Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Eric Corbett blocked: not seeing a majority in favour; unclose
m Reverted edits by John (talk) to last version by Sjakkalle
Line 461: Line 461:


== Eric Corbett blocked ==
== Eric Corbett blocked ==
{{archive top|The result was that the one month block is '''endorsed'''. Full rationale below. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)}}

⚫
This result is due to several factors. First, the majority of the the participants here have endorsed the block and its length. Second, the [[WP:NPA]] policy explicitly considers epithets such as those used here as being a personal attack, and when it becomes a pattern it is considered disruptive behavior where blocking is an allowable remedy. Finally, it is clear that the incident here was not an isolated incident, and I have taken note that Corbett has previously been admonished by the Arbitration Committee for ''"repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct"'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Malleus_Fatuorum_admonished]. Such admonishments from ArbCom are not merely advisory, they imply that continuation of such behavior will lead to sanctions.

⚫
There has some opposition to the block itself, some of them using terms such as "ridiculous" and "over the top". There have also been claims that the block is "punitive".

⚫
Regarding the "punitive" aspect, the [[WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE|blocking policy]] does say that blocks should not be used to punish. What that means is that they are not used as retribution, or because an editor deserves a block. However, the blocking policy does explicitly allow blocks to be used in order to ''deter'' and to ''prevent'' disruptive behavior. It is not a sufficient defense to say that the incident has passed, so no blocking is necessary, especially if there is an issue that has been recurring.

⚫
Another reason given for opposing the block is that Corbett is a productive contributor to articles. This is at best a mitigating factor, and the Arbitration Committee has previously laid down the principle that "Good behavior does not excuse bad behavior".

⚫
There have also been claims that Corbett was baited. This may be mitigating, but the civility policy says ''"a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response"''.

⚫
Finally the length of the block needs to be considered. A period of one month is considered a fairly long block. To justify that, the incident triggering it needs to be serious, or been part of a pattern of escalating blocks. Corbett under the old username has an extensive block log [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMalleus+Fatuorum], but many of the previous blocks were overturned after only a few minutes, many of the unblockers have argued against the block in this discussion. The last block to not be overturned is in late 2011, that was for one week. However, with the ArbCom admonishment in place, the block length of one month appears defensible, and a fairly clear majority of participants have endorsed the original block. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

----


I have blocked [[User:Eric Corbett]] for a month for multiple clear personal attacks (and having a history of such). Explanation at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEric_Corbett&diff=562806273&oldid=562799201]. I know that blocks of Malleus / Corbett have been contentious in the past, so I bring it here for review. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked [[User:Eric Corbett]] for a month for multiple clear personal attacks (and having a history of such). Explanation at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEric_Corbett&diff=562806273&oldid=562799201]. I know that blocks of Malleus / Corbett have been contentious in the past, so I bring it here for review. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
*Looks fine to me. <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 08:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
*Looks fine to me. <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 08:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Line 612: Line 629:
*Oh jeez freakin christ, is it stupid season among the admins? So soon again? Didn't we just have this? There've been (at least) two idiotic blocks in the past 24 hrs (Eric and Kiefer, by Kww). And there's still twits running around with blood/block lust.<span style="color:Blue">[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer ]]</span><span style="color:Orange">[[User talk:Volunteer Marek|Marek]]</span> 00:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
*Oh jeez freakin christ, is it stupid season among the admins? So soon again? Didn't we just have this? There've been (at least) two idiotic blocks in the past 24 hrs (Eric and Kiefer, by Kww). And there's still twits running around with blood/block lust.<span style="color:Blue">[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer ]]</span><span style="color:Orange">[[User talk:Volunteer Marek|Marek]]</span> 00:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}
{{hab}}
----

:''The discussion above is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> {{#switch: {{PAGENAME}} | Administrators&#39; noticeboard/Incidents = | Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.}} No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div>
===Comment by Sjakkalle===
⚫
This result is due to several factors. First, the majority of the the participants here have endorsed the block and its length. Second, the [[WP:NPA]] policy explicitly considers epithets such as those used here as being a personal attack, and when it becomes a pattern it is considered disruptive behavior where blocking is an allowable remedy. Finally, it is clear that the incident here was not an isolated incident, and I have taken note that Corbett has previously been admonished by the Arbitration Committee for ''"repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct"'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Malleus_Fatuorum_admonished]. Such admonishments from ArbCom are not merely advisory, they imply that continuation of such behavior will lead to sanctions.

⚫
There has some opposition to the block itself, some of them using terms such as "ridiculous" and "over the top". There have also been claims that the block is "punitive".

⚫
Regarding the "punitive" aspect, the [[WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE|blocking policy]] does say that blocks should not be used to punish. What that means is that they are not used as retribution, or because an editor deserves a block. However, the blocking policy does explicitly allow blocks to be used in order to ''deter'' and to ''prevent'' disruptive behavior. It is not a sufficient defense to say that the incident has passed, so no blocking is necessary, especially if there is an issue that has been recurring.

⚫
Another reason given for opposing the block is that Corbett is a productive contributor to articles. This is at best a mitigating factor, and the Arbitration Committee has previously laid down the principle that "Good behavior does not excuse bad behavior".

⚫
There have also been claims that Corbett was baited. This may be mitigating, but the civility policy says ''"a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response"''.

⚫
Finally the length of the block needs to be considered. A period of one month is considered a fairly long block. To justify that, the incident triggering it needs to be serious, or been part of a pattern of escalating blocks. Corbett under the old username has an extensive block log [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMalleus+Fatuorum], but many of the previous blocks were overturned after only a few minutes, many of the unblockers have argued against the block in this discussion. The last block to not be overturned is in late 2011, that was for one week. However, with the ArbCom admonishment in place, the block length of one month appears defensible, and a fairly clear majority of participants have endorsed the original block. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:I've undone your close. Your statement "First, the majority of the the participants here have endorsed the block and its length." is not in accord with the facts. Please count more carefully, if you are going to apply a crude metric like this to such a nuanced situation. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 09:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


== blocking help please ==
== blocking help please ==

Revision as of 09:13, 5 July 2013

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

      You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

      Shortcuts

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

      Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

      Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

      Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

      On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

      There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

      When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

      Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

      Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

      (Initiated 87 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      information Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 [1]. No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Al-Manar

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 15 November 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel#RfC

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      information Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Matt Gaetz#RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#RFC: Referring to Masha Amini as Kurdish-Iranian in the lead

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPathtalk 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
      CfD 0 0 3 0 3
      TfD 0 0 10 0 10
      MfD 0 0 0 0 0
      FfD 0 1 11 0 12
      RfD 0 0 22 0 22
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 2#File:Batman superman.PNG

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Wikipedia oversighters

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 25#Leftover mosques categories

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 25 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Fayenatic london. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

      (Initiated 100 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

      (Initiated 78 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

      (Initiated 76 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Super two#Proposed merge

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 6 December 2024) Has been open for nearly a month, I have !voted here so requesting an uninvolved closure. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Dundas railway station, Sydney#Requested move 25 December 2024

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 25 December 2024) The discussion has reached a point where there is universal agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the exception of Camellia railway station which may be discussed separately. I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Can we have a longer discussion about this. It has only been one week and it was only posted to WT:AUTS yesterday. Steelkamp (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Discussions in need of closure


      Thanks. Werieth (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      76.189.109.155 and drama

      76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      76 has been editing using this IP address since May 1, 2013. He has made many, many edits. Although I haven't looked at all of them, I would say his article edits are probably generally constructive. Outside of article edits, his behavior ranges from charming to obnoxious. Obviously, the reason I'm here is to find a way to eliminate - or at least drastically reduce - the obnoxious. Frankly, I think the only way to do it is through blocks, although I'm open to a creative topic ban that achieves the objective without blocks.

      As is clear from his edits, 76 has edited here before May 1. Somewhere he acknowledged that - can't remember where, but I don't think he's hiding it anyway. I believe he claims he's only edited as an IP and has never had a registered account. I have no way of verifying that.

      I believe I first became aware of his existence because of an incident in May that this ANI topic and this ANI topic partly reflect and that 76 turned into a major drama. Indeed, one of the reasons I am starting this topic is because of a new but related drama regarding 76's own talk page.

      The crux of the problem are these dramas. User:Dennis Brown expressed it reasonably well with this comment: "Mr IP, I'm a bit worried as to why you are here. Everywhere I look and see you, it is usually nothing but wikilawyering. I'm not saying you are wrong on every single point, but your main contribution to Wikipedia seems to be drama." 76 does not take kindly to criticism and responded in part: "I suggest you keep your passive-aggressive (and inaccurate) insults to yourself."

      The response to Dennis is a significant part of the problem. 76 likes discussing things with admins directly and on admin noticeboards. He kind of has two lists, those admins he likes (they agree with him or are at least nice to him) and those he doesn't. Admins swap back and forth on the lists depending on the most recent interaction between 76 and the admin. Currently, at least User:Bwilkins, User:Orangemike and Dennis are on the bad list. I've gone back and forth a number of times. I'm not sure where I am right now but if I'm not already on the bad list, I will be after I post this.

      As for Bwilkins and Mike, 76 is currently pounding them to death on their talk pages. He's kind of like an aggressive, self-righteous lawyer cross-examining a witness to get them to admit something. Unfortunately, there's no Wikipedia judge to limit the examination.

      The latest drama is the template {{dynamicip}}. User:Toddst1 added (re-added?) the template to 76's talk page. The IP removed it, and then there was a bit of a battle including my involvement. You can see discussions about it on my talk page and User:Jayron32's talk page. 76 questioned Todd about it, but Todd declined to discuss it and removed 76's comments. The last "compromise" suggestion by 76 was he would "permit" the template to remain on his talk page but not at the top of the page where these templates go because, says 76, policy doesn't require that it be on the top. I objected to that, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Last I looked, it was buried somewhere in the middle of the page, although he's been edit warring with various editors to keep it where he wants it.

      These dramas are a continuing drain on resources. At some point they outweigh the positive contributions 76 makes, but even if 76 is not a net liability to the project, he needs to be reined in. Although I've included some links, I'm not going to hunt down all the dramas and all the examples of 76's shifting opinions about admins and editors. Whether I am or not, I have decided I am involved. Therefore, I can't take any administrative action against him, even for the latest edit warring on his talk page and his self-serving interpretation of policy.

      I will notify 76 and some of the involved admins after I post this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree that these dramas from this problematic IP are a continued drain on our resources. I see more antipathy towards admins than anything else from this editor. I followed the invective on user talk: Bwilkins from this editor and recognized this editor from a similar fiasco in May. Since I haven't used any administrative privileges, I felt free to walk away from the conversation given the long history of drama-mongering from this IP. I think this editor should have been blocked long ago for persistent WP:Battle and WP:Wikilawyering during this editor's short tenure here at his/her current sticky dynamic IP address. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If 76.189.109.155 experiences such aversion to {{dynamicip}}, then I can propose to make another design of the dynamic IP notice, specially for him – if he likes it. But can I ask the community to ban 76.189.109.155 from user_talk:s of all users who experience an aversion to 76.189.109.155, of all who states that does not like him? I think it would be a reasonable compromise. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "Compromise" necessarily indicates that all parties are getting something but not everything they want. This is not a compromise. Making special templates and requiring a great number of admin to avoid an IP editor that isn't interested in building articles is not a compromise, it is a burdensome capitulation to an editor that is offering nothing of value to the encyclopedia. I'm not sure I've run across them before except to post that one notice regarding their behavior, an administrative task. Should I be required to avoid problematic IPs? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not that it's important for the decisions we have to make here, but you have interacted with 76 before now. For example, here (in a pleasant way) and here in a not-so-pleasant way with 76 taking potshots at User:Kudpung.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not propose you to avoid 76.189.109.155. And I do not propose to ban 76.189.109.155 from interaction with certain editors in all venues. I said only that I said: to ban 76.189.109.155 from starting his pointless lawyering at my user_talk, Toddst1’s one, Ymblanter’s one, and possibly of other users. It is the most disruptive his thing, according to my experience. I do not think that immediate ejecting of the editor without an intermediate stage of restrictions is a good policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll say nothing (the history on my talkpage - yes, I removed a couple of posts) and the bizarre discussion on Orangemike's talkpage pretty much say it all. However, I'll correct one thing: I actually the IP likes OrangeMike ... after all, the IP claims I threw OM under the bus yesterday, and won't drop the sharp, pointy thing even when proven otherwise. Do with him what you will, but at least do something ... this is an effing ridiculous waste of resources and goodwill (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "at least do something... this is an effing ridiculous waste of resources and goodwill" +1 Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In view of the continued edit warring. WP:3RR has certainly been exceeded. I B Wright (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My quoted statement already presents my perspective. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but it has been disruptive. Users whose primary purpose is to be a social gadfly are not really here to build an encyclopedia, they are here for....something else, which I have no idea. I think poking the admin from time to time is probably a very beneficial thing, we are and should be fully accountable, but being a self-righteous and self-appointed full-time wikilawyer (particularly when your understanding of policy is dubious, at best) goes way beyond the role of "loyal opposition" and enters the realm of trolling. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It has to be said that due to recent problems with IP editors, I have modified my view as to whether such editors should be permitted to edit in Wikipedia. But the people who have the power to decide these things have decided that they are acceptable and I have to respect that. However, it has to be said that this is the first time that I have come across an IP editor who is going out of his way to elicit an editing block. Maybe, it's some sort of rite of passage. I B Wright (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to apologize to all the admins I offended, especially the ones I really like. Especially Bbb23, who's a great guy. Let me make this simple. I'm upset because of the very disrepectul way OrangeMike was treated with regard to this ANI discussion. Please read my comments there. Mike was taken to ANI regarding a block, but no one ever even had a conversation with him first to try and resolve it. Yes, I was passionate there. Sometimes too passionate. But there were few defending him, until some wonderful admins - Bbb23, DGG and The Bushranger - came along and balanced the scales a bit. Because of my participation there, my reputation took an immediate hit, which I knew was likely to happen because I was the only IP participating. But I felt so terrible for Mike that I didn't care. So I'm not in the best mood because of that situation. And then, to top it off, Toddst1, with whom I had a little skirmish with about six weeks ago, came to my talk page an re-added the shared IP template that hadn't been there in all that time. He claimed I removed it improperly, but I explained to him that WP:BLANKING did not exclude it from being removed at the time I removed it in May. It wasn't until 16 days later, that Todd himself added (or readded) that exclusion to WP:BLANKING. So I went to his page to discuss it and asked Jayron32 if he would be a neutral mediator. I even said I was fine with having the template if it's required; my understanding through a long Village Pump discussion a few weeks ago was that the IP template was not something that would be enforced. In any case, I told Bbb that I'd be fine with having the template but said I'd like to put it lower on the page since there are no rules that say it must be displayed at the top of the page. Finally, I'd ask that some admins please look at my talk page history over the past hour or so and review the flood of edits by I B Wright and 155blue. I would respectfully ask that an admin educate them on that type of editing. Again, I'm sorry to the admins I annoyed and offended. And no, Bbb, you're not on my "bad list". :) I think most of the admins I've dealt with are great, actually. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is you have a "bad list" as you refer to it. That's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. Can someone please put forward a proposed sanction for community ratification? Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Todd, there is no bad list. That was a term used solely by Bbb. So I was simply alluding it to it in my comment, to let him know he's not on this "bad list" he talked about. ;) And I sort of thought it was funny. I've never even used the terms good and bad lists. That's apparently just Bbb's way of describing his perception of how I see things. But you can ask him about that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, let me agred with BBB that you appear to have a "bad list." Beyond that you persist in classic WP:BATTLE behavior and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep, I understand how it can appear that way. Hey, we all have editors we like and don't like. That's nothing new. But there's no good and bad list. Haha. I actually liked Triple B's description of that, though. It made me laugh the first time he used it. That's because initially, he and I didn't get along, and then we became pretty good friends on here. And I really respect him. So the good/bad thing was all his creation; I can't take any credit for it. The only problem is that some people thought he meant if literally. ;) But yeah, like all other editors, we have people we like more than others. That's life. That's Wikipedia. I'm sure I'm on your "bad editors" list, right? Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal 1

      proposal closed for improvement - see Proposal 2 below

      Given this IP's long pattern of acrimony and WP:BATTLE the editor currently editing at 76.189.109.155 is restricted from participating in discussions at noticeboards, may not blank his/her talk for 6 months. This restriction will persist if the user changes IPs. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the ban should be broader than the proposal but perhaps shorter in duration. There are two problem areas this proposal does not address, the harassment at user talk pages (obvious) and the problems in Wikipedia space other than at noticeboards (e.g., long protracted comments wanting to change WP:BLANKING). A more reasonable duration would probably be three months. Also, an exception to the noticeboard restriction would have to exist where 76 is clearly the subject of the discussion. BTW, I'm fairly certain that 76 has stated that he is male.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How much more drama do you want here? I apologized sincerely and I meant it. Do you want a pound of my flesh? Are you trying to punish me or prevent something? Please let's not forget I have thousands of edits. I don't know how many. Maybe 2000, 3000. I have edited a lot of articles and participated in a lot of article discusssions. I tried to keep this simple. I was upset about Mike's treatment and I vented. I'm sorry about that. And I don't get this whole 1RR issue. The only revert issue is on my own talk page regarding this issue of whether the IP template has to go at the top or not. That's it. If there's a policy that says that, just show me and then we'll put the template at the top. Right now, it's on my page but just not at the top. So it's there and people can see it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And Todd, I have every right to blank my talk page as long as it doesn't violate WP:BLANKING. Let's just settle the issue of whether it has to go at the top or not. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And why should I be restricted from noticeboards? Bbb23 said himself that I didn't cross any lines worth being blocked; just that I should tone it down. I will do that if I choose to participate at those boards. But honestly, I don't really like them. I was just passionate about that ANI because of the issue with Mike. So please stop all the attempts to be punitive here over issues that don't apply. I was rude to some admins on their talk pages and I feel bad about it. And it won't happen again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      We're discussing taking away your privileges here because of your abuse. You have no rights, only privileges. That is why. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Edit warring/talk page issues

      It's not just the admins that you have offended, your reasons for reverting edits which include "...stay the f[***] off of my talk page" are uncivil and have been offensive. If a welcome message is considered vandalism and moving an object to its proper place is disruptive editing, then what is right to do? In addition, it would be polite to notify me on my talk page the next that you mention me here.155blue (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      155blue, based on the numerous edits you made on my talk page, you apparently do not understand, or not aware of, WP:BLANKING, or the difference between a warning and a template. When someone asks you nicely to stay off their talk page and you come back and back and back and back, that's a big problem. The only way to get the message through to you was to be more assertive. And it worked. After I said, "i told you several times to stay the fuck off my talk page", you didn't return. ;) And as my history will show, I almost never use language like that. But I've never seen editors flooding someones talk page non-stop, like you and IB Wright did. And btw, you added an IP template to my page when there was one already there. In the future, when there is a contentious issue happening, you should let an admin handle it. But the last thing you should do is keep going back to someone's talk page when they ask you not to. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In WP:BLANKING it states and I quote:
      "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
      Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction
      Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress)
      Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).
      For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address.
      {{Noindex}} added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus). Note this can safely be removed from talk pages and subpages where it has no effect. (see below)"
      (emphasis added)
      As the shared IP notice has to be placed at the top of the page, I fully understand what you can and cannot delete.155blue (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      155blue, most of the rest of us are fully aware of what WP:BLANKING says, so there was no need to paste the entire policy here. And I gave it to you, remember? Apparently, you weren't aware of them because you put an edit summary that said "this warning needs to be kept". Obviously, warnings do not need to be kept. And there is nothing in WP:BLANKING that says the IP template must be displayed at the top of the page, which is one of the issues at hand. So please, will you allow the admins to discuss this with me? You're really not helping matters. Thank you. And btw, when you bold quoted material that isn't bolded in the source, you need to indicate that you did that by putting "(emphasis added)" at the end. The IP templates line is not bolded in the source material. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And despite the assertions made above, I too fully understand what our IP editor can and cannot delete. The above policy is quite clear, in my view. I B Wright (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      IB, please back away from this discussion and let the admins handle it. You flooded my talk page with edits and reverts - around 10 I believe - and easily surpassed the edit-warring limit. But edit-warring on someone else's talk page doesn't necessarily require even four reverts to violate the policy. And the part you're apparently not aware of is that reverting edits on one's own talk page (or user page) is exempt from 3RR (as long as it violates the TP guidlines). See WP:NOT3RR. So when you ignored my repeated requests to stay off my talk page and posted this comment that says, "And you have now exceeded WP:3RR so a block in now guaranteed", you obviously didn't know what you were talking about. Actually, it was you who violated 3RR. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      An editor who cannot count. I only made seven (7) edits, and one of those was to remove a comment that somehow posted twice. At no time did I revert anything more than three times, so that makes you a liar. I may have reverted two different edits three times but that is not 3RR. I B Wright (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." - I don't think it's an issue in this case, but just so you know...It doesn't matter if they are different edits. --Onorem (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      76, it is self-evident that you violated Wikipedia's civility rules by saying my edits were "incompetent," and by saying "stay the f[***] off my talk page." You also violated the 3-revert rule by reverting so many edits, despite the good faith that you had in them. I stopped not because of your foul language but because of that rule that you seem to be fully oblivious to. At the third revert, I stopped and instead put a template on your page welcoming you to the wiki. By looking here you can see this. Also, I did signify that the bold was added by putting down "(bold added)". The issue was corrected at this edit by changing "bold added" to "emphasis added." Despite that, you dragged me into the debate on this page and I refuse to let you silence me. If you directly accuse me of anything, I will respond.155blue (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Again 155, you simply don't understand the 3RR and NOT3RR guidlelines. Both you and IB Wright were in violation of 3RR for your flood of edits on my talk page. So read the relevant policies and move on. And this is what's being referred to when one alludes to the concept of competence in editing. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, I don't object to the template. I've stated that several times. But there is no rule that says it must be displayed at the top of the page. It's on my page now, just not at the top. So what's the problem? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      But as you well know, there was an extremely lengthy debate at Village Pump several weeks ago about the exclusions. And at that time, the IP template exclusion was not on there. It was added/readded by Toddst1 two weeks later. So no one is debating that it's on the list now; the only issue whether there is a requirement or not for it to be displayed at the top of the page. Simple. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      These threads reinforce my concerns. This drama has a parasitic effect, consuming the time of others without bestowing any benefit to them or to the encyclopedia. Sweet words or no, you have become a time vampire. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      What do you want, Dennis? Should I chop a limb off? I said I'm sorry for being rude. And I meant it. I honestly don't care if I get banned or not if that will make everyone feel better. But either way, I regret the way I vented at people. But I don't regret standing up for Mike. I felt terrible for him. So let's just settle the matter of whether the template is required to go at the top or not. Or do you just want me to stop editing altogether? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • To answer your question, what I want is an epiphany. Short of that, a clear understanding and path forward. I am getting the distinct feeling above that I'm being told what you think I want to hear, while you later debate the minutia template placement. The placement of that template is not the issue here and I can't remember having to debate one with an IP before. It shouldn't be an issue to begin with, and it is no more than a distraction. You do care if you get "banned" or you wouldn't be here. What I want is honesty, an understanding, and less drama, which is no different than I want from anyone else. It isn't complicated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you feel terrible about Mike? Did he ask you to come to his aid? Do you suffer from White Knight Syndrome? The thread was about "reminding an admin about WP:BITE" ... nobody was going to lose their sysop status, or even get their pee-pee slapped. You continually butted your nose in, even when explained the history - my colleague OrangeMike knows full well how to take care of himself, as was evidenced when he finally did post in that thread. After all, he's been in the same predicament before, and is well-aware of his defence tactics. The template stays at the top so that nobody has to go around to find it and re-adding it when they do not see it at the top. As it's a shared IP, it's not your talkpage - it's the talkpage of whoever uses that address, and next week it might not be you, so logically it needs to be left at the standard. Finally, since you spent the better part of this day refusing to read, and refusing to drop the stick, you are indeed a detriment to this project at this - you wasted hours of my time and others because you couldn't take advice. You should indeed be banned until such a time as you're willing to drop the WP:BATTLE and maybe actually apologize to the people you've been fecking with all day(✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you love your mom? Do you suffer from family-ties syndrom? People generally cannot control the way they feel and if he felt bad for Mike, he likely perceived something about the situation that he can't articulate in a way that is understandable to others. Feelings are not always rationale and asking why someone feels the way they do is an asinine question. No one wasted your hours. You volunteered them giving the advice.--v/r - TP 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've resisted responding to your comments, TP, only because I'm not a big fan of threaded comments after a vote. But I think you're being a bit unfair in your response to Bwilkins. People may not be able to control how they feel, but they can control how they act based on their feelings. 76's problem isn't how he feels. 76's problem is his conduct based on those feelings. Defending someone (just as I'm doing for Bwilkins) is often a commendable thing, and it doesn't bother me that 76 defends editors. The problem is that he goes on and on and on. It reminds me of an I Love Lucy episode (everything reminds me of I Love Lucy episodes :-) ). Ethel defended Lucy against threats by Mrs. Trumbull. Afterward, Ethel went around telling everyone the story of her noble defense until Lucy lost her temper. That caused a big fight between the two friends. Ricky and Fred tried to mediate with their respective wives. And when Ethel was arguing her side to Fred, he said something like, "I know, I know, you've told me, you've told me." Put in the Wikipedia context, we're all familiar with the WP:IDHT syndrome. When an editor keeps saying the same thing over and over and over, that repetition causes drama to no beneficial objective and a waste of resources. In 76's case, it went beyond just the defense of editors. It delved into policies and guidelines and complaints to administrative noticeboards. Anyway, I'm not expecting you to change your mind; I'm just defending poor defenseless Bwilkins (ha!) and trying to shed a little more light on some of the bases for those of us who support a ban. I'll shut up now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal 2

      Given this IP's long pattern of acrimony, WP:BATTLE, WP:WIKILAWYERING, WP:Harassment and drama, the editor currently editing at 76.189.109.155 is restricted from:

      1. participating in discussions at noticeboards unless he is the subject of the discussion
      2. participating in discussions and/or changes to policies, essays and/or guidelines
      3. harassing or being uncivil to any other user or admin (broadly constructed)
      4. removing from or moving anything on his/her talk page

      This sanction will be in effect for 3 months. This restriction will persist if the user changes IPs or registers as a user. Any violations of these conditions will result in an immediate block and an extension of this sanction.

      Please comment below as to whether you support or oppose this sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support with the addition that the Shared IP template stays at the top where it's supposed to be (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose and goodbye I feel terrible about lashing out at the various admins because of my frustration about the OrangeMike situation. I've already given heartfelt apology here more than once. But apparently, that and my history of two to three thousand edits, isn't enough. So I will not be editing any more. Regarding the template, it's not an issue any more. It's the only thing on my talk page now. All the best to all of you. And, again, I'm sorry to anyone I was rude to. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. This is a much better proposal than Todd's first attempt (thanks for listening and doing the hard work). I particularly like the fact that a ban avoids blocking 76 as I still think he can be an asset when he's focusing on article content. I know he has said he's leaving, but people have, of course, been known to change their minds about that sort of thing (retired, unretired, etc.), so formalizing the ban is still a good idea. Two small points about the ban. First, the fourth restriction should be eliminated if 76 creates a registered account before the ban expires as it would no longer be necessary (existing policy would be good enough). Second, a very small point: "user or admin" should be just user - last time I heard admins are users, too. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support A diva exit is not a reason to discontinue the discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - I commend Bbb23 for raising this issue in such a calm, articulate way. Unfortunately, 76.189.109.155 has indeed proven to be a drain on resources, with their repetitive, antagonistic notice board and talk page posts. My only concern with this proposal, is that after three months, the user may return to the same behavior. I hope that instead they will focus on actually building the encyclopedia without the needless drama. There are many thousands of articles that can benefit from editing without ever touching a talk page. - MrX 01:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I’m not a sysop, I express the full support for 1, 2, 3. Though, I think that 4 came too late, because 76.189.109.155 persistently refactored his user_talk in order to form and keep his social image (contrary to the prescribed use of the user_talk as an interaction device), expunging all remarks which showed him in a negative or otherwise undesired (for him) context, so… it just does not have much sense now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Whilst I appreciate that the purpose of this is to encourage an editor to edit in as co-operative a manner as possible, this particular method is not usually successful. On every previous occasion that I have seen it tried, the result is usually the same. A set of restrictions is placed on some disruptive editor. For a few days, said editor abides by the terms of the restrictions. After four or five days, a test edit is made that is outside of the restrictions. When nothing is done about it, then after a week or so, it's business as usual and the whole cycle starts again. I B Wright (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem with 76.189.… is not about cooperation. It is about clueless lawyering and chatting/flooding attitude at discussion pages that went unabated for several months, i.e. about his use of the discussion mechanism for aims that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Now, when restrictions are going to be established, I’ll just apply my rollback if I encountered any 76.189.…’s loathsome social-networking stuff. Then, he will either start an edit war that leads to blocking, or will unable to continue with his previous behaviour. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm not sure 76 is the problem I first thought. Not sure. Yesterday, I listed a bunch of IPs in his neighbourhood who've been editing over the last 12 months (archived here). There appears to be two regular editors using that range but I haven't teased them apart. I've had a bit of a look, and haven't found anything any more disruptive than I see happening here all day every day from a lot of editors in good standing, such as myself, Carrite, Charmlet, Orangemike, Demiurge, etc. and there seems to be plenty of constructive editing happening. That's how it seems after a superficial scan.

      I initially extended the usual level of distrust and contempt that I do to IPs who dare to oppose me, but I'm wondering now if I've been too harsh and hasty. As I say, I don't know yet, because I haven't reviewed the editor's work properly - and I don't have time today - but I just wanted to pop this here and register my concern. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Oppose If "Drama" is all the subject is accused of, everyone on AN and ANI could likewise face the same sanction. We don't sanctionfor participating in drama, we sanctionfor causing it. It has not been demonstrated that the IP causes the drama. The chief complaint appears to be "IP points out people's fallacies and it's a bit annoying" to paraphrase (sorry Bbb23). 155Blue's complaint is even more benign. "stay the f[***] off of my talk page" is routinely used and I could probably use it as a search term on ANI and pull up half a thousand results where it was said that it is not a personal attack to use curse words when telling someone to go away. It is only a personal attack when describing the user. Further, the "incompetent" remark is again benign. We routinely call people incompetent, we have an essay for it. So, what do we have? We have an IP who is more experienced than the average IP, a regular, knowledgeable, and vocal. If he had an account, we'd give him a barnstar for his insights. Not really sanctionable material here. You could sanctionme on the same grounds.--v/r - TP 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Further, I don't see a "bad boy list" from this IP. Vernacular was introduced by another user, the IP picked it up for simplicity sake, and now it's being turned around on him as if it was his own. A thought was injected into his mind and now he's being blamed for it. This thread should just dissipate and the IP should be strongly recommended to register an account for his own sake to avoid headaches like this.--v/r - TP 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        And also, I don't think the IP even has a nice and bad list. He calls it like he sees it and doesn't avoid crossing friend-boundaries. You can like a person and disagree with them, as I've just done with most of you, and this guy does just that. You can also speak on behalf of people you don't like, as the IP may have been doing with OrangeMike. You can't judge a person's feelings about others based on single instances of what they do and likewise you can't judge people on how their mind sees different perspectives. This guy doesn't seem like a deliberate troll. He seems to me that he's insightful and vocal. I don't consider myself an apologist, but there are no other factor's in this IP's behavior other than they are an IP and IPs carry a stereotype. If there was trolling actions, such as comissioning a painting of Jimbo with an unusual body part for painting, then okay. But the actions demonstrated (by 155blue) are not outside the ordinary of registered accounts.--v/r - TP 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Account or not is not important: 76.189.… has certain easily recognizable patterns (I do not specify them for an obvious reason) which will assure his identification from an account, from an IP of another ISP, or wherever. What insights are you speaking about, indeed? Thousands people improve English Wikipedia, not excluding discussion pages, with actually useful insights. Most of them are not grasping for a special attention, do not ask for special preferences or protection. Of course, any active editor has conflicts, and many editors sometimes (or permanently) are rude, and sometimes drain resources of other editors. They intend to do useful things, not just to make an edit once in two or three minutes to express themselves. They have conflicts because they build the encyclopedia, not make several edits in the article space just to provide a possibility to engage in lawyering without an immediate ejection from the site. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a bias against non-conformist insights here. "Useful insights"? What a fucking piece of crap that thought was. It's only useful if you deem it so because it conforms to your point of view and it's not useful if you don't want to hear it. Tell me, Incnis Mrsi, are my comments "useful insights"?--v/r - TP 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have an impression that you primarily demonstrate your non-conformity, not try to investigate the concrete case. I am sure 76.189.109.155 has a handful of really useful (and not completely trivial) edits, and if something has to be said in his defence, then it would be his minor- or medium-valued improvements to some (few) articles. His entire metapedian activity is wrong, clueless in its goals, and demonstrably disruptive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Demonstratably disruptive has not been demonstrated...at all period dot. To be clear: this entire thread contains exactly 2 diffs of 76.189's behavior, by 155Blue, and I've addressed them both as well below the bar for account holders and even IP editors. So demonstrate it or shut up. What you're doing is making accusations but you've failed to prove them. Everyone in this thread should face the sanctions except for the IP for making personal attacks without diffs. And for your record, I call it like I see it. Not to be non-conformist, not to be different, but to be from my perspective. Just about everyone in this thread, with the exception of you and the IP, has seen me agree or disagree with them or the group at one point or another.--v/r - TP 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Point taken… I will not excavate the worst 76.189.109.155 for TParis, but will show a typical 76.189.109.155, namely two threads full of him at other user’s user_talk, and a part of his persistent efforts on maintaining his own user_talk. If it is a good metapedianism for you, then… sorry, we are in opposite camps, seriously. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        For 7000 edits and global rollback, I'd think you know the difference between a diff and a link. But since you brought it up, 76.189 brought a case of a personal attack to Toddst1's attention with a rather nice template. Toddst1 responded to it with more personal attacks and you blame the IP. Go figure. Your second "diff" was you creating a waring about "defacing" an editors talk page for adding an ANI notice. I call that baiting and provocation. All in all, you've got an IP that removes posts from an IP talk page, for which I haven't seen a guideline against, people calling him a troll, him feeling that folks are being passive aggressive...I'm sorry, what exactly am I looking for? This is why I asked for diffs. Show me exactly whats wrong and exactly what policy you think it violates. You've got zilch. I'm even more convinced of that now with your two links.--v/r - TP 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        “"defacing" an editors talk page for adding an ANI notice”… what a rubbish do you talking here? Could you attentively read the relevant diff? BTW, I have about 21,000 edits across the Empire, although it is not relevant to our question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What exactly do you want me to see in that diff? It was an ANI notice when I responded to you a minute ago and it's still an ANI notice after I clicked on it now. What exactly is the defacement?--v/r - TP 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If TParis thinks that defacing a User: page is an appropriate means to “notify a user”, and refers to my reaction to it as to “baiting and provocation”, then it is not surprising that the same TParis feels that the entire history of flooding of numerous pages with eloquences, of cleansing the own user_talk: from “bad” comments, of lawyering, of distracting multiple users on hundreds of petty pretexts, and of other forms of grasping for attention are legitimate contributions to Wikipedia. Anyway, I’m happy to see that the majority of administration tries to prevent slipping Wikipedia into a social network infested with babblers and vanity mongers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        TParis, now that Incnis Mrsi has told you his version of the story, here's what actually happened. And, unlike Incnis, I'll show you all of the relevant diffs to prove it. What happened was that I accidentally clicked on the "User page" tab instead of the "Talk" tab. Period. And for that honest mistake, I received this hostile warning from Incnis, condescendingly telling me that I "defaced" the edtior's page. I quickly responded, explaining my error. I actually felt embarassed when I found out I did that because it was such an absent-minded mistake that I'd never done before (or since). Then I of course added the template to the editor's talk page right away, and included a comment to let him know what I had done and to apologize for accidentally putting it on his user page. Btw, the defacing claim didn't even make sense to me; if that's what someone did to vandalize someone's user page, it would be the weakest (and most ineffective) attempt at vandalism I've ever seen. And do editors who purposesly vandalize ever fix it and apologize for it? But the disturbing part about this now is that Incnis fully knows what happened, was educated and reamed by admin Drmies about it, and yet Incnis still chose to come here tonight to try and convince you that I had done something malicious. I don't like seeing editors get sanctioned unless they really deserve it, but blatant, out-of-context lies like this to make another look terrible really deserves consequences. Especially when the target is already under major fire at a noticeboard like this. Now hopefully you and others will understand why Incnis so enthusiastically supports the proposed sanctions here? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I expressed my views about then-observed 76.189.…’s attitudes some time ago. By the time it was only a minority view. But 76.189.…’s attitude did not improve for more than a month (although at some moments of time I supposed that it does improve) and now it is a plurality view. It is our site, of the people who build the encyclopedia. Have a nice day, I now part to make useful edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it does tend to happen that way. When you're aggressive towards other users and call their edits defacement, their temperment toward you seems to not improve. That's a given.--v/r - TP 13:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support IP has been a waste of time long enough. I saw his drama mongering for what it was 7 weeks ago. I mentioned before that the IPs goal is to stir the pot, look for reasons to harass and wikilawyer. Bluntly, there is every reason to believe the IP is just a previously banned editor. Article improvement isn't significant enough to justify having to put up wit the rest of the trolling nonsense.--MONGO 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "goal is to stir the pot, look for reasons to harass and wikilawyer" That's often said about people who say things we don't want to hear.--v/r - TP 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        @TP: Your blanket dismissal of your fellow editors' valid concerns is less than compelling, and your attempts to cast shame on the folks commenting here is beneath you. If you're having a bad day, may I suggest stepping away from this for a while, and perhaps coming back later with a clearer perspective? - MrX 18:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've had a rather good day, actually. I'm not upset at MONGO, I just disagree with that point is all.--v/r - TP 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry. I think my threading confused the issue. I was referring to your prior posts here, here and here. - MrX 19:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think I need to click those to know which you're referring to, but my answer is that I have a clear head at the moment. I'm happily plugging award in Autodesk 3ds Max 2013 working on some animations and replying during my renders. Nothing bad about the day that could be causing me to react others than as I intend. The only thing that has bothered me are Incnis Mrsi's comments.--v/r - TP 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose specifically for point 3 which states that the user is restricted from harassing or being uncivil to any other user or admin (broadly constructed). It's supposed to be unacceptable for anyone to do this at any time. It getting a bit ridiculous if we have to start spelling out "you're now banned from being mean". Taroaldo ✉ 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (breaking my "rule"). It's rare for an editor to be blocked for incivility. However, when incivility is built into a ban and the editor is uncivil, the result is usually a block for violating the ban. You, of course, are still free to oppose the ban for whatever reason, but I thought it might be useful to address your point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which points to a larger issue at Wikipedia, which is the lax attitude toward chronic incivility. Many decent editors reduce or stop their involvement in the project because of a small number of [uncivil word] people who make it continually unpleasant to volunteer here. Perhaps if it were less rare to get blocked for incivility more people would stick around.
      Thank you for explaining the technical reasoning behind the wording -- given the way the process is structured, it makes sense. Taroaldo ✉ 02:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose per TP. There are many accusations of misbehavior by the IP but only two diffs have been advanced to substantiate these claims. Nor do the two diffs constitute convincing grounds for sanctions.Tristan noir (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. 76's "goodbye" didn't last long. 155blue had filed a report at ANEW against 76. I declined it. Now 76, not to be outdone, filed a report against I B Wright, as well as commenting on my decline. I've declined 76's report as well. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - First, I sincerely want to thank Taroaldo, Tristan noar, and especial TP, for expressing their opposition to the proposed sanctions. It means a lot to me that you would stand up to a strong crowd who supports them. Having said that, I still will not be editing any more, as I said above, particularly based on the handling of this matter. But I felt the obligation to address these existing matters because for me, this is about my reputation, not my editing.

        I'm sorry, but the way this matter has been handled by Bbb23, Bwilkins, Toddst1, and Dennis Brown is extremely disturbing. Interestingly, they happen to be the four editors I offended on their talk pages. So my alleged "victims" are apparently also trying to be my executioners. The way the rushed into creating these unwarranted and inapplicable sanctions. Look at how quickly they got to the proposals and voting, even after I sincerely apologized (for my tone, not my messages). The way they handled this discussion is equivalent to a kangaroo court. They provide practically no evidence (diffs) to support their generic, out-of-context, and exaggerated allegations, nor do they show that anything they're alleging warrants any sanctions, let alone these very harsh ones. I won't even get into all the baseless rhetoric presented by numerous editors. Nor the complete disregard for my numerous apologies, which I meant and still mean. It's rather remarkable that the four admins, and others, are lumping all of their generic complaints into one big issue, rather thing addressing individual allegations and providing diffs to support each of them.

        Regarding their four proposed santions, they're almost too outrageous to even believe. (1) Banning me from noticeboards for months because some editors don't like my passion in discussions even though I've never violated any polices (although I admit I tend to repeat myself too much at times). Where are the diffs to prove I'm "out of line" on noticeboards and deserve to be banned from them? (2) Banning me from discussions about policies, essays and guidelines. Again, please provide diffs to show evidence of why I should not be allowed to post in any of those. (3) Banned from "being uncivil" to anyone. Could there be any sanction more outrageous than that one? Seriously? If this particular sanction had already applied to everyone, all four of the admins leading this effort to banish me would've been blocked numerous times, not to mention at least 80% of Wikipedia's other editors. That sanction alone is probably the best evidence of how off the rails this vigorous attempt to punish me has become. (4) Banning me from removing anything from my talk page. This one is almost as outrageous as #3. So no matter what I, or someone else, puts on my talk page, I would not be allowed to remove it? Again... seriously?

        It should also be noted that although I expressed my sincere concerns about two editors (I B Wright and 155blue) who edit warred on my talk page for heaven's sake, and I asked for the admins here to please address it, they completely ignored me. In fact, amazingly, Toddst1 went to the talk page of I B Wright and instead of telling them they were edit warring at my talk page, he simply informed the editor of this AN. Then 155blue commented in that thread and asked if they had to stop editing my talk page. Instead of saying, "Yes, you both are edit warring!", Bbb23 merely tells them to stop editing on my talk page "at least for the time being", until the AN is done. That of course was equivalent to saying that they did nothing wrong and, hey, you may even be able to go back and edit the user's talk page again if we're successful in sanctioning the IP at AN.

        The perplexing behavior didn't stop there. 155blue files this report at the edit warring noticeboard about me. You will see Pburka's response to 155blue, which is very telling. You will also see that Bbb23 himself declined it, but instead of saying I didn't edit war, he simply said it's being handled at AN. You will also see my reply to Bbb. And since none of the four admins would address or even acknowledge my request to talk to the two editors about their edit warring on my talk page, I filed this report at AN/EW about I B Wright, who reverted on my talk page five times in an hour. I didn't want to, but clearly the four admins I asked for help on this weren't going to do anything about it.

        After sleeping on this overnight last night, I still decided that I don't want to edit any more. But my wife and kids urged me to respond because they're very hurt by it. They're actually more upset than I am about how this discussion has been handled by the four admins. So I agreed. My wife read TP's various comments and was moved to tears by them. So for that TP, I thank you so much. Finally, I again apologize for the manner in which I expressed some of my comments to the four admins, but, overall, I stand by my points in them. Sadly, I honestly believe that if I were a registered account and not an IP editor, we wouldn't even be here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support the proposed sanctions. The above screed clearly indicates that 76.189.109.155 is either incapable of avoiding unnecessary drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling. If the IP wishes to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, the proposed measures do not prevent this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I see that Bbb23 of all people took it upon himself to decline my report at the edit warring noticeboard. The guy who started this AN against me and wants to ban my participation in four areas actually thought it was appropriate to throw out a legitimate edit warring report because it was me who posted it. So apparently Bbb23 thinks that other editors are immune from sanctions if their violations are against me. It's interesting that Bbb23 says my edit warring report against another editor should not be handled because I am being reported here. That makes absolutely no sense. There is not even an attempt here of determining if I'm guilty of edit warring - on my own talk page, no less! I would ask that a reasonable admin please address my report at the edit warring noticeboard and judge it on its own merits. I didn't want to report there, but I asked very nicely here for admins to please talk to the editor, but they ignored it.

        Finally, AndyTheGrump, I would suggest you take a good hard look at your own block log before you come to a discussion like this and support harsh sanctions for an editor and make hostile claims about me without providing any evidence to back it up. With your notorious background, that takes real guts. Obviously, you think I should not defend myself against these allegations. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Baiting and taking the bait, that's all.--v/r - TP 02:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Andy, you apparently need a reminder that will show why you should stop throwing stones.[2][3] Your reply to the indefinite block you received several months ago was very intriguing: "I no longer consider editing Wikipedia a 'privilege' - not while the gross hypocrisy concerning 'civility' continues. Make rude remarks about a Wikipedian, and ANI fills up with the pitchfork mob. Systematically slander entire communities...and fuck-all ever gets done about it. This stinks, and I no longer want to play any part in it." Pitchfork mob? Sounds very familiar. Look Andy, had you supported the sanctions and provided a civil, well-reasoned explanation, and included relevant diffs, I would have been fine with that. But instead, you come here and spout a bunch of rheotrical insults, and also exhibit total hypocricy. Honestly, with your background you really have no credibility in discussions like this. And I am not going to let your unprovoked attacks go unanswered. It's actually sad because I'd think that someone with your long history of incivility and problems with other editors would be much more understanding of what I'm dealing with here. And you don't have to worry, once this matter is resolved, I won't be editing any more. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "you don't have to worry, once this matter is resolved, I won't be editing any more". 76.189.109.155 has now stated that he no longer intends to edit Wikipedia in any constructive manner. I suspect at this point the simplest course of action would probably be an immediate block to prevent further drama. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Really? Show us the "in any constructive manner" part? Do you ever behave properly or are you always this hostile? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      An independent opinion: According to this, he has made one articlespace edit in the past three days out of (so far) 116. I call that not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, yet has illustrated a knack for disrupting the Wikipedia. Please exercise the harshest measures necessary.--Launchballer 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What a waste of time. Doc talk 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I fully agree. Launchballer, actually it's been a little over two days (about 54 hours), not three days. Your own link shows that. In any case, once this AN and the matters surrounding it happened on Sunday, I chose to permanently stop editing articles and just deal with the existing issues before I stop editing altogether. I didn't realize that there was a minimum requirement for how much editing one must do in article space. Curiously, you failed to mention that I have probably around 2500 edits and many of them to article space and article talk pages, among others, to help improve articles. But if you want ignore my entire history and focus on just the past couple days - the time you know I've been dealing with this drama - then there's nothing I can do about that. You didn't provide any diffs that would show the "harshest measures possible" are warranted. Or any measures at all. I see that you returned a few months ago from an indefinite block given in 2009. I'd think you'd be more understanding of how important evidence is when you are accused of wrongdoing and being threatened with harsh sanctions. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You've got to be loving all this attention. Doc talk 09:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, quite the opposite. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I hear ya. Doc talk 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Launchballer - People arn't allowed to take a break from editing during a highly stressful period where they are facing sanctions without any evidence and then we use their own reaction to these unfair accusations as further evidence against them? What a wonderful place this is.--v/r - TP 12:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: So a group of proles and admins trash an IP prole with whom they have a history of conflict; the prole stands up to them, vigorously defending himself and presenting comprehensive reviews and analysis of the opposing proles' and admins' modus operandi; which elicits more sneers and jeers, as if from playground bullies; Andy the Grump and assorted other bods pile on; and on and on and on, round and round it goes. An inspiring spectacle, and a fine example of how Wikipedia works! Bravo chaps! But TP, you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you gone rogue? Don't you know you moppets are supposed to close ranks when you're taking down a prole? For Heaven's sake man, get a grip on your esprit de corps des serpillères before it's too late. Writegeist (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support as second choice. 'I know I quit, but my wife and kids urged me, and this looks like a good place for telling AndyTheGrump about his notorious background'? This guy's a hoot. I suggest a siteban. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      The "my wife and kids were upset by this" made me laugh. I'll bet he told them "I'm being picked on unfairly on Wikipedia" instead of "I behaved like a jerk to 3 respected admins AND some Bwilkins guy, and now they want to censure me". His complete inability to acknowledge his authorship of this situation is the whole problem here. Otherwise, my comments and concerns would be very different (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Surely you can see how Incnis' own behavior contributes to inflaming the situation. I'm not saying 76.189 is innocent, I don't think I ever have. What I am saying is that other factors, namely Incnis and 155blue, have done nothing but pour gallons of gasoline all over this situation and appears on the surface to be issues with the IP are in some cases merely poking the IP until he growls and then saying "Look look, see how vicious he is?"--v/r - TP 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support on the basis of the IPs behavior on this very thread. (I'm also a bit bewildered by TParis's fervent championing of the IPs case, an instance of an otherwise good admin with a peculiar blind spot.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. If this IP really intends to contribute to the encyclopedia, this would allow them to do so. Their behaviour in this discussion is way out of line; "Goodbye" four days ago yet still now huge walls of text and arguing left right and centre. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Request for closure. If there's an uninvolved admin out there who can tear themselves away from the Eric discussion, closure here would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Analysis

      I've posted this analysis on a couple talk pages and I'll leave it here as well.

      • The entire thread, including the ban discussion, contains exactly four diffs of 76.189's actual doing:
        1. [4] A comment made after User:Dennis Brown had just accused him of Wiki-lawyering and not being here for the right reasons. A pretty mild response, I would've been a bit more -fruitful- in my language.
        2. [5] A comment User:Bbb23 said was polite
        3. [6] After Kudpung pointed to a dismissive essay when the IP was concerned about Bbb23's revert that doesn't even make sense to me why he'd revert it.
        4. [7] A silly mistake that was then called defacement by User:Incnis Mrsi, which he later admitted was wrong, but now has returned to calling defacement
      • There have been no diffs presented to support the accusations in the proposal. The diffs that were provided occured on User_talk space and the first two parts of the sanctions don't even deal with those. The third is a given for all users, and the last, as I demonstrate below, is inaccurate.
      • The bad boy list was language Bbb23 introduced, it was picked up by the IP in a humorous tone here because Bbb23 introduced the vernacular. Toddst1 turned around that around as evidence the IP actually had one and said it was classic battleground behavior. There is no evidence of a bad boy list, the comment was made in response to Bbb23 and was meant to be funny.
      • The IP has numerously received accusations of "drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling", without diffs, responded rather politely, later with diffs showing the same behavior by his accuser, and for merely defending himself he is accused of more drama mongering.
      • The IP has removed comments from his talk page. The policy, WP:BLANKING, says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." The IP has been using the IP for a solid 2 months, has been the only user to use that IP, and there is no evidence of use by others users. So a "dynamic IP" notice was misguided at best, trolling at worst and the policy quoted is inapplicable. In addition, the policy only covers removing this dynamic IP notice, not any other discussion on the page since the other comments do not "indicate other users share the same IP address". So the removal of comments by others was acceptable and the edit warring, and further warnings, to restore the removed content was a misunderstanding of policy on the part of User:155blue and User:I B Wright.
      • Finally, he has apologized more than once.

      --v/r - TP 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I haven't looked at all the talk pages that TP put this notice on, but the ensuing discussion at Dennis's talk page (which has now apparently ended) might be useful to others to read and there's the collateral benefit of reading another one my truly wonderful sitcom anecdotes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, you're right I should have done that.--v/r - TP 17:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      MrX's as well.--v/r - TP 17:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Response to TParis' analysis
      (Context for the next several diffs: "Mike, a communications/PR person hired by St. Johns County, Florida, posted these comments at the help desk." This was beginning of what resulted in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Longtime admin needs advice about WP:BITE)
      diffs
      This is by no means an exhaustive list. While these diffs don't explicitly point to a pattern of clear policy violations, they are indicative of overall disruptive behavior that drains resources, out of proportion to the actual encyclopedia contributions made by this user.
      • On your third point, I don't know if 76.189 actually keeps a "bad admin list", but it seems to me that they view Wikipedia as a battleground. His ingratiating behavior toward Orangemike contrasts starkly with his interactions with admins that have apparently slighted him (DennisBrown, Bbb23, BWilkins). The existence of such a list is not a factor in my !vote, but his very conspicuous, polarized interactions with admins are. It leaves me with the impression that he is here to prove a point, and not build an encyclopedia.
      • On your fourth point, I would stop short of an accusation of trolling. However, 76.189.109.155's reactions to Andy's blunt comments does not help his case.
      • On your fifth point, I don't much care what this user does on their user page or user talk page, within reason, and while they are in control of the IP address. There was some undesirable behavior by several users involved in that fiasco. None of that factored into my !vote.
      • On your sixth point, it's great that he apologized. It would be be fantastic if he would agree not to add to noticeboard and talk page drama in the future. Since that is unlikely to happen, the proposed sanctions seem to be the next best alternative. - MrX 20:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I just have trouble seeing those diffs described in those terms if they were from a registered account. I'm not accusing you of intentional or exclusive IP bias, but I've seen that same kind of attitude, from myself sometimes (in this very discussion), and it's hard for me to see it as intentionally disruptive; or even just disruptive. I don't know, I wasn't in those conversations, and I understand you weren't either, but thanks for at least pointing out what specifically is at dispute.--v/r - TP 22:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it was the steadfast removal to drop the stick and further the attacks that became disruptive. Individually, the diffs are mild - all together it's a vastly different story (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Response by 76.189 to the comments above. Hatting as I advised, at 76's request, for length sake. --v/r - TP 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow, if the above list of quotes isn't a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Haha. So thank you for posting it! Putting a long list of mild, non-violating, random, out-of-context quotes and then, amazingly, labeling each of them with a big, bold tag of the editor's personal characterization of each of them (Wikilawyering, Battleground, Drama, Harassment) is downright ballsy. And I'm the one being accused of drama?? Haha. Why even include the bolded labels like that? And for each one? Do you think you need to tell other editors how each comment should be characterized? Like they can't decide for themselves how they see them? I actually love how that list was presented because it is a textbook example of poisoining the well. Yes, let's just find any random comment the IP makes and pick one of the negative descriptors with which to label it... in bold, of course. And for all of them, let's link the entire quote, as if the presentation isn't already dramatic enough with the big, bold, ugly descriptions. Haha. I have to say, it took a lot of guts to display the list in that manner instead of just simply saying something like, "Here are some quotes that I think prove the IP is causing drama: [diff][diff][diff][diff]..." So thanks for reinforcing my point about exactly what's going on here. Perhaps the most amazing part of that list of quotes is that had it been a registered editor who said many of those things, they would have praised for them, not assualted.

      There of course are several huge problems with this obvious and ridiculous attempt to paint me in a very bad light. First and foremost, although a few of the comments are not said in the friendliest manner, they are all quite tame and in fact many of them are very civil and and perfectly on-point with regard to the relevant discussion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the the points being made in each of them is totally irrelevant. Thousands of editors, including most of you, make comments like these all the time. So they're absolutely no different than what most of you say. But registered editors saying things like this don't get a second look and are seen as perfectable acceptable. But if an IP, especially one who has more than a basic grasp of how Wikipedia works, says them, they get trashed and are labeled (in bold) as the editor did above, or worse, called a troll. Although I've hardly ever used the term, if an IP calls someone a troll, he gets mobbed with attacks. But when registered editors calls someone a troll, it's perfectly fine. Just read this discussion. Let's call this precisely what it is: IP discrimination, pure and simple. And everyone knows it.

      One important point that the editor who posted that list failed to mention is that the first 10 or so quotes are from one discussion; the ANI about Orange Mike, where an admin was reported without anyone ever talking to him first about the matter. So let's put a little context into the matter here. You'll see in that discussion that Bwilkins literally tried to silence me by threatening to block me if I said anything else in the discussion. He backed down as soon as another admin, Bbb23, came in and said he disagreed with that threat. Again, this is a perfect example of IP discrimination. Do you think any registered editor would've been threatened with an immediate block simply for participating in a good-faith manner in a discussion, even if they were being more vocal than others? Of course not. Yes, I was repeating myself a bit too much, and I acknowledged that, but Mike had few defenders and a number of editors were addressing me directly, apparently not seeing points I had made previously. So when someone speaks directly to you or to a point you've made, you respond. That's how it works. TP explained that in this discussion. But so what if someone talks a lot; we don't threaten to banish editors from discussions simply because they're passionate about the topic, let alone threaten them with immediate blocks for doing so. That is admin abuse and I said it. And so have many registered editors, who do not get threatened like that. So - pardon the French - give me a fucking break if you think that is an acceptable way to treat any editor, IP or not, who is participating in a civil, good-faith manner.

      Another giant problem with this list is that it completely fails to balance the scales by presenting any diffs from my two to three thousand edits that would present me in a positive light. We wouldn't want to show any of those, would we? ;) But even the list above shows absolutely nothing that violated any rules and certainly nothing that would warrant any sanctions, let alone the four ridiculous ones being proposed that have absolutely nothing to do with what is being alleged. And, again, if neutral editors read the list of quotes above, they would label many of them with positive descriptors, and praise them, not boldly label them as malicious as the editor who's supporting the sanctions strategically did.

      I'm confident that most neutral editors would read many of the the quotes above and laugh at the bold descriptions that have been slapped on each of them. They would say, "Uh, so what's wrong with what he said??" Yeah, a few are a bit snide, but certainly not even close to the vast incivility that someone like AndyTheGrump has exhibited for many years. But of course he's registered and most editors just turn their heads every time he makes completely inappropriate comments. If he were an IP, he would've been kicked to the curb many years ago, and you all know it. I'm an angel compared to Andy, but most editors are simply afraid to stand up to someone like Andy. But he's not the only viscious registered editor who's been around for years; there are many others. He just happens to be one of the most notorious. Take Incnis Mrcis, for example, who went out of his way above to deceive TP into believing that I had "defaced" an admin's user page last month, when he knew full well that I accidentally clicked the user page tab instead of the talk page tab to place a notice. After I noticed Incnis' despicable attempt of destroying my reputation here (read the "deface" convo between he and TP above), and him writing to TP to continue the ruse, I made TP aware of what was going on. You can also read this interesting exchange between Drmies and Incnis about his nonsense claim of defacement; I think it will show you why a malicious editor like that should never, ever be allowed to vote on sanctions against anyone else. In fact, for what he did here in blatantly lying about what had happened in that situation, he should be blocked. And I don't like seeing editors ever getting blocked. But if it's clearly warranted, it needs to be done.

      Anyway, I'm actually glad that list of quotes was posted because it makes the best case of why these proposed sanctions are bogus. So let's see.. this comes down to me supposedly being too "dramatic" - and all its equivalents to make it sound even more sinister: wikilawyering, battleground, etc. - so let's just throw every sanction we can get away with at him... even if they don't apply to anything he did. Let's banish him from all discussions, tell him he can't be "uncivil" to anyone even though he's never been accused of being uncivil, and hey, let's just tell him he can't remove anything from his own talk page even though the only thing he did with his talk page was move (not remove) an IP template that shouldn't be there in the first place. I'm obviously not "sharing" my page with anyone; it's very clear that I'm the only one who's been using it for months. And, as TP said above, Toddst1 placing that template on my page "was misguided at best, trolling at worst". Precisely. And what no one's mentioning is that he did it immediately after he saw I made a comment to one of his fellow admins that he took offense to. The part Toddst1 doesn't tell you is that I removed that template six weeks ago and he knew all about it, because there was a big discussion at Village Pump about blanking issues, which included talks about that template. And the fact that so many admins completely ignored the fact that two editors (both registred) were edit warring on my talk page over that template, which they were fully aware of, is incredibly telling. And when I asked for help with that, it was ignored also. So I filed a report at ANEW and that was immediately declined by, remarkably, the admin who started this AN (Bbb23)! A clear case of edit warring on my talk page and its dumped by the highly involved admin who started this AN against me. And what's so sad about that is that I didn't want any sanctions against the editor(s) who edit warred on my talk page; I simply wanted an admin to educate them about the matter. Again, another classic example of IP discrimination. Had it been an IP edit warring over that template on a registred editor's page, the hammer would've come down on the IP in an instant. Btw, one of the editors who edit warred on my talk page has a mere 300 edits. I have close to 10 times that many. But they're registered and I'm an IP, so their edit warring was seen as acceptable.

      So this is the perspective of my accuers: No, we haven't even come close to proving he violated anything, let alone anything serious, but let's just beat the crap out of him and sanction him with as much as possible, because we know we can get away with it, because he's an IP. Sadly, most IPs who get treated like this just walk away and allow themselves to be unfairly trashed with highly exagerrated accusations with no proof to back up them up. With me, just a bunch of harmless, out-of-context quotes, that actually do more to help my case, than hurt it. But this entire matter has nothing to do with fairness. It's not even a consideration by my accusers. It's very simple: we don't like this IP and we can just impose whatever sanctions we want because... we can.

      Perhaps the most ludicrous part of this entire drama - yes, the drama of the discussion created by others, not me - is that I apologized immediately, and multiple times, for the tone (not points) I used in some of my comments. Sure, there are a few things I said that I would have said differently if I had to do it again. But hey, cast a stone if any of you have never said some things you regret once in awhile, or at least would have said differently. The viscious, vile, vulgar comments I've seen regularly from numerous registered editors don't even compare to the way I communicate with editors. I'm not perfect by any means, but I am an an angel compared to them. Yes, I'm sometimes more passionate than others in a discussion when I believe in something strongly, but that's no crime, and certainly not a violation that warrants any sanctions. There are also discussions where I'm one of the quiet ones in the room. Registered editors constantly get away with much, much, worse behavior than I've ever exhibited. And those who finally attract the attention of an admin who has the guts to stand up to them usually end up with a very minor sanction... a block for a day or a week, if that. Often times, just a strong warning, for behavior far worse than mine. Only the obvious, clear, extreme cases of misbehavior get the more serious punishments.

      So what do we have here? A bunch of generic accusations backed up by clearly insufficient proof. And a bunch of very harsh sanctions being proposed that have almost nothing to do with the behaviors being alleged. And not only have I never been blocked for anything, I don't think an admin has ever even issued a warning on my talk page for any of these alleged behaviors that all-of-a-sudden warrant months-long bans from discussions and other prohibitions for things that have never been a problem.

      Fortunately, any fair, neutral editor will see right through the sham going on here. It's interesting, those who've never had any involvement with me before this AN have read the entire discussion and have opposed the sanctions. Almost all of those supporting the sanctions are ones who have had little skirmishes with me, especially the four admins who led this effort and quickly created the sanctions proposal - Bbb23, Toddst1, Dennis Brown and Bwilkins - all four who I had communicated with on their talk pages just prior to this AN being started by Bbb23 - yet another important point that failed to be mentioned. Take away their four !votes (and sanctions proposal, of course) and what are we left with? A dead thread that goes nowhere. So the four extremely involved admins, who were having direct communication with me right before this AN, are the ones orchestrating this onslaught. Like a said, this is equivalent to a kangaroo court that has no credibility. That's not dramatic either because the four admins pre-determined the outcome here, the classic sign of a kangaroo court. Look above at how they completely disregarded my sincere apology very early on and very quickly proceeded to creating a proposal of harsh sanctions. That tells the story. It's almost surreal that so many of you suggest how offended you are by "drama", yet have created and perpetuated perhaps the most drama-filled ANI in a very long time.

      TP was a complete outsider; a highly respected admin who had zero contact with me prior to this AN and who (I assume) gets along quite well with the admins involved here. He reviewed everything that was said and presented, and told all of the supporters of the sanctions - particularly the admin leaders of this effort - "Everyone in this thread should face the sanctions except for the IP for making personal attacks without diffs." The only reason the diffs were finally presented (although they do nothing to prove the allegations or to substantiate the sanctions being proposed) is because TP made all of you see how ridiculous you were behaving and how unfair this process was. I suggest you re-read all of TP's comments, particularly the ones at 14:46, 1 July 2013, and this time do so with an open mind and the understanding that he was completely neutral coming into this. And claiming that he "doesn't understand" won't hold water because, unlike most of you, he's done a pretty vigorous review of my full history and edits, in addition to reviewing all the diffs some of you have presented (after he had to repeatedly ask for them). I would suggest you take TP's original advice: "This thread should just dissipate and the IP should be strongly recommended to register an account for his own sake to avoid headaches like this". --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This probably felt good to say, but it's probably not helpful. You might want to read my new essay at WP:ANI Advice. Ignore the picture. When posting here, you want to stick to brevity and only the facts. Can I suggest you hat your own message?--v/r - TP 17:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It probably felt as good as his false claim of apologizing - which he most definitely has never done. It also negates any such apology if it was, indeed given (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Felt good? Are you joking? And I never apologized? Really?[8][9][10][11] There are many IPs who have had their reputations trashed and simply walked away permanently from the project, but I will respond to this barrage of insults and misrepresenations. If I were registered and said and did all the same things, we wouldn't be here. Period. Hopefully, the closing admin will see through this charade and focus on the allegations vs. the evidence presented. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Funny. As the person most attacked by you, I note that not a single one of those links are on my talkpage, or mention my name specifically. There was no apology, and saying one exists is improper. Your reputation was created by you, not the thread above - actions speak louder than anything else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I "attacked" you? And you're the "most attacked" editor? I'm sorry, but telling you that I thought you were wrong to bring up past allegations against Orange Mike at ANI, which had absolutely nothing to do with the particular issue being discussed, was by no means an attack. And first, you claimed I "never" apologized here. But after I provided not one, but four diffs to show otherwise, you changed directions and said... 'well, they weren't on my talk page'. Wow, really? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      76, you're not helping yourself. TP has tried to explain that to you on his talk page. You even agreed: "I'm not going to say another word on any of those pages, including AN. I'm backing out." TP is sticking up for you, and I know you appreciate that, but you should take his advice more to heart. As an aside, I don't think of you an "IP". I think of you as an editor without a registered account, and I treat you no differently from anyone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not helping myself? Bbb, let's get real. And please stop with the condescending lectures as if you care about me at all. You don't. It doesn't matter one bit what I say here. You clearly proved that by starting this AN without even telling you would do that if... (whatever). You didn't say one word about AN. And you were my friend. A friend would've said... I'm going to have to go to AN if... (whatever). Instead, you went behind my back without saying a word about this possibility. And just as bad, you started developing the sanctions proposal with Toddst1 very early in this discussion, when few editors had even been given a chance to comment, and after I had issued a sincere apology. So please, give me a break and stop talking down to me. Finally, I didn't anticipate the continued onslaught of insults and misrepresentations about me. So I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I will respond when I'm being trashed. My wife didn't think I should trust you after the little spat we had in May, but I said no, he's a good guy. Sadly, she was right (as usual). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not think Bbb23 was being condescending, I think he was giving you legitimate advice. You were right in May, Bbb23 is a good guy. It's a shame you two arn't getting along right now, but those things can be fixed.--v/r - TP 19:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Again does 76.189.… reiterate insinuations about alleged discrimination of IPs. It is a lie IMHO, and anyway it was not his unregistered status that caused headaches like this. With this conduct he, if registered, could easily catch a block within his first 600 edits. The truth is exactly opposite: in late May and in June many people thought of 76.189.109.155 as of a new user; only few persons knew he actually edited, intermittently, since August 2012 from other IPs within a /20 range. He was positively discriminated because of it, I think, until the incident with Ymblanter. He was allowed to consume a lot of attention of experienced users, a privilege that an account with a thousand of edits can’t enjoy without detrimental consequences. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Incnis, I suggest you stay out of this discussion. You have been proven to be a complete liar (not an insult, just a fact) with the deceptive game you played yesterday with TP in this discussion about my alleged "defacing" of someone's user page. This thread you started at TP's page tells the story. And although TP was the one who called you a "Wiki-dick" in that discussion, I'll concur with the sentiments. Any editor who would blatantly and maliciously attempt to destroy someone the way you did should not only not be allowed to participate in discussions like this, but shouldn't even be editing. At least editors like Andy don't tell flat-out lies; they just are rude and insulting. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Cute. I understand now why TParis called it a baiting, but I said what I actually think without an intention to inflame the person in question. What I think although, of course, I can mistake in some aspects. BTW I’d wonder if 76.189.109.155 will not get his first block soon for this blatant violation of WP:NPA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Check your facts. TP said that Andy was baitng, and that I was taking the bait. (Sort of like what's happening now - you're baiting me and I'm stupidly taking it.) Do you ever tell the truth? Look Incnis, you have no credibility here and TP's comment to you was right on the money. And for the record, I didn't call you a "Wiki-dick", TP did. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      76.189, you should probably take a break for the day. Really, you need to make more of an effort not to see these folks as "opponents." If you register an account and agree to be mentored, I'll help guide you on this approach. Incnis, I'm going to assume the reason you didn't hit me with an ANI report yesterday was because I could have or I didn't report you also for your own civility issues in this thread. Let me suggest that before you write one such report on the IP, you review how your own civility contributes to the behaviors of others. Please settle down your calls for blocks or I'm going to encourage whomever blocks the IP to be fair.--v/r - TP 19:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      For the day? And allow myself to continue getting trashed or condescended to by those who are strongly advocating for me to be harshly sanctioned? If I wanted a mentor, you would be a great choice. You've clearly proven to be an even-handed admin. You have no problem defending me or slapping me down when you think it's appropriate. Get this discussion closed and I'll stop editing for good as soon as that happens. So let's see who really wants drama. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion had pretty much ended until you responded this morning and as we can see, Incnis has no shame in continuing. He is been pretty successful at projecting the bad image onto you. I think it's time we all just let this thread die, if we're lucky, or be closed and that might take you and I backing off first. We've said our bit, we know what is true, and it's not necessary for us to have the last word. I think for my part, I've said all that can be said.--v/r - TP 19:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for closure

      TP did not appreciate my closure of this thread. I understand that and agree with him that this thread should be closed.

      Would someone uninvolved, please evaluate the responses to Proposal 2 and close this thread please? Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Anderson unblock request

      Anderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in September 2012 by Kudpung, and now he wishes to invoke the standard offer. This is the text of his UTRS, which he has agreed to have copied here:

      I've been away from Wikipedia for 3 quarters of a year, I've learned my lesson and there will be no nonsense/sock-puppetry from me like the last time i was blocked for it, i will follow the restrictions on my talk page, and all i'll be doing is making decent contributions, and i will revert vandalism without issue.

      Please review this request and determine whether Anderson should be let back. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support unblock if he's telling the truth. Disregard this support if anyone provides solid evidence of recent sockpuppetry or other shenanigans, but if he's being honest, sure, why not. --Jayron32 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conditional support - I've followed him since his first day here and very familiar with all the other accounts as well. While he has gained some clue on the way, there were a lot of problems with his vandal patrolling and biting or simply miss identifying vandalism. I would feel better if he completely avoided CVUA and vandal patrolling if he comes back, at least for 6 months. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: When Anderson was last active, he did waste the time of a lot of people. In my opinion the only way he could come back is if he agrees to unblock conditions that would keep him away from the areas where he had trouble. To facilitate those negotiations I suggest unlocking his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that is an excellent idea. I have no problem whatsoever allowing a few, say three admin to have the conversation with him, come to a solution and implement it. I think you would be an excellent one of those, and I'm happy to bow out and accept whatever you three (plus Anderson) were to conclude a reasonable set of restrictions would be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      *User:Spartaz has stated that the WP:BASC is now looking into this block and he recommends that we leave it in their hands. That sounds reasonable to me, since they will be able to review the email themselves and decide how serious it is. I suggest that this thread be closed.EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Talk page access restored: I think it would be a good idea for people to talk to him and, if desired, ask him to agree to certain conditions before unblocking. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: My impressions from the last time around were that Anderson was friendly and enthusiastic, but didn't take Wikipedia serious enough, to the point of treating it like a video game...shoot the bad guys (vandals) and try to "level up" (rollbacker, reviewer, etc.). My main issue was that he often got false positives while reverting vandalism, hitting good faith IP editors with high level vandal templates. Then there was the clerking of WP:PERM, and finally the sock-puppetry trying to avoid the restrictions. On the good side, the ability to wait several months with no problems/socking shows an increase in maturity in my mind.

        The ideal solution, in my mind, would be something that provided Anderson with an outlet for his passion, but protected Wikipedia from unintentional collateral damage. If I remember correctly, in prior discussions we had been talking about technical ways of disabling automatic editing (including Twinkle) but I don't remember if that is possible or not. If it is, I do recommend that. I'd also suggest a ban on templating editors until he demonstrates that he can tell the difference between good faith edits and vandalism. Anyway, that's my recommendation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Conditional unblock. There's no denying that this, of course, is another block evasion especially where he was clearly asked to make any further unblock requests through BASC. However, he has been patient for 9 months, and not wishing to stifle the return of a young editor who was editing in good faith but simply, and clearly, failed to understand the rules, I'm prepared to give him another chance. Conditions as far as I'm concern would echo the suggestions that his return would be subject to strict limitations: mainspace content work only, no page patrolling, no tagging of articles, no warning other users, no involvement in meta areas, no vandal reverts, no applications for additional user rights, and no use of Twinkle, until he has demonstrated that he understands the reasons for his block. Preferably for a couple of months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: Anderson agrees entirely with these restrictions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I fully support Kudpung's restrictions here. It can be revisited at WP:AN in 6 months if Anderson wants to, but it is the best chance for him to participate and adapt. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll go along with 6 months. Anderson seems to be amenable to accept any restrictions that will allow him to get back to editing, and that help him understand that our prime objective is to build an encyclopedia and not police the pages and people that make it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I vaguely remember this case, thanks for pointing me here Kudpung. I'm happy that he should have another chance, and I agree that he should only be let back on a short leash (which we can loosen as time goes by) - however I'm concerned by some of the conditions. For one thing, content work is difficult for many people and I believe that Anderson may well get into much more trouble if he cannot work in an area where he feels able. As such, I'd drop the "only mainspace content work" which could be used for badgering - replace it with a "recommendation to focus on mainspace content work", and I'd also drop the "no vandal reverts". The rest of Kudpung's suggestions sound reasonable. I'd also expect Anderson to be given an indefinite one account limitation. WormTT(talk) 12:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Content work might be "difficult" but that is why we are here. Everything else that you and I do is secondary to that. As User:Scott Delaney, he did more content work until he decided to become a vandal fighter, which cause a lot of bitten editors to get upset. If he can't contribute to articles in an acceptable manner, then his return shouldn't happen at all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dennis, you've been spending too long around Wikipedia's self declared content creators. I'm not referring to admin work, but there's a lot of things that Anderson can do that doesn't fit under mainspace content work. Of the top of my head, file work, article assessment, categorisation, wikification, fixing syntax errors, adding co-ordinates, infobox conversion... I'm sure there's many more. They're gnoming roles which are essential to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, which has nothing to do with administration and yet don't fit under "only mainspace content work". Those who write or copyedit articles aren't the only ones who contributing positively to the encyclopedia, and I want to make it clear that if an editor cannot contribute in one particular way, they can contribute in another. Then there's the slightly closer to admin work stuff, like !voting in deletions - an areas sorely underpopulated by the community. Again, I wouldn't have an issue with him working there. As far as I recall, his anti-vandalism work was unproblematic, why restrict him there? Simply, we don't want to box him into a small area where he cannot be productive. WormTT(talk) 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      article assessment, categorisation, wikification, fixing syntax errors, adding co-ordinates, infobox conversion - ironically, these are the things that I mentally included in mainspace work, I just didn't make myself clear. However, I think he should be kept clear from meta areas especially such as AfD until he has been around to learn enough about policies and guidelines. After all, this is an exceptional unblock request, and we are being exceptional in even considering letting him back after such a troubled history. I would be monitoring his edits (as I'm sure Dennis would be too), and as soon as he shows promise after 6 months, we would not hesitate to let him off the leash. I'm not sure about AfD because he's never voted there, but to do so also needs a knowledge of notability and other deletions guidelines that he is most probably not sufficiently versed in. There's is also the concern that given one meta area where he may work may encourage him to make a beeline for it and do little else, and because this is an exceptional unblock, I wouldn't hesitate to reblock if he messes up. No one has mentioned adoption here (yet), but Anderson didn't seriously pursue the last attempt at mentoring. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like you and I are of one mind. I'd support your suggestions if they could be written in a way that will mean they are not there as a tool for bludgeoning by someone who takes a dislike to his work. WormTT(talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      We would also take care (in the nicest possible way, of course) of any instances where people might unduly harass or warn him for any errors he does make. Seems we have a consensus, so I'll try to draft a final set of conditions and post it here later today for approval. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      draft for approval or discussion

      Hi Anderson. Following the discussion at WP/AN concerning your unblock request, the community is prepared to give you another chance provided you firmly agree to abide by these conditions for 6 months, after which we will look at your edits again with a view to lifting all or some of the restrictions.

      • You may only edit in article space. This includes adding correctly sourced 'new' content, article assessment, categorisation, wikification, fixing syntax errors, adding co-ordinates, infobox conversion. You may also take part in discussions on article talk pages of the articles you have edited. You may not however, revert any content without first discussing it on the article talk page or with the editor concerned.

      To be absolutely clear, this means:

      • You may not warn, or place warning templates on the talk pages of other editors. If you feel a warning is necessary, please report the instance to an administrator. You should take care however, that you do not do this too often.
      • You may not patrol new pages.
      • You may not patrol for vandalism or revert any vandalism.
      • You may not place maintenance tags on articles. If you feel a tag is necessary, please report the instance to an experienced editor in good standing.
      • You may not take part in any meta areas; by this we mean any 'management' areas such as, for example (but not only), WP:PERM, WP:AfD etc. This may sound restrictive, but remember that we do not feel that you have enough knowledge to do this for the time being.
      • You must avoid being encouraged to use editors' (or your own) talk pages for social banter, or an indiscriminate use of WikiLove or barnstars.
      • Finally, you may not, under any circumstances, create any other user accounts or edit without logging in.

      Do bear in mind however that these conditions are not negotiable and that any breaches of these conditions may lead to you being blocked again. You may also wish to consider joining an adoption programme again, but if you do, you must follow it through in a timely manner. If you feel that you are being unduly warned or harassed by other users, including admins, who are not familiar with these unblock conditions, rather than react, please ask for advice from an admin, such as Worm, Dennis, GB fan, EdJohnston, Jayron32, King of hearts, or Kudpung, who is familiar with your case, and we will take it from there. If there is anything you do not understand in these conditions, please do not hesitate to ask Kudpung, Dennis, or Worm for a further explanation.

      Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Kudpung, This seems good overall in my opinion. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details, like being restricted to "article space" but being able to contact other editors, or not taking part in meta areas, but being able to report things to administrators. Is this basically just a restriction from the WP: namespace? I'm 100% on board with the ban on templating/warning editors and patrolling, but ambivalent about the ban on reverting vandalism. The rest is good by me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "may only edit in article space" may be an over-generalization; they ought to be allowed to conduct legitimate business on others' user talk pages. Anyways, I would support a ban on vandalism reversion for now, as part of the reason for his original block was due to his failure to distinguish between good-faith edits and vandalism, but that can be the first thing to be reviewed (maybe in 3 months or so). No WP-space (unless the discussion directly concerns him) is also a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As has been discussed elsewhere, he would also be allowed to participate in GA/FA/DYK or other areas that are about building or improving articles. I think that the maintenance areas (mainly, vandal fighting) are the points of concern, but that would also mean no helping at RFPP, UAA or other admin/maintenance areas. He was never a drama seeker he just had some significant issues with reverts and vandalism. All of this is temporary of course, and everyone is willing to review reducing these over time. And of course, if he is named as a party in an action, he can participate. The goal here isn't to punish him, it is to make it easier for him to succeed in being productive by providing clearly defined temporary rules. Several of us know him and will work with him. We don't want him blocked and will try to keep him unblocked, but it is ultimately up to him. I know he can do this or I wouldn't be supporting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Forgot about that, content-related WP-space can be allowed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really want to prolong this any longer, as Anderson is eager to get started again. I think the general consensus is that we can go ahead with the draft conditions I proposed, so if there are no clear objections in the next 24 hours, I'll post them to his talk page. He must understand that these condits are not negotiable, and that any relaxation is at the discretion of the admins reviewing his case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Conditions posted to Anderson's talk page, with some very minor improvements as suggested, for clarity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A backlog in very old AfDs

      Old AFDs closed. Your reward is on your talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      We need a crack group of sysops to close all these very old AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. The oldest is two weeks past the deadline. I've done several already, but there's a whole bunch more. Peace. -- Y not? 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Linking to Wikipediocracy ArbCom case

      (I am posting this here as I believe this issue involves administrators as a group as past iincidents related to this have involved wheel warring, blocking, revision deletion, protections, etc, on a large scale. The purpose of the request is not to debate whether WO is good or evil but to get some clarity on the issue of linking to it from WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

      It is my belief that the community, the administraive corps, and the oversight team are not able to resolve these issues by themselves. I have therefore just submitted a request to the Arbitration Committee to ask them to get directly involved and provide some clarity on this matter. See WP:RFAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Visual editor blanks content

      If you notice new users vandalizing articles by randomly deleting content (particularly the references, categories, and templates), please note that a some of this is being caused by bugs in the visual editor. See this for one example. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Reaper, two things...1) VE isn't exactly WMF's stellar new tool and 2) I'm still around. PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you sure that was done by the Visual editor error and not plain olde editor error? It seems that the two unclosed ref tags behaved as they normally do and in trying to fix the problem ended up deleting the contents. The edit summary alone screams "what is happening?" rather than "updating" and "Wait? What? I didn't do this! (undo!)". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Celeste6566 unblock request

      Celeste6566 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in October 2011 by DragonflySixtyseven, and now he wishes to invoke the standard offer. This is the text of his UTRS, which he has agreed to have copied here:

      I did some bad edits and behaved severely inappropriately back in 2011. Some examples include threatening to hit an administrator if he/she wouldn't unblock me, threatening to take down the Wikipedia website, and writing fictional articles about my made-up musical career. However, I know a lot better now, and I highly promise not to do anything like that anymore, OK?

      Please review this request and determine whether Celeste6566 should be let back. I have also restored his talk page access for this request, so you may contact him directly. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I recommend that the administrator who unblocks Celeste566 -- if any such administrator can be found -- stalk Celeste's edits for the next several months. A year, preferably. DS (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This was clearly a very young editor at the time, and young editors can mature greatly in two years. I think it is appropriate to AGF in cases like this. (Note that "Celeste" is most commonly a female name.) Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I would have preferred they go through WP:BASC, as I quite clearly indicated on their talk page when revoking it, (did we evan have UTRS back then?) two years without any evidence of socking or anything is more than enough time and I'm inclined to say WP:ROPE on this one. see below. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        My rationale for allowing the standard offer was because of the relative shortness of their block log and the lack of anything Arbcom-related. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: The following accounts are  technically indistinguishable from Celeste6566 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki):
      T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I have blocked them and recorded it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Celeste6566/Archive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • An appeal to BASC was made in March 2013 and was declined. Upon review of the request at UTRS I also have concerns that Celeste6566 continues to use multiple accounts to evade their block as recently as June 30th (in accordance with T. Canens results above). I would be very hesitant in allowing an unblock under these circumstances.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Refdesk RFC needs closing

      Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC has been running for a month and has been stable for two weeks, with only a trickle of recent edits, so it can be closed at any time. I don't expect that this will pose any grave difficulties. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      URGENT

      Can an admin stop/block User:EdwardsBot. I sent out the wrong thing!!!--Dom497 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Soft-blocked for three hours. Will that do? BencherliteTalk 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As long as it won't re-start. (I don't know if the coding of the bot will do that...I'll contact the operator.) Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No it won't. The bot will continue to run while blocked.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So its still delivering....--Dom497 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      yea pretty much but it's not getting anywhere since it's blocked.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've never understood why admins are so quick to block the bot and yet nobody ever considers blocking the person who fucked up the delivery. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Because we don't block for honest mistakes. --Jayron32 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, WP:PUNITIVE. The block is necessary to prevent imminent damage by the bot, but not necessary for the initiator, a human who can control his actions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Calling misdirected talk page posts "imminent damage" is pretty silly. It helps to think of EdwardsBot as equivalent to sending an e-mail. The bot wasn't misbehaving, it was doing exactly as it was instructed. A block certainly wasn't necessary. Think about it this way: while everyone was quick to shout for a block, far fewer were quick to clean up the mess the bot made. It looks like Rschen7754 tried a bit before realizing that rollback wouldn't work and that it was a tedious job to undo each edit.

      But sure, throw out some shortcuts to Wikipedia essays explaining to me how blocks work around here. You'll have to forgive any misimpressions I may have about this place, I'm new around here. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, perhaps I should have told Dom497 to clean up after himself as well as blocking the bot (which User:EdwardsBot#How do I stop EdwardsBot? does seem to imply is one action that can be taken in such circumstances. If I misunderstood, please accept my apologies. It seemed easier to block the bot once the problem had been noticed (as I noticed from the block log had been done in the past) rather than let the bot get to the end of its run. Again, if you disagree, I apologise. If you'd like such situations handled differently in future, then perhaps some additional wording at the top of the bot's user page would be useful with your suggestions for what should be done when someone gives the wrong instructions to the bot. BencherliteTalk 15:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. There isn't any good way to stop the bot (much as there isn't any good way to stop an e-mail that's been mis-sent). I can't blame you for blocking the bot, but blocks of the bot (when it's working exactly as it was instructed to) generally leave me annoyed. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, erm, Dom, you still let it deliver 50+ messages before even posting a message here...I think the lesson to be learned is "don't get coffee right after starting a bot task." The good thing about mistakes is that you learn from them :) Theopolisme (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Technical error in 2012–13 Egyptian protests

      Something is wrong in the title of this article. And because it is a current event I notify admins here. Please someone take a look at my request for move here.Farhikht (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Eric Corbett blocked

      The result was that the one month block is endorsed. Full rationale below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      This result is due to several factors. First, the majority of the the participants here have endorsed the block and its length. Second, the WP:NPA policy explicitly considers epithets such as those used here as being a personal attack, and when it becomes a pattern it is considered disruptive behavior where blocking is an allowable remedy. Finally, it is clear that the incident here was not an isolated incident, and I have taken note that Corbett has previously been admonished by the Arbitration Committee for "repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct" [12]. Such admonishments from ArbCom are not merely advisory, they imply that continuation of such behavior will lead to sanctions.

      There has some opposition to the block itself, some of them using terms such as "ridiculous" and "over the top". There have also been claims that the block is "punitive".

      Regarding the "punitive" aspect, the blocking policy does say that blocks should not be used to punish. What that means is that they are not used as retribution, or because an editor deserves a block. However, the blocking policy does explicitly allow blocks to be used in order to deter and to prevent disruptive behavior. It is not a sufficient defense to say that the incident has passed, so no blocking is necessary, especially if there is an issue that has been recurring.

      Another reason given for opposing the block is that Corbett is a productive contributor to articles. This is at best a mitigating factor, and the Arbitration Committee has previously laid down the principle that "Good behavior does not excuse bad behavior".

      There have also been claims that Corbett was baited. This may be mitigating, but the civility policy says "a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response".

      Finally the length of the block needs to be considered. A period of one month is considered a fairly long block. To justify that, the incident triggering it needs to be serious, or been part of a pattern of escalating blocks. Corbett under the old username has an extensive block log [13], but many of the previous blocks were overturned after only a few minutes, many of the unblockers have argued against the block in this discussion. The last block to not be overturned is in late 2011, that was for one week. However, with the ArbCom admonishment in place, the block length of one month appears defensible, and a fairly clear majority of participants have endorsed the original block. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


      I have blocked User:Eric Corbett for a month for multiple clear personal attacks (and having a history of such). Explanation at [14]. I know that blocks of Malleus / Corbett have been contentious in the past, so I bring it here for review. Fram (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      No accusation of bad faith trumps the completely unnecessary and disrespectful personal attack here. Sædontalk 10:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      For anyone else that doesn't know what "cromulent" means, it apparently means fine/acceptable.--Rockfang (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually,"cromulent" assumes knowledge of its ironic Simpsons origins -- in other words, it implies the opposite of "fine/acceptable". DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
      Unless he is American, in which case I think it is asshole. Arsehole is the way we say it in Ireland and the UK. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support the block; and I'm rather concerned by how frequent and severe these comments are. Civility issues like this do drive editors away, the community should not stand idle when numerous warnings fail to correct or stem this behavior. If it was a one-off, perhaps, but enough is enough. This is not a case of a "bad-day" either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support There's nobody who can defend the continued incivility, especially this current round of WP:NPA (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I normally find myself in opposition to blocks for incivility, as incivility is extremely subjective and the blocks are typically more problematic than anything else. I'm willing to let the occasional issue slide, as everyone can lose their temper from time to time, and to not expect that is to not live in the real world. However, this is not one of those cases. Most of the recent subsections on his talk page include personal attacks from him. Consequently, although I find myself in general opposition to blocks of this nature, I also find myself unable to oppose this specific block. As a side note, I thank Fram for having the foresight to bring this block here immediately for review. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A block may be reasonable, but the length is excessive. If Eric had commented on "sanctimonious bullocks" instead of the person, he would have not violated WP:NPA. His comment was out of character, and likely due to the dysfunction of WMF and its "Visual Editor". Perhaps 48 hours would be more reasonable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        While our engineers are very good, behavioural modification is unfortunately beyond them - unless the VisualEditor has achieved sentience, of course, in which case we're all somewhat screwed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've got a bad feeling about this... Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose block. When all but one of your diffs about personal attacks involves that person responding to a person warning or reprimanding them for that singular personal attack, and it is one as absurdly trivial as calling someone an "asshole" then you are giving da rulz higher priority over the encyclopedia.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reasonable block, well supported. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Support. I can't tolerate personal attacks but I think one month is bit too much, I personally would do two weeks, I'm also pointing out that Visual Editor has been improving at a good rate, I personally am impressed by the buggy interface last month, compared to what we have now. Well done! Prabash.Akmeemana 15:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh my. Good block. We do really need to behead this incivility issue. — ΛΧΣ21 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Revisiting my original comment: I do agree that one month is inadequate, but I also agree that no matter how much content you write, you need to be sanctioned for your actions. I have written, and still write, featured content among other things I do on this website. But that doesn't make me unblockable; at all. That should make me set the example for new users. — ΛΧΣ21 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sheesh. Thanks a lot to the snarker on that VisualEditor Feedback page, to the DJ admin who felt the need to template a regular, to the admins in general who can't even stand being called "asshole", to the various sanctimonious baiters and taunters who sit around and wait to jump on Eric's talk page to stir the pot a little bit, et cetera. All this passive-aggressive shit is allowed, but "asshole" is not. "Oh do you have diffs for that?" No, read the guy's talk page, idiot. Anyone can have a go at him--has anyone been blocked for baiting/taunting/provoking? Supporters, thanks a lot. I look forward to your help at the FA review for The Coral Island. In case you don't know, the F stands for Featured. We use it for high-quality articles, of the kind that Eric churns out regular like clockwork. Or used to. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • F also stands for "fallacy", as in the litany of oft-dispelled tropes you're prone to rattle off when defending Malleus for something that literally anyone else would have been sanctioned for for the Nth time. For what it's worth, I've directly threatened Doc with a block for such Bugs-esque baiting in the past, but this was imminently blockable prior to his imposition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it doesn't, though I will give you props for your attempt at fancy rhetorical footwork. "Oft-dispelled tropes" is, of course, nonsense--these are not tropes. Moreover, they haven't yet been dispelled. I'm happy that you keep such close track of me, though, and I am perfectly content to stand in Eric's corner, even if there's precious little I can do. A month-long block for a couple of "asshole"s, some of which baited, yeah, that's justice, Thumperward. Literally, I suppose. So many comments by too many people who wouldn't know what an FA or a GA was if it bit them on the ass. How, blocking administrator and supporters, is this block preventing disruption? How is it not provoking disruption? and how is it supporting the development of content? Never mind. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Misdirection, veiled anonymous aspersions, and a heap of disingenuousness. You're not going to point at these supposed non-contributors (because this would paint you into a corner the next time this comes up); at least on this occasion you haven't the brass neck to unilaterally unblock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block. We have minimum standards for dealing with each other. If those aren't adhered to, you shouldn't be editing, no matter who you are or what else you have accomplished. --Conti|✉ 16:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a fan of civility blocks myself. In this case I do understand the block although I hope the duration can be revisited. Eric has been doing better about not pushing it too far, although he did fall off the wagon a bit here. His FA work doesn't excuse going into the rant, but I would remind people that his signal to noise ratio is still quite good (better than most people's actually), even if it wasn't for a couple of hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: kafkaesque. - What is that block going to achieve? Feel like being "in charge" a little bit? Get rid of quality content? Educate someone to use more sophisticated language for people who may not understand it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • A wiki where you can talk to a user without being called an asshole? --Conti|✉ 16:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • With any luck it'll mean that we don't lose any more project members who ask a polite question in complete innocence and get This in response. (And yes, for fanboys present and fanboys yet to arrive: there's not a single naughty word in that reply, so by the twisted logic applied solely to Malleus Fatuorum blocking for such a thing is a rank injustice directly comparable to Guantanamo Bay, or something.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Totally ridiculous block: Eric Corbett is poked on his talk page, gets predictably angry and this encourages the poker plus a few mates come back to poke some more. Then along comes a pompous civility policeman and blocks him - this time Mr Plod the Policeman blocks Corbett for a month (he really wants his name in lights and some acclamation) Then we all come here to see all the usual little nonentities squealing: "great block - well done." Well this situation really is a first for Wikipedia isn't it? What good is it supposed to do? It makes you all like like a bunch of nasty, little toadying children sucking up to the school bullies. If Corbett's behavior is really so shocking and unpalatable to you all, did your mothers never tell you that if you don't like someone stay away from them and if people are really rude, just ignore them and rise above? - Clearly not. Grow up and get a life all of you.  Giano  16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please reduce this excessive block to at most 24h. Calling someone an asshole doesn't stop the person called asshole from doing work here. Blocking someone, on the other hand, obviously does prevent the blocked person from improving the encyclopedia (it doesn't prevent them from continuing to call you an asshole though, unless you revoke talk page access). The vast majority of Eric's edits are improvements to the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Far too excessive. 24h maximum would've been right here, but this was a trivial issue and the block is punitive. And Doc9871 wasn't completely innocent in the issue either. Black Kite (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support': It's clear that Eric has no willingness to abide by our policy on personal attacks. My only question is why anyone believes that the problem will resolve itself in a month.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ridiculous block. Sure, we shouldn't call others assholes, but we also shouldn't go deliberately poking people in the passive-aggressive manner that so many have used successfully against Eric for years and then blocking them when they snap further -- and it's brought all of the usual rabble out of the woodwork who couldn't write a fucking article to save their lives, just to pile on when given the chance. Honestly, I'm getting so sick of the way productive contributors here are treated that I'm seriously considering retirement - management by community simply doesn't work when too large a percentage of that community are assholes. At the very least, this block needs to be reduced to either time served or 24 hours - as Black Kite says, the issue is trivial and the block is blatantly punitive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What reason do you have to believe that Eric will not commit a similar infraction after the block is released? Isn't our normal standard for removing a block is that we believe the person that has been blocked understands the reason for the block and appears to have both the willingness and the capability to not repeat the behaviour? I'm sure that Eric understands the reason for the block. He may even have the capability to refrain from gratuitous insults. I still have seen no sign of a willingness to cease attacking people.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Way OTT - Black Kite's comment about a 24 hour block being the maximum seems right to me. Eric was baited/poked constantly, and their talkpage is a clear example of that. Eric called another user an asshole, but Doc9871 was just as out of line by calling them a "diva". The reason I agree with the block at all is their comments aimed at Inglok, not those aimed at Doc9871, whom as far as I'm concerned, was guilty of baiting. That said, the VirtualEditor is a piece of junk, but that's not really for this noticeboard. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block Too many chances have already been wasted by this editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ridiculously excessive 1) civility blocks are a waste of effort 2) Eric got poked and the one doing the poking should have been blocked too 3) block is excessive, should be 0 or 24 hours at most 4) I'll save my comment about admins for later PumpkinSky talk 17:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heavy handed. A 24 hour block could have been fairer for minor incivility under extreme provocation. I also firmly believe that in a case like this the troll should be blocked as well as the one who snaps. --John (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Block length is excessive. 72 hours would be more than enough. I don't condone the incivility but there appears to have been a lot of assholish behavior all around here and Eric calls it as he sees it. The baiting at Eric's talk only added fuel and should be addressed. Its long past time as well that seasoned editors not template the other seasoned editors...why not try just talking to them like they're humans instead of templating them. We ask that folks remain civil in most areas of the pedia and some of this was outside usertalk, but I think great latitude should be given to editors to speak freely on their own talkpage and therefore feel that actions against people for speaking freely on their own talkpages should be eliminated from block considerations.--MONGO 17:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block MF/Eric shows no understanding that such behavior is unacceptable and no willingness to change. As noted above, I see no indication he means to do anything but continue when he returns, particularly given the number of the times the same old arguments by his fans have been trotted out and/or he climbs up on the cross and threatens to retire, and he's been allowed to teflon out of this kind of behavior. His exchange in the thread above the one that lead to the block is outrageous, inexcusable and totally unprovoked. The block and its length are justified on the basis of that exchange alone; the one with Doc simply reinforces the need to remove him from the community for sufficient time that we can hope he might reconsider using every available opportunity to fire on any editor with whom he disagrees. There's a reason Malleus' username was corrupted into something more descriptive in some quarters of this community. He's an adult, it's reasonable to expect him to control himself, and he's simply unwilling or unable to do so, particularly given the cadre of editors willing to make excuses for him when he doesn't. Time for some accountability, not more hiding behind his friends and crying "he started it!" like an adolescent. --Drmargi (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I think the community is avoiding the real issue. Eric will always be Eric. He's not going to change. Sure he has his ups and downs and is sometimes more reasonable and sometimes more childish than other times, but that's not unusual. We really have only two choices. Either we block him indefinitely for his continuing misbehavior, or we don't block him at all because his misbehavior is outweighed by his valuable contributions to the project. The only way that would change is if he crosses into new territory, but I don't see that here. I see Eric just acting like Eric. He's even reacted to the block in his usual fashion, saying he won't be back. Recently, Eric called me an incompetent admin. I wasn't 100% sure if that was a compliment or an insult, but it's fairly typical Eric and didn't bother me much. As for what I think are our two choices, I don't think the community can make the choice as it's too divided. That said, without expressing an opinion myself on what we should do about the larger picture, I favor unblocking Eric.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because it's Manny being Manny doesn't make it appropriate, or does it generate any form of exception. Neither does the quality of work. Behaviour and work are not inseparable. If he wants to go nose-down, do his work, and ignore drama boards and refuse to make snide remarks everywhere across the project (or indeed, if he chose not to respond to almost everything that was not a neccesity), we'd have a shotlaod of work get done. He cannot help himself, unforunately. Unblocking sends the wrong message to Eric and every other editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block and also support block length of one month as originally applied. Some editors above questioning the block length may be unaware of this editor's extensive history of this behaviour, going back to at least 2008, under his earlier account Malleus Fatuorum. 24 hours for this sort of thing would be appropriate for the first time, but is certainly not appropriate for the latest set of occurrences in a five year history of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unblock. I too am appalled by EC's word choice. "Asshole"? Coming from an educated Brit with a good vocabulary? I trust he won't make the same mistake again: the correct word is arsehole. If there are any grown-up sysops left, I trust one of them will unblock. Writegeist (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Awful block. I don't issue and don't like civility blocks, and I especially don't like civility blocks for more than 12-24 hours. Blocking Eric (also, can we call him by his first name? Calling Eric "Corbett" is really quite smarmy) for a month for calling a few people assholes (on his own page, no less) is way over the top. Block if you must for 24 hours and call it a day. I think Fram is way too block-happy in general and this is no exception. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kww: The last 3 diffs Fram provided were on his own talk page, I assumed they were the majority of the reasoning behind the block. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I interpreted the last 3 diffs as simply more evidence that Eric didn't think the first one was a problem.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (e/c)Beer is good. So, is a month off in summer. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excessive - 24 hours to cool off, maybe. A month? Absurd. I'm a little unsure why the blocker still has access to a block button, actually, but that's another matter for another day... Carrite (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find myself in the happy position of endorsing Keifer W. The block was needed, Eric expected it, and 48 hours is more than enough time. Actually it was "out of character" for Eric as he ended up with "you're an arse hat" commentary, rather than "your edits are a bunch of arse hat"; which has a fine though important distinction. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I know that. What are you moaning about now? I thought you wanted a 24 hour block - I'm not adverse to that either. Or has your utter hatred of me taken over your senses once again? Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I don't disagree with the rationale for the block. By principle, we should be enforcing our conduct policies as they are written. However, I think a month is slightly over-the-top, and ideally, should be reduced. Signalizing (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Awfully good block, excessively overdue - Has anyone ever compiled statistics on how many times MF/EC has called someone an idiot or an asshole? How many editors have simply walked away after one of his childish tirades? While I would like to think that a month long block will cause him to reflect and mend his ways, that will surely never happen because of the enabling "devils advocates" who consistently disregard the fourth pillar because of some vague, single-minded goal of building the encyclopedia at any cost. Sheesh indeed; he should be banned. - MrX 20:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block. MrX summarises nicely. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unblock Excessive and punitive. Writegeist has it, too many children here spending too much time looking for something to be easily offended about. J3Mrs (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bullshit block Civility policy? How about blocking policy? "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" (my emph.) This is a punitive block, plain and simple. A period of 12-24 hours to cool off and step away from the vehicle should have sufficed. I'm disgusted that Eric has been blocked for a month when genuinely disruptive, sock puppeting vandals get less. Supporters should be fucking ashamed of themselves. Of course, they actually won't be, wrapped up as they are in some kind of smug assholery because they nailed the boogeyman. Re: proposal to block Doc, I object to Doc being blocked because the incident has passed! Why initiate yet another non-preventative, purely punitive block? Keri (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC) (EC)[reply]
      • Good block Chronic incivility is unacceptable and it does damage the project by causing decent editors to lose interest. On a side note, the "smug assholery" comment above doesn't exactly elevate the level of civility in this discussion, but I did find it creatively amusing. Taroaldo ✉ 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support block. Nobody should get a pass on basic civility towards other editors. The length of the block is not unreasonable. user:j (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excessive block. Yes, civility matters. But we all too easily get into double standard territory when we block for mild cusswords like "asshole" and let snark pass. And the way I read it, Eric's been doing yeoman work at that Visual Editor Feedback page recognizing the good idea and reporting problems in the implementation (while most of us have run screaming). Yes, he has appallingly little patience when he thinks someone's being stupid. Yes, some of us manage to write the encyclopedia without blowing our tops all the time ... but then I for one get poked a lot less, probably in part because I have never played in the FA big leagues and have made a lot more stupid errors myself :-) (And in any case he's mellowed recently, until today. Yet this block is far beyond recent blocks on his previous account.) The bottom line is not, in my opinion, trying to weigh his contributions against others', it's whether this was a preventative block. I think it was way too long and we're seeing the result in terms of fuss and lost edits in more valuable places ... including that horrible Visual Editor Feedback page. Shorten to one week max. Better yet 48 hours, the length of his last delimited block, which was rapidly undone. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a certain amount of respect for Eric, but there's no denying that he crosses the line from time to time. He is responsible for his actions, but those who bait him are not without fault and neither are his friends who immediately rush to his defense at all times and ridicule anyone who dares to suggest that Eric could ever do anything block-worthy. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block. When an experienced editor starts acting like that, they need a wikibreak, either voluntary or forced. If I were to start doing that, my expectation, even without the sort of history that Eric has with civility problems, would be that I would be blocked for a good couple weeks, and I'd be grateful that I was given time to let those contentious matters get resolved without all the opportunity to further shoot myself in the foot. A month is neither excessive, nor punitive, it is an opportunity for stuff to resolve and let Eric examine what he actually wants to do around here. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 00:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stupid, pointless, excessive block. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Block length excessive I see both sides on this issue, and readily admit that I really wish that Eric would restrain his insults. But it seems clear to me that there are many editors here who delight in taunting him, and seem to hope that he will leave this project. Instead, I hope that he will stay here, as his contributions to the encyclopedia have been monumental. When I summoned up the courage to ask him to help me bring an article to GA status, he was gracious, incredibly helpful and kind to me when I succeeded. To his detractors, I would ask, do we want to lose this great contributor? To Eric, I would say, why do I have to summon up courage to interact with you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The block itself is valid, with so many personal attacks made in one day. However, I don't believe the one-month duration is necessary under the circumstances. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal

      A month may seem excessive in retrospect. There is absolutely no reason to bite the newbies and/or respond like this to a third party. Doc's actions alone were not great, but taking away those interactions still leaves Corbett calling Timeshifter an "asshole" first, getting warned by a third party, and announcing "Since when was calling an asshole an asshole a crime?" [15] And we don't even have to go 24 hours before another instance occurs with, "You write like a ten-year-old, time for you to fuck off now."[16] This is completely unacceptable. This is a singular case, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, but the effect on the community is indeed great. Content production should not allow such actions to be tolerable. I'll take some heat for this, but if Corbett agrees to abide by NPA for a month, which includes no derogatory comments or "fuck offs", unblock him. The supporters of the block want the behavior to stop, and the opposers think it is excessive, but we all agree that the civility issue exists. Give a good amount of rope and see what Corbett does with it. Fram's block should have sent a strong message, but a conditional unblock would be appropriate. Also, Corbett should report or remove the baiting comments without attacks themselves, civility cuts both ways. Provokers aught to get the same action; more so if the intention is to harass Corbett into a block. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hear hear. --John (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excessive? What reason do you have to believe that there will be a new and different Eric Corbett in 32 days? If anything, a month is inadequate. Eric should be blocked until we have a credible reason to believe that the misbehaviour will stop, not for a month, but permanently.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If there were some topic ban that could be imposed which would allow Eric to get on with article work without this sort of drama, then I would say impose that topic ban and unblock him right away. Unfortunately, there is no topic ban I can imagine that would fix this problem: Eric reverts someone with an edit summary they end up disliking, then they come to his talk page asking a question about it without being aware of his "special status" where they're supposed to walk away when he treats those asking such questions with snide contempt. It's not like a topic ban can realistically ban him from replying to things on his own talk page; and previous attempts to encourage him to change how he replies to things on his own talk page have failed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is already just such a topic ban: it's called WP:NPA; and if Eric wants to get on with his (extremely valuable) article work without this sort of drama that choice is open to him, and always has been. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Kww doesn't think anyone can change and if you screw up even a little, you should be infinitely blocked. Someone should IAR and indef him for the good of the project. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I have never said that, and it misrepresents my views completely. What sign do you see that Eric is both willing and able to change after five years of being frequently blocked for this problem?—Kww(talk) 18:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A month is not excessive at all. I would have supported a community ban. Like Kww says, it's reasonable to assume that Eric will continue his long history of uncivil behavior once this block runs out. Behavior like his drives other good editors away from the project. They don't come here for abuse, and shouldn't be subjected to it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And have you ever bothered to look into the history of abuse Eric has taken from other editors? I don't know which way around it started, but put it this way: he's taken just as much abuse as he's given out, and probably more. Even in this very thread, an example of such abuse, completely unwarranted, is shown. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rest assured, I would also vote to block or ban them as well if they have been abusive as Eric has, should a proposal were brought here. The fact that he has recieved abuse as well does not excuse his behavior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's face it, an Eric who calls someone an asshole occasionally is still far more of a positive to the encyclopedia that the vast majority of our editors, myself and many commenting here included. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that seems to imply that you can be uncivil as long as you are productive; I'm not going to endorse my work or anyone's work as being "better" than anyone elses. If did 30-40 GA or FA, does that give anyone immunity or wide latitude to be ornery and rude? I say no. I much rather have an admission that Eric try to restrain such comments and deal with them as other experienced members of the community should. A slip up here and there is one thing; to err is human, but it seems as if the community will tolerate such behavior as long as the editor is productive and valuable for content matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but a month's block for a civility issue that would have gained a completely unexceptional 24h block from practically anyone else is a net negative. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has become obvious that incivility is perfectly acceptable as long as the person being uncivil has a lot of friends. Of course, there is exception to that rule for administrators, who must either behave perfectly at all times or else be immediately de-sysopped. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You earned an achievement! Secret Rules. — Scott • talk 22:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I generally agree with John; this block is heavy-handed at the very least. We all know Eric, we know that he does not suffer impudence gladly, and are we all really that thin-skinned? If I threw a fit every time someone called me some name, I'd be in a padded cell by now. Sticks and stones, and all that. And yes, this does imply that you can hurl the occasional a-word or f-word if you're productive. Find me a project worth pursuing that progresses with no acrimony or argument. My two cents. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any objection to Doc9871 being blocked for a few days ? Nick (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If its not too much, could you retract or re-word the second part of your statement? Let's not feed the fire. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you really think referring to editors who object to incivility as "juvenile idiots" is making a useful contribution to this discussion? How does the childish name-calling help further the development of this project? Taroaldo ✉ 00:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That sentence of my post was written facetiously. I don't at all believe those who object to Eric's behavior are "juvenile idiots", rather I was suggesting that some of Eric's friends hold that viewpoint. I was also attempting to point out the inconsistency of how Eric's supporters will ridicule those who complain about his behavior and then complain themselves when others are rude to Eric. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not that I'm a "friend" of Eric's (unfortunately, none of my friends edit Wikipedia, and they think it's a silly hobby of mine), but as someone who thinks and has expressed that Eric's block was excessive, I agree that it would be neither necessary nor helpful to block Doc9871 for his banter (at best) or baiting (at worst) on Eric's talk page. Two wrongs won't make a right. If Doc doesn't understand how his posts helped escalate the situation, that is a pity, but he won't understand it any better just by being blocked. The solution to this whole mess is to stop blocking regular no-nonsense content contributors, not to block even more of them. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Seeing as it's been several hours, a block is probably not that helpful, but if it happens again that's probably grounds for a block. --Rschen7754 02:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately support original block, including length. Normally, I'd see no reason to participate in a discussion about who said what and who blocked whom when I'm not involved. But this looks like one of those instances where sooner or later someone will try to divine "consensus" by counting noses, and so here's my nose.
      I think it's important that we have some civility norms on the project. I'm not sure exactly what those norms should be, and due to (sub)cultural differences they are hard to agree on. But it's pretty clear this type of outburst is beyond the pale. If it were an isolated occurrence, we could all just politely move on. But it's not an isolated occurrence for Eric. And if it continues to be tolerated for Really Productive Writers like Eric, then that will make the boundaries of what is tolerable for the community as a whole more porous.
      That leaves the question of appropriate block length. Blocks of a day or so have clearly made little difference in Eric's behaviour. The most pessimistic interpretation is that Eric might just be unable to brush off criticism, deserved or undeserved, without turning into a roaring dragon. Unfortunately, in that case sooner or later we will need to remove him from the community permanently, since he and we are unable to function productively. The more optimistic interpretation is that in other environments Eric is able to handle himself much better, in which case this is a problem of our own making: we have trained Eric that this type of interaction is acceptable for him. In this case, we need to change our response. A lengthier block, during which Eric can decide if he wants to engage here on different terms than before, is unfortunately likely the best option to try.
      I am reminded of a technical group I managed several years ago. We were a well functioning team and brought in a genius new team member, who had some real behavioural issues. Unfortunately, I tolerated his antics, giving him only weak chastisements. Since he was getting away with bad behaviour, team norms degenerated significantly. Eventually, I had to let him go, but it took months for team norms and morale to recover. Meanwhile, he went to the competition, where he tried the same sorts of antics. The wiser manager there intervened much more conclusively, and the fellow -- a very smart chap -- quickly realized what the real boundaries were and cleaned up his act. The competition got some really good work from him that could have been ours had I had a bit more backbone. Martinp (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I wish I'd said something half as articulate during the last ArbCom matter that referenced his behavior. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What a disgustingly patronising and twee little homily, Martin. I nearly lost my breakfast. --John (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposed block of Giano

      This is never going to gain traction, and is merely more heat than light
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

      Giano is entitled to his opinion that this is not a good block. However, he is not entitled to belittle admins or refer to those who hold an opposing view as "nonentities". Therefore, I'm proposing a block of Giano for a minimum of 24 hours. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think you will find that I am entitled to "belittle" ridiculous, little Admins, and that also you are quite pointless.  Giano  18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "ridiculous, little admins" is a matter of opinion and your vendetta against all admins (which is how I see it) is quite pointless. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I can only offer up that well known prayer "May God preserve us from 19-year-olds of the "Christian Baptist persuasion."  Giano  19:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What does my age or religious belief have to do with my taking offense at your stereotyping of anyone who dares to disagree with Eric Corbett? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I am merely praying dear boy - do Baptists deny me this right?  Giano  19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you mind answering the question? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I would mind. I am deep in prayer. Please respect that.  Giano  19:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Giano is indeed entitled to belittle admins and anyone he so chooses to belittle. He is the original unblockable. --Conti|✉ 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe so, but even the most unblockable editor shouldn't be allowed to get away with deriding someone because of his age and beliefs. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You're getting just a little tedious now Automatic! I can't be blocked because I have only spoken fact. I am a great admirer of Baptists and the young and also a great admirer of those who encourage the freedom of speech. I just cannot admire the narrow minded and mealy mouthed (which I am sure you're not). Now Eric actually writes the encyclopedia, most of those commenting and glorying in his block do not. Now that is a cast iron fact - so put it in your pipe and smoke it!  Giano  19:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Pish posh, mish mosh, trick-a-dilly doo. You might as well stop now. No one is going to listen to you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Bbb23 makes a lot of sense in his comment here. I'm pretty tired of history repeating itself. Eric is who he is, either we just ignore what is considered "incivility" on his behalf or we ban him completely. Blocking him for a month I can't see how anything benefits from that. We know that blocking him for any duration will never change Eric, he is who he is. I understand the feeling behind "he can't call somebody an asshole and get away with it" but reacting to him is probably the most unproductive thing you can do. It basically comes down to content vs civility, which is more important. My answer would be, given what Eric contributes to wikipedia, that he is a net plus so the best thing would be to simply ignore him or remove his comments if you consider them offensive, and if he can't accept admins removing personal attacks then a 24 hr block might be warranted. This really isn't the way to deal with this, and meanwhile we lose out on his editing for an entire month.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody is that important to the project. A lot of people would be willing to put in more time and effort if there wasn't so much incivility and combativeness around, so "losing out" on incivil editors' edits won't be any loss at all. If this were a project management team meeting live around a real table every day, how long do you think incivility like this would be tolerated? Taroaldo ✉ 00:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Giano, especially inspired following his period of prayer and reflection mentioned above, has made a very interesting suggestion about a way forward that would allow Eric to continue working with people that wish to work with him to improve articles, while also avoiding many or most of the problems that have been seen along the way. Worth serious consideration. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is an outside comment. It is said that Eric contributes constructively to Wikipedia, which is true. But the question of content vs. civility is a false dichotomy. An editor who contributes to Wikipedia but who drives away other editors by incivility may have a net negative effect by discouraging other editors from contributing positively to Wikipedia. I don't want to get involved in the length of the block, except to say that incivility has its own negative effect on content by discouraging editors who are looking for the environment that Wikipedia policies dictate. We should not overlook the fact that uncivil editors, if they have a long history of being uncivil after repeatedly being warned, cause other editors to go away. Is that what we want? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Eric warned me, but has always been helpful, friendly and gentle - to me. Think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well if he's always been nice to you, that's all that matters then, I guess? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What Robert said. --Jayron32 23:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, but I see lots of claims that Eric is chasing away editors, but I've not seen the editors that were chased away. And a good part of my day is dealing with disgruntled editors via WP:WER. I get tons of email from frustrated editors every week. None of them mention Eric. Just because someone says "Eric is chasing away editors" does not mean it is true, and it isn't. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it more true. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh jeez freakin christ, is it stupid season among the admins? So soon again? Didn't we just have this? There've been (at least) two idiotic blocks in the past 24 hrs (Eric and Kiefer, by Kww). And there's still twits running around with blood/block lust.Volunteer Marek 00:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      blocking help please

      And the WP:BOOMERANG strikes again. My head hurts from trying to read their talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Can I have the Users "Amaury" and "117Avenue" for mass re-editing and bots or sock puppetry? I'm not too good at admin stuff, is this the correct place to post? Fatum81 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry but this user is also BLANK-ing my speeches about Canada Political Affairs of current amendments. Please block "Hwy43" I mean where is there a Highway 43 in Ontario, Canada? He doesn't seem to be a valid citizen of Alberta, Canada and does not have a passport here. I can look it up but he doesn't have a tax return and owes money to the government for past wages un-declared. Fatum81 (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I strongly recommend you quickly either retract this complaint or try to reword it into something that makes sense, and mind those boomerangs that are flying about here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, what can I say, apparently the boomerang was faster. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This complaint is frivolous and I blocked Fatum81 (talk · contribs) and his IP 24.141.16.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for harassment of the named editors. Beyond incompressible communications he is also edit warring on user talk pages. Hopefully 24 hours will be enough of a cool-down. He has made an unblock request—maybe someone can understand what he is saying, I can't. NrDg 07:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      He removed his unblock request and is now making WP:legal threats [17]. I can't really take this too seriously given his communication skills but others may wish to evaluate this. NrDg 07:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Indef, talkpage access blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=562953148"