get lost" to a civility warning? I'm kind of wondering what JzG would do if he issues a warning and someone tells him to get lost. Mackan79 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It rather depends. I have moderated my temper quite a lot of late, and I tend to simply unwatch user pages where people engage in egregious demonstrations of pique. I also take much longer and write more words to explain what the problem is, what needs to change, and what sort of things might lead to an unblock (see User talk:Piercetheorganist. And if I blocked someone just because they told me to get lost on their talk page after one of my pompous notes, I'd fully expect to be slapped with a trout since one's user talk page, while one does not own it, is a place where one should be reasonably free to be oneself - I think "wide latitude" is the usual phrase. It is increasingly clear to me that a key purpose of administrative interaction with long-term troublesome users is to help them decide whether they want to continue editing Wikipedia or not, not to drive them away, which was the most likely outcome here. It is hard to think how this could have been handled worse. But you are right in one sense: I am not immune from getting so up myself that I would hit back with the block button against rudeness. I think I have that under control, but maybe I don't. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by MONGO-Arbitary break

MONGO is blocked, and there seems to be consensus of the tariff now applied. As regards incivility - nearly all such violations takes place on talk pages - article, wikipedia and user. Can we let this thing now pass and move on? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tariff? tariff? Good God, man, you think this is a court of law or something? It's a bloody website, and MONGO is someone we actually need to keep onside, not drive away. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely! Kelly ^hi! 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wassamatta, too many letters? Or are you simply unfamiliar with the appropriate use of English (other than the vernacular)? Law Courts, etc, are required to use the correct terms, but it doesn't mean they are disallowed within other areas of life. I don't appreciate being told how to talk by some fellow Brit, of much the same age, who has a reputation as something of a bucketmouth as it is. Now, was there any policy point you wanted discussing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please not argue about semantics? Does it really matter what name people use for the length of a block? --Tango (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tango should have recused himself from direct intervention and sought neutral input at one venue, not two. There was no pressing need to act; this wasn't an emergency. Strongly recommend Tango refrain from future intervention because this is generating needless drama. No opinion on the duration of the block, but IMO any uninvolved administrator can undo this block at any time. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't only seek input an one venue - this one. There is clearly no consensus here for completely removing the block, so any administrator (involved or otherwise) removing it would be wheel warring. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As an involved administrator, you were outside policy in applying the block in the first place. No consensus is necessary. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Durova, please respond to this question before insisting Tango was "involved" somehow. Policy requires you not be in a content dispute, perhaps you should review it. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already replied here. Multiple concurrent discussions are a bad idea, and it's obvious that Tango's decisions are causing more drama than necessary. We all have better things to do. Durova^Charge! 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango believe that a comment directed at him was incivil. Making that assessment means he is ivolved. It is the definition of conflict of interest for him to assess, in the heat of the moment, whether telling him to get lost and get deadminned is incivil and deserves a sanction. Since it was his first blcok for incivility, it reeks of an angry response as opposed to a reasoned well thought out sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite capable of making impartial decisions, even when I'm the target of the offence. The ruling gives a clear definition of "involved", and being a target is not mentioned. Also, my block was not "in the heat of the moment" - I took considerable time making the decision (for example, I re-read the ArbCom ruling to make sure I was doing everything correctly). Blocking a long-time editor for a week is not something I do lightly. As for my record - I've looked through it, and I have made blocks for personal attacks before, which is much the same thing. I think the fact that I issued the warning before being targeted myself makes it clear that I was of the opinion that action needed to be taken before I become "involved". --Tango (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the practical result: a lot of people's time wasted. This is a controversial block and it didn't need to be one. It shouldn't have been one. And since blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, wouldn't it have stood a better chance of having the desired effect on MONGO's conduct if someone whose impartiality was above question had intervened? Yes, it's difficult when established and productive editors have civility problems. That's part of why it's best for the response to be clear, unambiguous, and community-based. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is bad because it could lead to editors leaving wikipedia? That's a bit far fetched as I explained above. Arguably, if we censor wikipedia and e.g. only allow pictures of women if they cover their hair we may attract a huge amount of Muslim editors here. I don't think we would want that. I've nothing against Muslims, even those who think that women should cover their hair. But editors should be expected to have a backbone and be able to tolerate things they don't like. Count Iblis (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of priorities. Not making people leave Wikipedia takes priority over letting people say what they like. It doesn't take priority over maintaining the neutrality of the encyclopaedia. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, were you actually thinking about leaving Wikipedia because of MONGO's edit summary? Kelly ^hi! 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but as I've said above, the block wasn't intended to stop him being uncivil towards me, it was intended to stop him being uncivil in general. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, if that's an offense worthy of blocking to protect Wikipedia, you need to get busy - there are thousands of other editors guilty of the same level of offense that need blocking then. But personally I think it was because MONGO offended your sense of your own authority. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

By disregarding my warning like that he made it perfectly clear he had no intention of changing his ways. He has a long history of such behaviour. A block was certainly called for. --Tango (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have examples of MONGO's previous incivility? A few DIFFS would help to establish his pattern of behavior, and lessen the argument that this was a personal matter. Redrocket (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone familiar with MONGO really dispute that his has a history of incivility? If you want more information, I suggest you start with the ArbCom case that desysopped him: [51]. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, most of the people commenting on this case (including me, and I suported the block) aren't familiar with MONGO or his history. They're taking this as a one-time incivil comment to an admin that resulted in a block. The ArbCom case and incivil diffs will help. Redrocket (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok if editors have varying notions about what incivility means to them. Meanwhile having a thick skin around here is in itself a kind of civility and wikilove. For myself only, I would have taken that edit summary as uncivil, angry, not thoughtful, not helpful and so on. However, it's so unlikely I'd have found myself in that editing context with Mongo, so thinking about how I would have taken it isn't the tale. A week was far too long but this has been shortened, though maybe not shortened enough but all the same, there's nothing untowards about keeping cool when one sees what one thinks is the mother of lame edits glowing and taunting back from the screen. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's more of a double standard here, in that if you're on one side of the culture wars, you're expected to have a thick skin as stated above... but if you're on the other side, if you suggest that your opponents should have a thick skin instead of being hypersensitive, you're condemned for supporting trolling, harassment, stalking, and a litany of other evils. 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I misreading the log or was this Tango's first block for incivility? --DHeyward (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, really. Does it matter either way? --Tango (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a lot of experience dealing with incivility as a blockable offense. The fact that your first block was for a) a comment directed at you and b) for a week with no precedent for such a length of time is enough justification to overturn the block. This should have been handled by someone else, preferably with more experience with civility issues and not the subject of the conflict. --DHeyward (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am uninformed about the larger context here, but it seems to me that this is a very troubling case. We should be permitted greater latitude on our talk pages and the language in question hardly represents that serious a breach of civility. A week-long block is such an inappropriate response that it raises serious concerns about Tango's impartiality and judgment here. Moreover, it is unfortunate that, rather than admitting a serious error in judgment and making apology given the general reaction here, Tango has instead resorted to wikilawyering about how arbcom defines "involvement." Eusebeus (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with MONGO's history before commenting. It would allow the reader to place a greater weight on your opinion if he or she was certain you were in possession of the full facts and still felt that way.--Relata refero (disp.) 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think this requires no more admin action? Can it be closed now? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Over the three years or so I've been here I have a certain familiarity with Mongo's history generally. I meant the specifics of this particular dispute. Eusebeus (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior

Every administrator who blocks a good-faith contributor for any reason whatsoever without a previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus to do so should be desysoped. This is unacceptable behavior from any administrator, in every case. It violates the blocking policy. It generates wikidrama on a grand scale, every single time. It is never, ever, in any circumstance whatsoever, the best thing for Wikipedia.

Administrators, now hear this: you are not a lone ranger, appointed to protect Wikipedia from evildoers with your trusty block button, exerting your personal will over those who contribute constructively. Caviler blocking is for vandals, spammers, obvious trolls and cranks; if a good-faith editor needs blocking, it can damn sure wait a day or two for people to talk about it first.

Why is this behavior still tolerated by the community? ➪HiDrNick! 17:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, reading the blocking policy before making broad, useless statements like the above might actually help. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely enorse DrNick above. Tango has dsplayed incompetence and foolishnes on a dazzling scale. Giano (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well MONGO as an administrator actually made also blocks "without a previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus", should he be desysoped too?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and toss this out here because I may be reading your comment wrong, or you could just be really, really confused, are you saying MONGO is a sysop? MONGO has not been a sysop since December 2006.. — Κaiba 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I thought he was still an administrator.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was acting in accordance with an ArbCom ruling. If you disagree with that ruling, take it up with them. --Tango (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad did not block Mongo. Jpgordon did not block Mongo. You did. And then you cried "wheel warring" when someone had the sense to set it right. Don't put this off on someone else. Your blocks are your responsibility. ➪HiDrNick! 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I take responsibility for my actions. My point is that ArbCom clearly ruled that a consensus was not required for taking action and that any admin could do so unilaterally. You opinion that I should have sought a consensus first therefore goes against that policy, so you should take it up with ArbCom. As for my accusation of wheel warring - I have withdrawn it. However, the unblocking was inappropriate, and plenty of people agreed with me on that - including the unblocking admin. --Tango (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can try proposing a change to policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The above wording would be unworkable. How would AIV and 3RR boards work? Orderinchaos 03:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where can I find this list of "good-faith" and "crank" contributors? It sounds useful. Actually (and this is in no way related to the above), it is a fact that WP:BLOCK doesn't distinguish between editors. It doesn't matter if you are a constructive constributor, you don't get a free pass on disruptive behaviour. In other words, it isn't as cut and dried as you make out. Black Kite 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  It's up at the North pole, called the "naughty or nice" list. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From some of the stuff we've seen diffs and complaints about MONGO about civility, this is some pretty tame stuff to block over compared to his past comments. The whole thing appears (in this case) to be blown out of proportion, but whats done is largely done for better or worse. Are we actually giving him a civility probation for saying "get lost" on his talk page? Lawrence § t/e 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was also the comment about de-sysoping someone for their PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, please read my comment to Guy (15:02 timestamp) for a detailed explanation of why this might not be inappropriate in this case. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So Lawrence, your argument against the block is 'he's done worse and gotten away with it, so why block for this lesser offense'? That's absurd on its' face. Parallel is that petty larceny charges shouldn't be brought against those previously acquitted of multiple counts of burglary and robbery, because 'at least they're stealing less'. Come off it. That anyone stood up to MONGO is cause for celebration, not desysopping. I cant' think of another editor who splits so much of the community when it comes to his civility issues. Anything that reins his in is a positive step for the project. ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Er... I didn't really take much of any position, let alone toss out an argument either way, it was just an observation on the block for the get lost comment itself. The deadmin comment after certainly didn't help. We shouldn't celebrate anyone's blocking. We're not here to win points, and this isn't a game. Lawrence § t/e 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, now we're just explaining it to people. The incident is over. Unless someone has an objection in the next few minutes, I will archive this and we can get back to business. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the same business that started this thread? I guess if you give a deadline of only a few minutes, I'll be the one objecting to archiving it, although I'm not an administrator and have nothing to say. Let people weigh in. Yes, the damage is done, but maybe something can be learned. There's nothing wrong with discussing it. Please don't archive. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

People are seeing this as too harsh, but mongo has accepted terms for his behaviour hasn't he, and now he has breached them. It's not the same as someone else telling someone to get lost, because there is a repeated pattern here and arbcom have made a ruling or something about how he should act. Merkin's mum 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Every administrator who blocks a good-faith contributor for any reason whatsoever without a previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus to do so should be desysoped. - Absolutely agree.
Again, now we're just explaining it to people. The incident is over. Unless someone has an objection in the next few minutes, I will archive this and we can get back to business. - Do that and I will unarchive it. If you think you have you've made yourself heard, you get on with your "business".. you dont get to decide that for everyone. We dont archive important threads like this before even the community has been given a reasonable oppurtunity to see it, let alone comment. Sarvagnya

Sorry, do you have something to contribute or some admin action you want?

The moment that Sluzzelin asked nicely above I chose not to. Let that be a lesson to you on how to get things done with minimal drama, if you care. Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Every administrator who blocks a good-faith contributor for any reason whatsoever without a previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus to do so should be desysoped. -- Grabs the popcorn because my lurking should get a lot more inreresting with all the desysops.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• We should have listened to people on the ArbCom decision workshop. It's patently clear that the ArbCom decision is going to be used to punish such egregious lapses of decorum as "get lost...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned" and not actually do anything about the situation on the articles. This might have something to do with the fact that it's a heck of a lot easier to say "play nice" than to deal with a serious issue that affects the credibility of some of Wikipedia's most high-profile articles. --Haemo (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Its important to remember that there still is a community consensus that the kind of atmosphere engendered by many, many statements like that over a long period does in itself have a deleterious effect on articles. If you disagree with that theory, this isn't the place to argue it.
  • I do agree with you that it is a lot easier to play nice than deal with the issues. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Schnazzy! Everyone who patrols WP:AN3 will be desysopped immediately, I guess. --B (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. The three-revert rule carries "previously sought and clearly demonstrated consensus", as it's the only automatic punitive blocking that we allow. The rules of what consitutes a revert are extremely clear and unambiguious, whereas the civility policy, while backed by clear concensus, is much muddier in the deatils; it does not hurt to seek concenus before carrying out a block. When a failure to display enough obsequiosity earns a week-long block, it's time for something to be done. ➪HiDrNick! 22:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling shenanigans on this block

I've done virtually the same thing-- telling someone to get lost on my user page whom I didn't want to post here. He also ran to WP:ANI, and his complaints were, suprise, suprise, ignored. This is totally a politically motivated block that is far too severe. Jtrainor (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I find it deplorable that after all that has passed today Mongo is still blocked [52]. Is there not one of you Admins, with the guts and decency to unblock him. It's not as though he's going to edit and threaten any of you! Giano (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're upset that an admin acted on his own and blocked the user without talking it over and gaining proper consensus, and you find it deplorable that another admin hasn't acted on his own and unblocked the user without talking it over and gaining proper consensus, either? Redrocket (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd feel a little better about this if it hadn't been initiated by a couple editors who routinely oppose him in 9/11 related articles. There is of course plenty of incivility on that side of those debates and I expect blocks being performed in the context of the Arbcom case to be handed out a little more evenhandedly going forward. RxS (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary block. "Get lost?" Serious? I think the blocking admin needs a thicker skin, as generally required by administrators and should unblock immediately for review. the_undertow ^talk 20:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken in isolation it may look harsh. But for a user who has been warned repeatedly about civility to respond to a civility warning by saying "get lost...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned"; what else would any admin do but block in a situation like that? The initial block length was a bit harsh, but 31 hours seems fair to me. I am saddened that the apparent progress around the time of his RfA turns out to have been only apparent. Edits like this seem to indicate that no real progress has been made, no real learning has taken place. Sad, as is any block of an established and well-intentioned long term editor, but fair. --John (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What would any admin do? I dunno, take it with a grain of salt, perhaps. I assume the block was for 'get lost,' which I don't consider incivility. You can't block the guy for asserting that an admin should be stripped of the toolz, so I'll assume the former was the case. I'm trying to see your point, and take your link into consideration, but since I think this action is more retaliatory than preventative, I'm still feeling uneasy about any block at this time. the_undertow ^talk 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean any editor who suggests an admin should be recalled is shopping for a block from the admin in question? I don't get it. Orderinchaos 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read this over and have come to the conclusion that Tango should be desysoped. But that is just my opinion and according to some editors my opinion is irrelevant because I am not an almighty administrator. And apparently that makes me a troll as well. I served a seven-month long block for a minor offense as a new editor and so I think I understand how blocking works around here. There are too many administrators with a block first mentality.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is no more nor less relevant based on whether or not you are an administrator. Your relevance is affected far more by making hysterical comments like this one here, by carrying the joke of running for president entirely too far, or saying things like this nonsense above. None of this has anything to do with being an administrator. --B (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just a continuation of ad hominem attacks on me. Rather than calling my posts "nonsense" why don't you focus on the topic that is being discussed?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your own comment didn't focus on the topic being discussed. You had one semi-relevant sentence and the rest was irrelevant. As for "a continuation of ad hominem attacks" on you, I don't believe I have ever interacted with you before. I may have and it just didn't stand out. --B (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring directly to you. Read my post again, every sentence in it is relevant to this discussion. Especially the last sentence, which ties it all together.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read this over and have come to the conclusion that Tango may have made a block to long, but that a block was appropriate. But that is just my opinion and according to some editors my opinion is irrelevant because I am not an almighty administrator. And apparently that makes me a troll as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Er, pardon? Where has anyone said, or even implied that? Black Kite 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Look everyone. It's not as hard as all that. There are two points here. I think the point is firstly MONGO's response to a civility warning was "get lost". Clearly upping the ante. If civility warnings are to mean anything they should have available sanctions behind them. Every admin should back Tango because otherwise the whole system falls down and we can forget Wiki's civility rules and then the whole project falls down. It's as simple as that.
Secondly, MONGO made a content point in that "...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned", in simpler words if you disagree with my POV then you shouldn't be an admin. So now choose. Either MONGO's POV is more important than the system or it isn't. Admins, the ball's in your court. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Every admin should think for themselves. I won't back the action, and the one thing that keeps the system from 'falling' is that not everyone agrees on every action, effectively preventing this from becoming an oligarchy. the_undertow ^talk 22:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of my thoughts: MONGO's response to Tango's warning was inappropriate and warranted a block, but the original block was too long. It has been reduced to 31 hours. I think this thread is about done, and should be archived. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If only for the fact that the discussion will outlast the block duration. the_undertow ^talk 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They usually do! Where would be the fun, otherwise? --Tango (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Was the person you told to get lost an uninvolved admin warning you about a civility probation breach? Were you, in fact, under civility probation? How is it "virtually the same thing" if either is untrue? --Random832 (contribs) 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - MONGO was not under civility probation at the time (he is now). He was just under the same ArbCom ruling as everyone else involved in the September 11 articles. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

<personal attacks snipped> 84.56.1.250 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango and MONGO seem to have clashed before; for example, here's a November 2006 edit sumary from Tango that is arguably uncivil to MONGO, so it would be best if Tango refrain from taking any admin action that involves MONGO. Also, it was easy to predict that the tone of the warning was likely to trigger a "get lost," which I have to say isn't much of a reason to block someone. I'd like to see MONGO unblocked. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why even bother? He already retired and requested an indef block for his account. Leave the man alone. --Haemo (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

November 2006? I would suggest that, given the length of time, there is the likelihood that Tango has matured as a contributor. MONGO is, as ever, MONGO and has both been previously desysopped and the subject of a current ArbCom restriction, regarding "tone" within comments, owing to their lack of control when responding to actions that they are not appreciative of/editors they do not approve of. It is unfortunate that people have previously lauded MONGO's "bluntness" in dealing with perceived trolls and the like, since that characteristic seems to have defined some of MONGO's interactions with other established editors. Was the block possibly inappropriate? Perhaps, it might be argued, but then so was the reaction by MONGO that lead to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My point in raising that was to show that the two have been involved in disputes over edit summaries before, the first time Tango posting an uncivil one about MONGO, and MONGO warning him. That alone should have caused Tango not to get involved in what was inevitably going to be a controversial block of MONGO over the same thing in reverse. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an edit from 2006 can be used to say Tango is "involved" in any significant way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So someone's past history only applies when it's convenient? Jtrainor (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am calling it shenanigans as well. Have a look at the edit to Mongo's talk page that was the provocation for the "get lost" response. It is pompous, legalistic, formal, aloof, and oddly deferential towards a disruptive editor. Rather that having a dialog on the best approach to editing the 9/11 for verifiability and reliable sources, while remaining civil -- which is what the spirit of the Wikipedia calls for, it appears to me to have been a clever tripwire -- a "gotcha" -- a manufactured but plausible method for imposing a block. The motive I leave to the others who have commented on their past history. patsw (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking him to be polite was baiting, is that what you are saying? I just read that message and it was incredibly polite and civil, and explained the issues with great clarity. If that was "provocative" then so is every other warning we give around here. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. This unnecessary "asking" and at the same time disclaiming any knowledge of User:Thomas Basboll is disingenuous and obsequious. It was bullying while at the same time formally "incredibly polite and civil" as you characterize it.

Let's be frank. The editing of the 9/11 articles to promote conspiracy theories has a single purpose -- to advance 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you want to actually help the Wikipedia, keep unverifiable, unsourced conspiracy theory nonsense out of the those articles. Playing gotcha with one of the editors as it is my opinion Tango has done here, is going to chill effective editing. patsw (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO has retired

No one here has mentioned it yet, but MONGO has left the project. Damn. KrakatoaKatie 00:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. He'll be missed, and 9/11 related articles will suffer for his loss — but I don't expect anyone to actually care about that. It's far easier to chide people for saying things like "get lost" than actually deal with the really serious issue in this article area, and elsewhere. Arbcom did a terrible job with the 9/11 case, and the consequences are already showing up. --Haemo (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I have disagreed with him in the past, he is/was a net positive to the project. I really hope he reconsiders. :/ Orderinchaos 03:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RickK was right after all  :( Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times has he retired now?:) I'm sure he'll soon be back with us again. Merkin's mum 02:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an important principle here, and it seems quite a few admins are unclear about it. MONGO was allegedly uncivil in a content dispute, Tango warned him. He allegedly insulted Tango, and Tango blocked him. That should be enough to call into question Tango's adminship. Tango was, I saw no allegation otherwise, uninvolved in the content dispute. However, when a user is uncivil to an administrator, this was a new offense in which the administrator was involved. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62. When an admin perceives a user as being uncivil to the admin, it does not matter what came before, it would not be unusual for the admin to overreact, and to use the tools to retaliate. This is why it is essential for another admin to make that decision; Tango could simply have brought the alleged offense here. If there were a reasonable fear of immediate hazard to the project, then this would be the basis for the block, not the alleged incivility in an edit summary on the user's own Talk page.

It is clear that the block was for incivility to the admin, not for the original incivility, for that was deemed worthy only of a warning, which was properly issued (i.e., it was within the legitimate discretion of Tango as an admin, whether it was "correct" or not). The grey area would not be here, it would be in a case like this where the alleged offender then is uncivil with someone else, and then the insulted admin blocks. Was he really blocking for the new offense or for the old one? But that is not the case here.--Abd (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a concrete example. After I warned a user about canvassing, they gave me the finger. [53] This was done after a string of disruptive incidents. It total, it had become clear that the user needed to be blocked, and that's what I did. The block was endorsed by two other rogue admins. [54][55] So, there is no general rule that an admin can't block after an editor insults them. We don't give disruptive editors the option of negating enforcement efforts by using incivility to "involve" administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 06:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazing coincidence, that was exactly the incident I had in mind. Yes, two arbitrators hopped in to confirm the block, which was indef for something that might ordinarily have gotten a warning or, in context, a 24 hour block. I brought this up to Jehochman, nicely, that the block -- in spite of the arbitrator support, which was rather odd in itself, being unnecessary -- was actually a fairly serious violation of COI rules. There was no serious challenge to the block at the time, and the arbitrators were themselves, in a sense, COI, part of Abisdy's evil plot (he was warned for "canvassing." Who had he canvassed? Every member of the Arbitration Committee, and only a handful of others. And there was no vote or other process in motion, so no canvassing .... spamming ArbComm members?) but details, details, Absidy wanted to be blocked, he was generally pissed off and was committing wiki-suicide by giving Jehochman the finger, because he knew what the response would be. The arbitrators, essentially, may have been confirming that the block was good for other reasons.... though those would have been, shall we say, obscure at the time. He had not created, yet, the hoax article, nor had any other japes come to light beyond his vote-buying joke during my RfA. What is important here is that the arbitrator intervention did not establish that Jehochman's block was procedurally correct. In any case, Jehochman agreed with me that he'd unblock. I still believe that the block was highly improper. There was no threat of damage to the project, no threat of continued "canvassing," Absidy had said he was done what what he had been warned about. And then he was rude, as described. If Jehochman really wants to insist that this was proper, well, perhaps we do need to look at further process. I thought we were done with our little chat. I was following WP:DR to the letter.

Actually, that argument doesn't work. You can still deal with the situation in the following way: Admin B warns User C for incivility to User D. User C responds by being incivil to Admin B. Admin B can either: (1) ignore the incivility directed at him and repeat the warning and say that he will block if there is further incivility directed at other users; or (2) Report both cases of incivility to a noticeboard. In case 2, this should produce Admin E who can review the warning(s) and the incivility and block user C for the incivility. If User C is subsequently incivil to Admin E, this should be ignored. The block is in place, the User should now appeal the block and demonstrate they can be civil. It might seem like a waste of time, but just like sockpuppet cases, if you take a bit more time and do things the right way, a lot of drama and appearance of involvement can be avoided. If admins don't want users being incivil towards them to "involve" them, then the best way to acheive that is to ignore the incivility towards you - let others deal with that part of the incivility. Trust me - selective ignoring of incivility towards yourself really does work. It is very difficult to say that an admin is involved because of an "incivil comment towards the blocking admin", when said admin has entirely ignored the said incivil comment and blocked for another reason entirely. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In normal cases, yes. In cases under ArbCom-mandated discretionary sanctions, no. The purpose of those judgments was, as Kirill points out, to reduce process and increase the effectiveness and responsiveness of admin action. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But if I was enforcing sanctions under that Arbcom ruling, I would take taken the matter to Arbitration Enforcement, which tends to deal with this sort of thing much better than ANI. I think this still tallies with the "report to other" bit of what I said. The location also reduced any urgency. A strict AE thread and warning might have made MONGO realise that he is included in the discretionary sanctions as well. Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A generally valid principle is that if an admin is uninvolved before making a warning, the response to that warning on its own doesn't make the admin involved. For example, if I warn someone about vandalism and then they vandalize my user page, I can still block them for vandalism.

In this case, MONGO was incivil not in response to a simple note about civility, but in response to a note that he was subject to arbcom-backed civility restrictions. If there are any situations where a civil response is needed, that's one of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that it was incivility in response to this, and not in response to that, the point is that it's not really on to block someone for telling you to get lost. If we were all to block for that kind of slight, we'd have block logs as long as our arms. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If MONGO had blocked tango for repeating this incivil comment I suspect that Tango would have a different opinion of the block. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dragging stuff up from TWO years ago and claiming it shows a past history of disputes that is relevant (SV) or in fact claiming it is in any way relevant to the current block by comparing two potential wrongs (DHeyward) is so far offf the mark its not funny. Viridae^Talk 07:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

One year and five months. Not two years. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This "uninvolved" admin's disputes goes back 2 years with incidents as recent as 3 months ago and the current block relates to two edits MONGO made to his own talk page that Tango seems to think is covered by ArbCom on 9/11 articles. Coupling your comments with the most ardent supporters of the block arguing about MONGO's "history of incivility" leads to only one conclusion: The block is what is way off the mark. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, to the first point, the first warning was only for a comment in an edit summary on MONGO's own talk page (as was the block). He removed a comment on his own talk page with a comment "removing SPA trolling". The SPA is particularly sensitive to the term "trolling" and filed an ANI. It was to this User Talk Page comment that Tango issued his warning as some stretch to the ArbCom ruling. This user talk page edit mentioning trolling generated this ANI whcih generated this warning. No edits on the article talk page were incivil and there were no edit warring. The entire incident is about MONGO's talk page and is simply not about any ArbCom ruling. This is just an angry admin who lashed out because he didn't like being told to get lost. He is stretching the bounds to get this covered by ArbCom rulings. --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your timeline is awry, the first warning by Tango specifically referred to the matter of ArbCom (and thus enforcement) and MONGO escalated significantly by violating WP:CIVIL.

The closest real life analogy I can think of would be to remind someone not to play ball games, per the big sign in red letters, on pain of an on-the-spot fine, and have that person gently kick the ball at you for giving the warning. No injury is likely from the ball, but it is a deliberate act of insolence and therefore attracts the immediate fine. The reaction by some folk here is akin to complaining about the fine being levied on the basis that the individual has previously been heavily involved in writing up the rules for ball games, and the individual himself has decided to take his ball home in a fit of pique. Broken down, it really is as pathetic as that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

meatball:GoodBye. The advice there is appropriate for situations such as these. -- Naerii 06:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo has "retired" many times, only to come back after cooling off. Same deal here. Mongo has been given many warnings and is on a civility parole. He knows better and the block was valid. To tolerate incivility would be a net negative even if it meant keeping good editors who are incivil. Like I said, Mongo will be back soon, and hopefully he will have learned a lesson.Supergreenred (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Tango is trying to pass off as uninvolved

Tango inserted himself into MONGO's talk page as an uninvolved admin: Three months ago he tried to single handedly derail MONGO's RfA because of the ArbCom ruling that deadminned mongo on the same topics that Tango claims uninvolvement in. This is prescient given Tango's present action. Trying to convince a neutral participant that MONGO hasn't changed is another indication of his involvement. Trying to convince another editor that MONGO needs more evidence to prove he has changed. Here he assigns the cause of all previous issues with the 9/11 article disputes to MONGO as he opposes his RfA . And here we have Tango making an incivil edit directed toward MONGO (much worse than saying "get lost". Notice the lack of a 1 week long block. And here MONGO warns Tango to be civil. Again without a block. Was this revenge? And here Tango actually says that calling someone a fool is not incivil and suggests that an admin stop warning people so much. Well, so much for uninvolved or consistent. One thing is clear though, Tango has had some very strong feeling about MONGO for a long time. In his own words, time is unable to heal his wounded ego. He should have taken his own advice here though. Lucky for him, MONGO wasn't irrational enough to block Tango for repeating his incivil comments. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, lucky for everybody that drama back in 2006 didn't escalate into anything worse. Other than the skirmish way back then which we've already discussed, and the fact that, like 102 others including myself, Tango opposed MONGO's RfA a couple of months ago, I don't see a case to answer here. One of your diffs is repeated above too. --John (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He not only opposed it, he actively tried to change others opinion to oppose. Hardly the actions of a disinterested admin that is claiming to be "uninvolved". The comments that Tango made on his talk page calling Mongo a "fool" shows both his mindset and his willingness to use and repeat incivil comments. His double standard, and his personal issues with MONGO is the issue, not rehashing the past. His warning for a user talk page edit summary and his week long block for a different user talk page edit summary is hwolly without precedent and his claims of "ArbCom enforcement" ring hollow. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have made valid points. Hopefully User:Tango will admit mistakes and undertake not to repeat them. Should that be insufficient, we have requests for comment as the next step in dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked MONGO after consulting the most recent blocking admin. [56] I also tried talking to Tango, [57] but he's gone offline, and I feel that a 16-block is more than long enough. There was substantial concern about the block, expressed here and elsewhere, among editors I respect, including DHeyward, Jehochman, Kelly, Guy, Giano, Bishzilla, Orderinchaos, Raymond Aritt, Durova, Eusebeus, Alex Bakharev, Newyorkbrad, and others. The consequence of the block seems to be that MONGO has left the project, a decision I hope he'll reconsider, so the unblock may be nothing but a gesture, but I hope it's one in the right direction. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am wrong in supposing you need to demonstrate that there is a consensus to unblock, not a consensus to continue the block? If you count names in one direction, I rather believe thrice as many names -and strong arguments- can be counted in another direction. I personally feel that this is inappropriate given the amount of support that has been expressed for this block here, and hope you will reconsider.

I'd also like to add that the drama was dying down, and doing this was manifestly ill-advised from that point of view. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, WP:BURO, and some page that says something like "not a vote". And count me in as another editor that thinks the block was a bad call in the first place. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinction between consensus and mob rule. I've seen some terrible decisions made by the latter in recent weeks. Orderinchaos 06:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope MONGO sees this as not just a gesture, but as an actual unblock. I still maintain that there was no blockable offense here. Civility is not one person's right to feel unoffended, but it seems to be construed as such. the_undertow ^talk 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

After watching these threads for almost a day and learning more about the history behind this, I think the block was uncalled for. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata, it's not a question of counting, but of looking at the strength of feeling against the block from regular editors and admins, and there was considerable strength of feeling, going so far as to trigger an RfAr and MONGO's departure. He had already served 16 hours, which is a lot for telling someone to get lost. I hereby vote that everyone who's told me to get lost and worse be blocked for 16 hours. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I note, however, that "strength of feeling" appears nowhere on the pages describing consensus, for very good reason. I note also that it conflicts directly with Orderinchaos' statements about mob rule.

This should have been closed eons ago, re-opened at AE and overturned there if necessary. What has happened is that it has stayed open here long enough till people have got worked up enough that an overturn is carried out contrary to consensus. This is terrible practice; even worse than the original block. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I read all the comments carefully before unblocking — here, on the RfAr, and on the enforcement noticeboard. I took into account the arguments, the experience of the editors making the arguments, and the numbers. My view is that there was no consensus for the block. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please deconstruct that view for us? Treat it like a difficult AfD closure. Combine the strength of numbers and the arguments. Attempt not to avoid any, and tell us why you believe that rather than no consensus, every argument against an early unblocking has been satisfactorily answered, or at least is tangential enough that it can be lived with. Because that is, in fact, what you are saying.

I note also that "experience" should count for nothing here. We don't weight the quality of arguments by time spent at AN/I. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered the above question when your statement read "consensus against the block". Since you've changed that, perhaps you'll additionally explain: I was under the impression that no consensus for a block =/= consensus to unblock, especially under the circumstances specifically spelled out by ArbCom. In other words, this unblock was also carried out in defiance of ArbCom's specific instructions, not just long-standing community practice. If this is how discretionary sanctions are going to be met, I fear that ArbCom's recent reliance on them is worthless. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be simplified. Is 'get lost,' incivility? I think not. Same as 'buzz off' or 'leave.' It was said in reference to a notice on his talk page. As I said earlier, I don't believe it to be incivil, despite the fact that it offended an admin who had previously traded derogatory remarks with the offender, as pointed out earlier. The blocking admin is involved, and I don't think that any time lapse actually makes one uninvolved, because then it's a matter of subjectivity as far as when one actually becomes disavowed from a situation. If you are involved, you are forever involved. the_undertow ^talk 07:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved traditionally means with the articles in question. This re-interpretation of the word to include any negative interaction in years will considerably cut down any effort to police difficult articles. For example, if an admin previously untainted with any contact with MONGO had carried out the block here, your definition would mean he could not do so in future. This is unacceptable if we expect administrative sanctions to work, and undercuts this ArbCom decision, and at least four others, quite directly. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I stated that any editor who had traded derogatory edit summaries with another user is involved. There is a difference between blocking a user for a specific action, and having actually interacted with that editor in a personal debate. the_undertow ^talk 08:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Its nonetheless a direct consequence of this principle, blocking or interacting in an unrelated debate. It means that Moreschi, for example, will have to avoid always people he intends to keep in line in the Balkans-related article. That is absolutely unacceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a wrong dichotomy. No, not every contact makes an admin involved. But as far as I'm concerned, DHeyward has demonstrated a long and ongoing history of bad blood. In that case, I have a strong feeling that Tango should not have issued a block. In fact, I consider the warning either a bait or very ill-advised, especially considering that the use in question is an admitted SPA[58]. MONGO is a rough character, but he is a valuable and productive editor working hard to maintain sanity in a field that is ripe with POV-pushing by fringe conspiracy theorists. If we want good editors to work in contentious fields like 9/11 conspiracies, Creationism, Global warming, Fringe science, ... we need to give them sufficient leeway. Indeed, as a rough estimate, we need to give them at least as much consideration per POV-pushing SPA they deal with than we give to to each of those individually. As an example, I refer you to the discussion above, where we took 48 hours to come up with a 3 day block on a clearly racist SPA with no substantial positive contributions. If we don't extend at least the same consideration to our established and useful editors, simple math dictates that the POV pushers will flush them out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled. MONGO has been issued that courtesy regularly, so I don't think that that particular argument applies.

As to your "sufficient leeway" argument, it has no real standing once its been addressed by ArbCom and viewed as no longer applicable to these articles. Contrary to the spirit of your remarks, this unblock strengthens the hand of fringe theorists and POV-pushers by giving them a handle on enforcement-minded admins, not the reverse, as I point out above. I note that you don't spell out how precisely its inapplicable.

Also, this is not the place to argue for a suspension of WP:CIVIL in articles you think are important. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that MONGO has about 400-500 times the number of contributions that GStS has (depending on which namespaces you consider, and ignoring the fact that MONGO's edits are overwhelmingly positive), where is the 3 year non-stop discussion of MONGO's behaviour? WP:CIVIL is a means, not an end. If we use it to push out good editors while keeping bad ones, we are misusing it. Admins are supposed to use sound judgement, not to issue blocks based on wikilawyering and blind application of policy or precedent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As I say above, "its important to remember that there still is a community consensus that the kind of atmosphere engendered by many, many statements like that over a long period does in itself have a deleterious effect on articles. If you disagree with that theory, this isn't the place to argue it." We both know that behaviour of this sort from article guardians can push away good editors along with bad. If you disagree, take it to WT:CIVIL and change consensus there, because I think that otherwise there's no reason to continually use it as a justification. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the blocking admin brought his actions to ANI for a review, which indicates to me that even he thought there may have been a potential conflict of interest. the_undertow ^talk 08:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Or the appearance of one. Two different things. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO has an appalling and extraordinarily long record of incivility. An admin warned him to be civil, and his response was to tell the admin to "get lost". The block was absolutely warranted. We can't tolerate someone who is so seriously and frequently uncivil, someone who even responds to admonitions to be civil with incivility. I cannot understand why some people want to give him a pass yet again. Yes, he has done some good work, but how much good work from others have we lost because of his behavior? Block him for a year. It's long overdue. Everyking (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your trolling for a WP:POINTy block is duly noted, Everyking. — Κaiba 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that he has no place on this project until he radically changes his behavior. A block was imposed, and I am expressing my support for that block. Please don't accuse me of trolling. I consider that uncivil. Everyking (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, God forbid, next time I'll just say 'get lost'. There is a difference between supporting it and what you said. You could have easily just said 'I supported Tango's block', 'I agree with the shortened re-block', or said 'I disagree with the unblock by SlimVirgin'. You know it doesn't help anything when someone comes along shouting thier personal dislikes of a user and saying they should be removed from the site for a year, knowing that it won't happen when a week-long and half-day block were all contested. If a week-long block or the reblock was controversial in itself, what makes you think a year would stick at all? Punishment isn't a block reason. — Κaiba 08:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but this should clearly have been left for an impartial administrator to handle; doing otherwise gave the appearance of blocking punitively solely because MONGO refused to kowtow just right. Tango seems to have a bad habit of utilizing administrative tools in a warlike manner with editors whom he is in disputes with, and doing so here only inflamed the situation needlessly. east.718 at 08:46, April 13, 2008

And as support you link a discussion where Tango is being attacked on AN/I by nationalist SPA trolls for taking on a sock of a banned user? Pardon me for being unimpressed. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to wax 'real life,' considering this is teh internets, but I will anyway. I agree with east. My Father always said that if I was questioning an action, then I probably made a bad decision. I would not make an administrative action unless I was certain it was the right one, and I wouldn't ask for consensus on that action. the_undertow ^talk 09:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal to ask for review of admin actions against established editors. Re east718, yes, reusing to "kowtow" to arbcom sanction is likely to result in blocks. MONGO has been here long enough to know that. Perhaps he thought that the sanctions didn't apply to him, only to "those other editors", but that is an unsustainable position. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal process

The ArbCom ruling includes an appeal process: "Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue." If the unblock stands, the next step, as I understand it, will be to appeal to ArbCom.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR - there is already a request for arbitration with relation to this matter. Risker (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. It looks like it will be rejected, but Kirill does mention the appeal process.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Which was ignored in this case. ArbCom, if you're reading, this is why discretionary sanctions will not work in certain cases. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If the unblock stands (its summary includes the suggestion that the block was not warranted in the first place), I will be appealling to ArbCom. (If Slim had not unblocked, I would have been satisfied that the discretionary sanctions can have an effect on the articles. Do note that the neutrality dispute on the article where this started has now been resolved. And work proceeds civily towards regaining GA status on the article.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that although they have declined to consider the matter, two arbitrators at the existing RFAR request have concluded it was a "bad block", and a third who has recused themselves has come to a similar conclusion in their statement. Orderinchaos 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Although the unblock was premature, I don't think it's worth appealing or anything like that. MONGO has the message, clearly, and as long as he is on break we should leave him in peace.

Re the RFARB, the arbitrators weren't clear whether any block would have been bad, or if this block was bad because of its length. I think everyone agrees the original length was excessive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that this block has been defended only as a reaction to the incivility of MONGO's "get lost". As I pointed out in my post to AE Tango's warning to MONGO had been rejected and ignored. That is, MONGO did not just say "get lost" to Tango, he said, as Carl correctly suggests, that he was not acting contrary to the ArbCom ruling and would continue to behave as he was behaving when he was warned. And that's what he proceeded to do. He was blocked, and progress has now been made on the page he was disrupting with his incivility. The block simply worked. That's why I intend to appeal the unblock. One solution, now that a reasonable amount of time seems to be passing, is to block and unblock simply to record ArbCom's assessment of the rightness of the block (in the shortened version, before Slim's unblock). Also, I think the fact that the neutrality issue was settled immediately after MONGO was blocked says something in favour of Tango's judgment. I grant that that assessement comes from a very involved user.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't appeal, after all. Closing the discussion seems like a better way forward.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some general points

Some general points:

• (1) MONGO and 9/11 articles. MONGO does good work here, but undoes some of that good work by incivility. The ideal situation would be to have a civil editor that would do the hard work that MONGO does. If such an editor was active on the articles, would MONGO step back and allow that editor to do the work instead? If not, then I suggest we are entering WP:OWN territory. It should always be possible (in theory) for someone else to do the work you do on Wikipedia if you doing that work is causing problems.
• (2) Admins and ignoring incivility and other responses to admin actions and warnings. My feeling is that if an admin warns or takes action against a user, and that admin then responds (angrily or otherwise) to incivility, vandalism, or other actions taken by that user, then they are becoming involved. The best way to avoid getting involved is to ignore the response (similar to WP:RBI), but to still discuss and explain what is going on if the editor is reasonable. This allows the admin to continue to warn and block for other actions by that user, but the admin should be careful to avoid blocking or taking action related to vandalism, incivility or other actions directed against him personally. Either ignore those, or report if it gets excessive. It is a fine line, but once you get the hang of it, it is fairly easy to stick to this. Admins should be mature enough to be able to quietly ignore some things and view the bigger picture. Rule of thumb: if something that someone says about you annoys you enough that you can't ignore it, then you are starting to get involved. Report it to someone else, but still feel free to take action over other incidents. Example (to use the example Carl gave above): I wouldn't block anyone for vandalising my user page, though I would warn and block someone if they were persistently vandalising someone else's user page.

The second point above is a personal view, though, and I realise it is one that not everyone here holds. I do think there would be less drama though if everyone did follow this principle and didn't react quite so much. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth, for that summation, which is very useful. I really should return to my notes on 1920s kibbutzim now, this has gone on long enough, but just a brief reply:

• We will never know if a civil editor can take MONGO's place while the atmosphere in those articles is so difficult. That is the point incivility, that it drives away even "good" editors. I certainly avoid Islam-, evolution-, pseudoscience- or 9/11-related articles, and I'm on the "good" side. So do others.
• The second point is extremely valid except, as I say in response to your earlier comment, that it undercuts the point of ArbCom-mandated discretionary sanctions, which are supposed to be discretionary with a narrow forum of appeal that minimises drama and maximises effective response. This is one of the first time a block has been applied when discretionary sanctions are involved that has been applied against an established user. Given this deplorable response, I think we've just seen the system we hoped would control political and ethnic trouble spots given an effective sucker punch.

That last reason is really why I spent all this time. If it wasn't an ArbCom case, as so many seem to be perplexingly ignoring, I don't think I would have bothered.--Relata refero (disp.) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more admins need to watch the pages involved. I'm willing to put them on my watchlist, and I hope some other people do as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if established users get reported to Arbitration Enforcement, that would still work. Obviously admins should still act immediately on their own judgement in egregious cases of people misbehaving on articles or towards their fellow editors of the article. But there will always be borderline cases and I think using AE for those, or to review immediate blocks, will work better than ANI. Could I ask that if something like this happens again, that all effort be made to move/redirect the discussion to WP:AE? Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very reasonable, especially for MONGO, who if he returns will still be under the discretionary arbcom sanction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...I'm on the "good" side... ← What is this "good" side of which you speak? I mean, do you really believe anyone considers themselves to be on the "bad" side? — CharlotteWebb 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ROUGE. Orderinchaos 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes. Also, to be seen within the context of scaring away "good editors". --Relata refero (disp.) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Community desysop possible?

One issue that should be addressed here: Tango is not under voluntary recall. However, several members of the Wikipedia community (including myself) have requested recall on his talk page, and at the (soon to be rejected) ArbComm case. Is it possible for the community to do a reconfirmation or desysop, without the consent of the admin in question? (IMO, the community gave him the mop, and the community should be able to take away the mop.) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not possible. Thank God. -- Naerii 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I say that, because it's never happened before and general agreement in the past has been that it's something we don't do and don't really have much power to enforce. I guess the community could take it upon itself to do it and see if a steward agreed to it, but by the time people actually agreed on how to go about discussing it the incident would have long passed. -- Naerii 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope RfA requires the users consent before being transcluded onto the WP:RFA page. Gnangarra 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right solution. Tango's behavior and actions were, in my opinion, way out of line for an administrator, but asking for decision on this heated issue via mobocracy is not a good way to resolve anything. Tango needs to understand that all he's got in his hands are a mop and a bucket, and needs to try harder to stay away from using his admin abilities where there's even an appearance of a conflict of interest (and here there's clearly more than just an appearance); we should be discussing how best to ensure Tango learns that lesson, not whether it'll be the torch team or the pitchfork team who get him first. JDoorjam JDiscourse 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you would get consensus for that, even if that is how we did desyopings. You can contribute to the arbcom case though. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this intensely, Tango acted in good faith and in my humble opinion, his treatment of mongo's behaviour was correct in the light of mongo's history. Merkin's mum 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Since nobody has done it yet, and I feel this is the only way to proceed in any direction from here... community input is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tango. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per my talkpage comments, this RfC is biased in both intent and wording and I have strongly suggested to User:Tango that they do not participate - which I shall not unless the scope is significantly widened to include review of the context of MONGO's reputation for incivility/bluntness, the background to any editor conflict, and Tango's overall conduct as an admin and contributor, and is drafted in a far more neutral wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MONGO's previous incivility is almost completely irrelevant. Nothing about MONGO's history changes the fact that, if User:Tango thought MONGO warranted blocking because MONGO was demonstrating incivility, he should have asked another admin to do it. Period. By leaving a rather arrogant message, and then blocking MONGO for his response rather than getting a neutral third party, Tango pretty clearly abused the admin tools. This is something that absolutely needs to be discussed, and Tango choosing not to participate in an RfC would only make things worse. (whether or not you contribute is, of course, totally up to you and less central to the issue.) JDoorjam JDiscourse 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Previous incivility is almost completely irrelevant..."? Huh? You do know why Tango was placing a warning on MONGO's page in the first place? I'll give you a clue; it starts with WP:C.., ends with L and has a V in the middle. With the attitude of "clearly abused the admin tools" I suggest that you head over to the RfC - since you are clearly the audience for which it was created. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango has decided to just leave a note on there. And, as I said to LessHeard vanU, if you believe the RFC I wrote is biased, create another one, and if it's neutral enough, I'll certify it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to close

Can we just let this thing die and mark it as resolved? The block was a bad idea, but it has been fixed. Everyone has had a chance to get off their righteous indignation about the situation. Hopefully, after some time away to relax, MONGO will be back. It's time to just move along with life. --B (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough; this is an opportunity to address a problem plaguing Wiki. I got here by accident but feel I must comment. I have myself been subject to several blocks over the past 2 years; invariably for incivility towards the blocking Admin with whom I have been in dispute. This appears to me - (aware that even expressing reservations about Admin actions may be interpreted by the very same Admins as breaching WP:CIVIL I'm being restrained) - a classic case of an Admin blocking an editor (1) with whom he was in dispute and (2) for remarks addressed to himself. To me, the continued toleration of this sort of behavior by Admins is the cause of more friction and bad feeling on Wiki than any amount of alleged incivility by non-Admin editors. If we are going to "clean-up" Wiki we must start by imposing the highest standards and most rigid enforcement of those standards on the Admin community; when that is done draconian blocks of ordinary productive editors can be contemplated. Sarah777 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be dealt with, and not just archived and forgotten about. Tango has driven a long-time contributor off this site. That is not acceptable. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked; MONGO is editing for more than three years and has over 40,0000 edits to his credit (and not just tagging and de-tagging etc). He get into to a row with an Admin - zap- a week-long block by an editor who in six years has contributed 1,200 edits to mainspace! Sarah777 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do ask a helpful old-timer to explain histories of incivility and ArbCom restrictions to you, it might all make more sense to you then. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You can make sarky comments as much as you like Relata, and others can archive pages as fast as they like, but the general feeling is that people are sick to death of Admin abuse, and won't tolerate it. Admins, wishing to continue in their roles, would do well to note this. Giano (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.