Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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) Start a new discussion

Disruptive template replacements

• Discussion moved from WP:ANI, as this is the more proper place for a community ban discussion, which this has now become. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

174.3.121.27 (talk) has nominated Template:Blockquote for deletion but has not awaited a consensus for deletion before embarking on a campaign to replace it everywhere.

The most obvious consequence of the replacement is that footnote markers (the figures marking and linking citations) following the blockquote are being displaced a line, indented and preceded by an empty underscore (example). (I have checked this on both Firefox and IE.) The user is claiming that "the reference is supposed to placed in that area", and apparently thinks that the footnote has to be on a line of its own, rather than immediately after the quote, to "cite the whole quote, not just a word or sentence". I would think that the indentation of a blockquote as a whole pretty much makes it obvious that it all comes from the same source. Quotation marks play the same role for shorter quotes. These are generally accepted conventions understood by all educated (and probably most uneducated) readers, and there is no need to reinvent a new and inferior wheel.

174.3.121.27 seems to be following his/her own rather idiosyncratic views of how citations should look and seems determined to create a de facto situation before anyone else has had the chance to interfer. --Hegvald (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning; he carried on, at high speed, so he needs a block now. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Ale jrb for 24h. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but its more than past time. Said IP is highly likely to be yet another IP sock of 100110100 (talk · contribs), who was given free reign to continue socking despite his real account being indef blocked. He's pulled this with multiple other templates, including {{Otheruses4}} which he stripped from hundreds of articles then tried to have deleted. In those cases, he mostly got support and encouragement, despite it being well known he was a banned user violating his ban, so it is not unsurprising that he keeps right on doing it. He's already been here multiple times, with adminis generally deciding "eh, he isn't doing anything too bad". I gave another editor wondering about him a good summary in my talk[1]. Perhaps now folks might consider actually dealing with this on a more long term basis. He's gotten 24 hour blocks before on some of his previous IPs. They didn't do anymore than this one will, and 10 to 2-, he'll be back within days, if not hours, on yet another IP because its been made clear that, in his case, banned does not mean banned.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, yes. This one is a piece of work. This is not the first campaign of dubious cleanup he's embarked on - the Talk page of his prior IP, here, is instructive on that score. This problem has been begging for a solution. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this user - esp. the 174.3.123.220 variety - should be blocked for a long time. He's had AGF+many chances, even after prior blocks. He's taken up far too much time from all of us, admins. included.

Incivility, taciturn - yet time to discuss shopping, jumping around WP reference sites - to troll, does just enough replies & ESs to deflect accusations of not compromising, very chequered history (so is tech-savvy), anon. IP despite > 4,000 edits in 6 weeks, made 18 edits of templates, trivial edits - to irritate rather than improve, just out to push the boundaries, for devilment?

No sense of Consensus or what Collaboration means. Loose cannon? No user page. Asked many times to provide ESs. He just has an axe to grind.

Surely we've all had enough? This user's block (& range?) needs extending - he's not for turning. Trafford09 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ok. We have an indef blocked user that is continuing to disruptively sock/edit via IPs. Sounds like the next step is to upgrade the indefinite block to an official site-ban. That'll make it much easier to do the official steps needed for dealing with the shifting IPs, revert on sight, etc.. So, are we ready to turn this into an actual ban discussion? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Official site-ban? Absolutely. Trafford09 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly support, of course. He was indef banned initially for a wide range of issues, including wikhounding and what seems to have been the final straw (death threats), and he has basically skirted the ban ever since and continued with the same sorts of issues, including continued wikihounding myself, and I believe several others, through his various IPs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of history here and it might be helpful to understand it at least in its broad strokes so that the discussion here is at less risk of being sidetracked by old issues that could be thrown in like chum. Anma's Talk page discussion, to which she previously linked (here it is again), is a good place to get started. JohnInDC (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:100110100 - Community ban proposal

Looking through the various links provided above, we have a long term indef-blocked user, who appears to have, at no point, shown any intention of respecting the block. They have continued to edit, often disruptively, despite the blocks. Even a well meant mentoring attempt earlier this year failed to turn this user into an asset to the project. So I would like to propose that User:100110100, whatever account or IP he may decide to edit under, be officially declared community-banned. This will make it much easier administratively to block his varied IPs, and to revert on sight his edits. It will also send a clear message, once and for all, that he is no longer welcome on the project.

• Support - as the one proposing this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - editor is disruptive and doesn't seem to understand this. Can we do an IP range block? Yworo (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a community ban is an administrative measure, not a technical one. The feasibility of a rangeblock is really an independent issue, depending on the size of the range he uses and the likelihood of collateral damage. A ban would make it easier administratively to apply such blocks, but the technical feasibility of a range block is really a totally separate issue. We have banned users who have such wide ranges of IPs available to them that range blocks are totally out of the question. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Given the IPs I've seen, it might be doable, but I understand it's a technical issue separate from the administrative issue. Yworo (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as one he has wikihounded with his various IPs - also suggest a check user to find and tag all IPs he's hit under (if possible) and if a range block is also possible -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's kinda pointless. Checkuser is the ability to see the IPs behind an account. In this case, there's no real indication that he is using accounts to sock, just IPs. So we can already see all the information that a checkuser is able to return. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He seems to change IPs every few weeks, and I suspect many have been missed between the ones noted here. If what we have here is enough to evaluate a possible range block, as part of the ban (as he has made it clear he will not obey any block/ban on him from the current history), that's fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This user has made some sound edits, but he leaves a path of confusion and hard feelings in his wake through his inexplicable and idiosyncratic personal editoral campaigns combined with a determined refusal to engage in useful dialogue. He is persistent and unrepentant and it is asking too much of other editors to follow him around to make sure he doesn't break things. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The user is disruptive, time-consuming for all concerned, unresponsive - ploughing a lone furrow wearing earmuffs. I think that one of his user pages (the only one I've found that shows any views he has or standards he holds dear) sums up the character best here, along with the cryptic user no. (not name) that he used. I'm at a loss to tell the percentage mix of his behavioural causes. They seem to be some combination of cleverness, technical & Wikipedia know-how, obstinacy, insensitivity, boredom, vindictiveness & mischief. He either can't, or - I'm afraid - won't, control his behaviour, let alone discuss it. He has too much time on his hands & a personality disorder, for which Wikipedia somehow serves as an outlet - his problem & sadly ours too. Enough's enough. My other concern would be wp:Deny recognition. Trafford09 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. his repeated crusades against completely harmless things only really have two rational explanations: (1) he has no concept of what's important, or (2) he's trolling. In either case he's persistently demonstrated that he's unwilling to change despite the fact that his behaviour is unambiguously disruptive and causes widespread bad feeling. Hence, Wikipedia is better off without his contributions. ~ mazca ^talk 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. He's apparently a timesink; I'd say: 'good riddance'. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. OpenTheWindows, sir! 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment admin User:Frazzydee seems to have extensive interactions with this user, I notified him/her about this discussion. Sole Soul (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• If the edits I reported (above) are typical, as appears to be the case, and the user has made death threats in addition to that, I see no reason to object to this. (Not an administrator, but neither are all the other people who have commented here are, as far as I can tell.) --Hegvald (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

CAT:SD

Currently 165 articles tagged for speedy deletion (was 158 when I got there). A hand taking a look would be appreciated. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, most of those talk pages should have been dealt with by 7SeriesBOT I should think - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the original 7SeriesBOT is shutdown while the new code is in test mode ... and I'm merely waiting for the final go-ahead to re-enable actual deletion by him...was probably due by now! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is about WildBot again, I think it should really gather its findings on a centralized page in user- or projectspace where it could update the list itself instead of spamming CAT:SD every time a request has been handled. Jafeluv (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, WildBot does its job well - that's the whole reason a "clean up" bot was created ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Need admin closure

Resolved

Of course, now the fireworks will begin.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been archived twice with no response. Can someone please help?

Can an admin please look at the discussion at the talk page of Occupied Palestinian Territory regarding the proposed merge to Palestinian territories? The discussion is mainly several months old but was never closed, and the merge was never completed. Since it is quite controversial and I foresee objections, I'd appreciate if an admin would close the discussion and gage consensus rather than do it myself and go ahead with the merge on my own. Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: there is also a small discussion of the merge here. Breein1007 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

For those involved regularly in WP:RM

I started a discussion about some minor topic (relisting) at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Relisted discussions. Since this is almost only an admin area, I'd be happy to hear some comments. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Giano

I am closing this discussion as clearly rejected. Further discussion will not help in any way. Wikipedia is for writing articles, not for pursuing feuds. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

I propose Giano be community banned, or at least indeff blocked until a satisfactory Giano specific dispute resolution framework is initiated. I assert that right minded editors have had enough of the situation where he has the evident freedom to do and say things that others editors simply cannot, and that most admins will simply not go near him with a block unless he commits cyber suicide himself, and commits an offence so blatant, it would be moot as to whether he is getting special treatment or not. His behaviour is frequently destructive, demoralising, and down-right divisive, not least when he thinks he is fighting for the greater good or the body politic, and because he knows he has wide lattitude, without a framework, it is not going to stop anytime soon. The project has wasted too much time, and too many words, pretending this is not a real phenomenom, with real consequences. The ban proposal is based on the long term pattern of behaviour, but the latest example of how Giano is treated differently was the recent campaign against Treasury Tag, calling him over a 24 hour period, an 'odious harassing bully' (and per policy and simple common sense, nay decency, it is totally irrelevant whether he is one or not btw, before anyone goes down that route) He was warned by an admin, and he not only rejected that warning, he restored the last attack. So he was blocked, for personal attacks and the restoration thereof, and then after two hours, he was unilaterally unblocked, on the apparent rationale that there is no point blocking Giano. Some people have suggested that these latest acts were not blockable, but I don't believe that one bit, and I think that the prevailing opinion among right minded editors is that they are, routinely, when the perpetrator is not Giano, and for good reasons. But whether you think of yourself as some Wikipedia anti-hero, whether you wish a plague on all the admin's houses, or whether you just have a more relaxed outlook on life, it's basic fact that such behaviour is not, and never will be, part of effective dispute resolution. Infact, I find it a bit rich that what caused this sustained tirade, was Giano's claim that Wikipedia was tolerating harassment and bullying of another editor. Others have even suggested Giano can do what he likes in this case, as he was exposing The Truth. If people want the project to be run that way, well, good luck to you, but I think most do not, and would rather leave than put up with it. Despite wishing it to succeed, I fully expect this ban proposal to fail, and my preferred solution is an arbitration case to examine the defacto situation, per the section on ANI. But it has been suggested there that this is the more appropriate avenue first. So here we are. And for the purposes of progressing that case, if you respond here, please indicate whether or not you are an admin. MickMacNee (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. The note if you are an admin bit is for the impending arbitration case, it has nothing to do with the ban discussion. I am well aware of how community bans work, and am not asking for it to be decided by a consensus of admins. It just makes my life easier in filing the case later, as that will revolve around the views and actions of admins alone. See the ANI post for further details. I hope this clears that up. And for the record, I am as calm as a millpond, and if people want me to withdraw and repost this proposal in a weeks time, I can and I will, because my views won't have changed in that time. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) P.P.S to clarify the expectation of it failing comment, that's just my natural cynicism, part of the general disbelief that the phenomenon has been allowed to develop in the first place. Consider it redacted if it helps anyone in believing this is a real ban proposal. I am not here to waste anybody's time, and if it succeeds, it saves me time in filing the arbitration case. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Giano has thrice tried to remove this thread, with a strong PA on the first go. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support as initiator. MickMacNee (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) (per your request, I indicate that I am not an admin) I think you are wasting other people's and your own time. I also think you sound quite angry, and therefore should perhaps revisit this issue in a week. According to your assertion I do not qualify as right-minded, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I am an admin. Giacomo "gets away with it" because there is too much effort and time wasted in trying to have him blocked for behaviour that is ignored when done by other accounts of similar experience and content contribution, that such issues are routinely rebuffed by the community (you know, that majority that doesn't fit in with your "right thinking editor" grouping), that most blocks placed are lacking in consensus, discussion, or admin availability. That is why. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) ps. When taking this to ArbCom, I really suggest that you review my rationale and subsequent comments and try to more accurately reflect my reasoning. Support (and I am an admin, but one who mostly observes the drama instead of getting knee-deep in it). The bottom line is whether this encyclopedia incurs a net benefit or net deficit with him as a contributing editor or not. I assert that despite his positive contributions, the collective effort expended by multiple editors during the (sadly) too-frequent episodes of drama is excessive, and holds back the communities' efforts to build the encyclopedia. Every minute wasted on debating his blocks and unblocks, his civility, etc. is one less minute spent on article writing or maintenance. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support He is playing you for fools. Leaky Caldron 23:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support I doubt very much that I am the only one who rolls his eyes whenever Giano appears on ANI, which is far too frequently. Resolute 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support for his latest action alone. When a user posts a ban thread about you, you are not allowed to revert it. You are certainly not allowed to revert it three times. Also support a trout for MZMcBride, for reverting the thread another three times (while cautioning other users about edit warring!). The WordsmithCommunicate 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose. Quite apart from his outstanding record of content contributions (isn't this what we are supposed to be doing around here?), Giano is one of the few people here who has enough character, humanity, sanity and integrity to call a spade a spade. We need more of that, not less. Note that a community ban is imposed by a broad selection of community members, not the admin community. I see no indication in Wikipedia:Community_ban#Community_bans_and_restrictions that any admin's word should carry more weight in a community ban decision than that of any other member in the community, so I will not comply with your request. --JN466 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Comment on this last point (only) - yes, community bans and restrictions are decided by the community writ large. Administrators are often an integral part of these discussions, but all editors' relevant comments are considered and weighted in reviewing consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose, Mick needs to calm down and stop misusing these boards to pursue his grudge. I do not understand why Mick has asked editors to indicate whether or not they are admins (though in case anyone is in any doubt, I am not now, nor have I ever been or wanted to be, an admin). DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) As a general comment (without commenting on the specific ban proposal), I'm not sure what the point is putting forth a proposal you know will fail. It just seems to be be designed to create a lot of drama and make a point, two reasons why I would think we wouldn't make threads like this. Revaluation (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I pretty much pointed him here and said to do this as an alternative to the by-now pointless ANI thread; there was some risk that this would actually happen. I don't believe it's guaranteed to fail, though I suspect so. I am concerned that it's going to degenerate and that it was phrased in a more confrontational manner to start with than is best practice. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support - I was on the fence. I thought LessHeardVanU's unblock was ill advised and added more noise than light, but I was willing to give Giano some degree of benefit of the doubt...but then I see the attempts to remove this thread including uncivil comments/personal attacks. Giano just doesn't get it, and he clearly never will. Lets stop wasting community time on him. (And I'm most definitely not an admin) --Narson ~ Talk • 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Without commenting on the ban, when's the last time Giano has written a quality article? 2005? Most of the good ones I find from him are from the early days of the site, nothing from the past couple years. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I will tolerate so much rubish, but not this: So far in the last month there has been two quite big pages, one with a plan which took 2 weeks to make and a few stubs to keep them comapany. Perhaps you are not looking at Wikipedia.  Giacomo  23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have, we just edit in different areas so I haven't seen them. Thanks for answering. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) User contributions are a fair guide; these are from mid May before the recent round of drama - click on the "next oldest" and see what Giacomo does when not embroiled on these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Strong Support - To hell with what one editor above called his "outstanding record of content contributions", the problems he creates make those contributions moot. You could have someone be a continuous GA/FA article contributor, but if he is violating every rule in the book, it doesn't matter, that user would need to go too. Same with Giano...he has been the subject of countless AN and ANI threads, shamelessly violated every rule in the book and not been punished for it. Time he is punt kicked and banhammered like he should. If he can shape up and act right, then he can always use the unblock template, but for now, he needs to go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Certainly not, and I take exception to the nebulous assertion that anyone who disagrees with your proposal is not right minded. Perhaps those who disagree (clearly imbalanced!) should be shuffled off the project too? In fact MickMackNee, while you assert that Giano is a bully and engages in harassment, this bears the hallmarks of those traits. Giano's been accused of harassment and bullying, but I must be getting double vision because that seems to be what's happening here. But as Giano baiting seems to be one of Wikipedia's favoured past times I'm sure you have no need to fear repercussions. Nev1 (talk) [no longer an admin] 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Strong oppose On the basis that this is a malformed request. Using the phrase "right-minded editors" is anti-wiki, patronising and insulting. Just participating is bad enough because it lends credibility to this nonsense, but I just wanted to voice my opinion. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Not only does his benefits outweigh his problems, but if these 'violations' are tolerated they are not 'violations' at all- site policy can and does lag somewhat behind community consensus, and is descriptive of that consensus, not proscriptive of our actions. Also, the subtle charge that those who value Giano's quality contribution are some how not 'right minded' is just, well, insulting. You might need to take a wikibreak my friend, this seems to have tipped into WP:BATTLE for you. --Mask? 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support Given what Gwen mentioned above about Giano trying to unilaterally terminate this discussion before it began--and throwing in a PA in the process--I'd have to say he's now deliberately flaunting process. A line has to be drawn at some point, and the massive COI in his attempt to suppress the discussion here has to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose A bloo bloo bloo Giano was mean to me. In my experience Giano never starts trouble unless provoked. If you don't like him, avoid him, as he rarely edits outside of his interests around here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I never got involved until he was unblocked, and the proposal is certainly not in reaction to anything he's ever said to me. And as far as I can see in the latest incident that led to his block, it was Giano who went looking for TT, not the other way around. MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) But TT went after RAN TT gave the impression of going after RAN, and Giano was defending a fellow content contributor who was by no means as well-equipped to deal with the harassment. I see nobody has been sanctioned for that. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Pardon me butting in, but that is a lie. I did not "go after" anybody, and the reason nobody was sanctioned for harassment is that there was no harassment. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 08:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Excuse me for being equally blunt, but your denial is the lie. However, I'll refactor my shorthand for the sake of clarity. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The problem is, that making an assertion such as that without justifying it is slanderous [not a legal threat, just an adjective] and unhelpful to the discussion. Thanks for your refactoring, but my denial is the absolute truth. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It is a common tactic to dissociate the cause of Giano's outburst by claiming that "it is not helpful". As for your denial, you will understand that unfavourable commentary is not slander when it is true - and in this case your denial is untrue. No "right-minded" editor could look at the list of 105 of RAN's files that you proposed for deletion and the number of articles and user pages that he created without concluding that you were going after him. I've yet to see even an acknowledgement from you that your actions were inappropriate. That's the least you could do if you want others to believe you had decent intentions. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It is not untrue (perhaps you are confusing 'truth' with 'belief'), and numerous "right-minded" editors have looked at the situation and agree with me that, while I may not have handled things in the best possible way, I was acting entirely in good faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you are also confusing truth with belief. Everybody agrees that you did not handle things in the best possible way - however, most "right-minded" editors really can't see any way you could have handled them worse. It's going to take some expression of regret from you for the distress caused to RAN by proposing deletion of 120+ of the articles and files he has worked on, before others are going to accept your assertion that you were "acting entirely in good faith". --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I am expressing no regret further than I already have, because I feel none and I don't believe in insincere apologies. I was acting entirely in good faith and any assertion to the contrary is an insult without any basis in fact. I will not be engaging in further discussion with you about this. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) As you wish. I'll leave it for others to decide at the Arbitration case whether your harassment of RAN has any basis in fact. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Well yes, I did say Giano would likely get support simply because he was exposing The Truth in that particular incident, and you can see my views on that. MickMacNee (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I assert that right minded editors have had enough; so there. Bielle (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I read the proposal, and did not find any single difference of Giano own contributions that could have confirmed that the ban is the only option. Community ban of such contributor as Giano is way too serious decision to support it based only on the talking. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Not seeing anything worth doing a community ban over at all. Block log isn't nearly as bad as some others, and almost all the blocks seem to have been overturned as either incorrect or per further evaluation and discussion. We have far more editors who are not good contributors and who are far worse in terms of civility and violating policies than the few incidents pointed to here, and said editors are even praised for some of their mess. I suspect Giano is *gasp* human, and sometimes loses his temper but seems to not be a constant, on-going thing and most incidents seem provoked more than anything. Ban should be a last resort, and I just don't see that all options have really been exhausted on addressing any issues here. And no, I'm not an admin and am unlikely ever to be one.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support. The repeated pattern of inappropriate behavior is non-constructive, and toxic to the community and the project. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Cirt, with all due respect, I prefer Giano's alleged toxicity over TT's reign of error any time. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) One issue at a time. Let's not compare. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oh but we must. Because we must provide context. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Too many crocodile tears. The man hours wasted on these endeavours are depressingly huge. David D. (Talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I find the proposal strong in assertions (not to mention the assumption those who disagree are not right minded) and astonishingly weak in evidence. Where are the diffs?. Once we start banning editors on heresay, speculation and one side of the story, we really will have created the two-tier wikipedia that Giano believes already exists. Ban him like this and you prove his point more effectively than anything he could do himself. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support. A sustained and repeated pattern of brazenly disruptive behavior should not be tolerated. The attempt to remove this thread was, in and of itself, worthy of a longish block. Nsk92 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. What an incredibly stupid and dishonest idea. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Presumably because I haven't listed the hundred and one times you have been victim of far far worse attacks with no action on the perpetrators, and how that means the Wikipedia should simply be a free for all and that anybody should be able to say anything to anybody. That sort of dishonesty? Or the sort of dishonesty where you don't reveal your stance that you hold all admins in utter contempt, meaning that any discussion of the issue of whether any admin is or isn't treating Giano as a special case, is moot, because they are all lying cheating bastards and that stringing up is too good for any of them? That sort of honesty? To say that you have a massive chip on your shoulder about Wikipedia's behavioural policies would be a huge understatement frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) nope — Giano's a fine fellow if you don't poke him with a stick. This is all really ripe coming from Mick, whose last indef should have stuck. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And I didn't have to rely on the 'don't poke the bear' defence to not have to suffer that ignomy, frankly. And see above, nobody poked Giano in this case, and half the time this really is just a convenient fiction. MickMacNee (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The TT/RAN thing? Seems a noble but misplaced effort. have a cookie ;) Jack Merridew 03:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It is The Game. You have lost it. - Really, in the grand tradition of Wikipedia-as-MMORPG, "the community" has let this user (and others) get away with so much for so long that any attempt to ban now is automatically tainted by past inaction. Every new AN or AN/I thread is a regurgitation of the past. Every "this time we really mean it" is hijacked by others screaming that the procedure is just a way to exact revenge of the times in the past he's slipped through unscathed. Is Giano a dick? Absolutely. But the Wikipedia is luch, fertile ground that allows dicks to flourish, so he is a creation of all of you. Short of a Kohs-like Great Purge from on high, you're stuck with him. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose In the last three months or so I have noticed several threads regarding Giano, and I chose to have a quick look at most of them to judge for myself what was going on. It was abundantly clear that Giano was reacting to provocation (or stupidity, which per WP:COMPETENCE really disqualifies the opponent from interacting on pages of iterest to Giano). I seem to recall some comments by Giano of more than a year ago that would unambiguously be regarded as a breach of WP:CIVIL, and I used to get a bit irritated when no 24-hour block could be made to stick (that's all that was needed: one or two implemented 24-hour blocks would easily stop uncivil comments from someone as smart and as helpful as Giano). However, in recent times, the incidents that I have checked (particularly those regarding a certain now-retired admin) involved completely inappropriate baiting of Giano. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) So are you saying Giano is not in control of his actions? In which case he should be blocked immediately.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) On re-reading my comment I see that I failed to note that, in the cases I looked at, I believe Giano was not unduly uncivil. Certainly after a fair bit of poking he poked back, but I do not see anything undue. If an editor were to be uncivil to a newish editor (say by dismissing their imperfect editing attempts), I would complain about the incivility. But, in the last three or so months, I have only seen Giano engage robustly with experienced editors who should not be bothered with an open appraisal of their performance. I acknowledge that I have not studied the WP:TLDR details currently on this page, so if someone has some specific diffs to support this proposal, they should be produced. Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose silencing dissent voices. Sole Soul (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) support the community needs to actually prove that the rules apply equally.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose The nominator, User:MickMacNee, seems to regularly indulge in similar ranting behaviour and so this proposal seems too ironic to take seriously. The root cause of this drama seems to be Treasury Tag's behaviour. He has now taken to nominating articles such as Minister of State for Security for deletion - absurd proposals which receive no support at all. Our sanctions should focus on those who are not here here to build the encyclopedia, rather than those who are. Giano is a builder not a destroyer and so should be commended rather than criticised. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Quite why TT hasn't been blocked or at least severely warned for his disruptive AfD noms I don't know. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Probably because disruption requires intent, while I am acting in good faith, but feel free to open an ANI thread or an RfC about me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 10:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC) No, it's perfectly possible for a clue-lacking editor to cause disruption in good faith, and for them to be warned, blocked, or banned if they fail to acquire clue. The nom of the Minister of State for Security article can only be explained by a profound clue-failure. I hope it does not repeat itself. DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) OK, whatever you like. If you have a problem with my behaviour, muttering about it in an irrelevant thread helps nobody and nothing (except perhaps your id). ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 10:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) This is a relevant thread (in that your behaviour is part of the sequence of events that led here), and I'm not a Freudian. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Well yes, and it is odd in the whole 'so and so started it theme' at play here, where somehow Giano is blameless and he can't control himself or stop himself from making continued and sustained personal attacks because it's all TT's fault really, that people seem unwilling or unable to go one step further back in time, to the rfb/xeno2 incident. Maybe because that is not on the menu for public consumption as part of the official conspiracy. MickMacNee (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Mick, you've got to stop with you bizarre conspiracy theories. And you and TT need to co-ordinate your attacks better, you seem to want to go further back, TT doesn't (but then neither of you want ayone going into your own histories of incivility, harrasssment, pointy noms and attacks). DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I only want you to go as far back as is relevant to the current dispute, if we are to use your proposed method of dispute resolution, the 'he started it' game. And you might think that accusing me of coordinating with TT is remotely plausible, others can freely investigate with the variety of tools available, if they are so gullible. But this is really just another sign of how disfunctional and divisive the whole Giano behavioural issue has become. It's about anything and everything except Giano, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how ironic, and no matter how self-defeating, the excuses and justifications put up are. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Anytime you've got any evidence of me running around for 24 hours calling another editor an odious harassing bully, and me not being blocked for it, you let me know Colonel Warden. This can be any time you like, and when you do I'll do you the courtesy of not responding in the way Giano would to such an obvious attempt to smear. MickMacNee (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Absolute oppose As an another editor who is not "right-minded" according to MickMacNee, I strongly oppose sanctions against Giano. Giano is a most essential member of the Wikipedia community, an endless source of fascination and entanglement for those members who compulsively gravitate towards this sort of thing. He is a marvellous target for those editors who want to publically proclaim that they are here "to build an encyclopedia" (invariably editors whose own contributions are nebulous). He is also a marvellous, not so blank slate, where the self righteous can project their drama, and bask in their own little place in the sun on the admin noticboard, while pretending that Giano is the problem and not them. Giano generously occupies members who want to stir drama but don't want to be seen as the dramatist. In this way, he deflects them from greater mischief. Were we to ban Giano, we would desperately need to find a replacement. And how we could do that? Giano is peerless; who could fill those big boots? I propose, instead, that we declare Giano a Wikipedia community institution and treasure. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I knew this proposal would attract some bizarre comments, but this really does take the biscuit as a 'rationale'. Although I professed to know how the ban process works, I am at a loss as to whether the closer is obliged to give any weight to such blatantly absurd reasoning. It's effectively, 'keep, drama magnet'. Truly amazing. Almost like turning up at an Afd and declaring, 'keep, blatant madeup bollocks'. MickMacNee (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) In the absence of tone of voice for online communications, do consider the possibility of sarcasm. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I suppose it could be. I hope it is, actually. The possibility it isn't is just too depressing to even contemplate. MickMacNee (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Strong support—while Giano's repeated deletion of this thread because it was "not a good idea" highlights the problem with his editing, it is by no means the only issue at hand. Giano (and, seemingly, everyone else) thinks that because he goes on a self-instigated crusade to uncover The Shining Light of Truth that should entitle him to formal exemption from our civility policies. But his constant rudeness and disruption is more trouble than it is worth. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 08:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Weak oppose in favour of my alternative proposal below. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Duh. what else is there to say? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Unless we get to ban all the ANI dramatists. Misarxist (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. It has long been my belief, founded on observing the many and varied dramas in which Giano has been a participant, that the problem is not his behaviour in itself. He has a knack of performing at just the right level of disruptiveness that some are absolutely convinced it is against the rules, while others are equally convinced it's entirely within them. Instead the problem is the misplaced behaviour of others in either seeking to condemn him or support him, and the ensuing drama. That's the disruption, not what Giano does. And while I wouldn't rule out in principle a community ban as a solution to that problem, I just don't think it can be justified here. On top of that, I have to say that those who think that enacting a community ban will cause the problem to go away are entirely mistaken. Instead there will be a further drama about attempts to overturn it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. By-and-large, Giano is on the side of the angels. He is trying to improve the encyclopedia, stem bullying, shine light on dirty secrets in the dark corners, etc. If his word choices less often distracted from his own good points, he would have been an administrator years ago, and maybe the best arbitrator we've had. Wknight94 talk 11:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose. It's becoming an almost regular lynch mob scene, with the usual suspects involved. Minkythecat (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose an outright ban. A ban on editing in the Wikipedia name space, except for dispute resolution and featured article process could be worth trying. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose - the only actual reasoning for this request seems to be the need for there to periodically be an attempt to get Giano banned. If there was a specific incident that this was in response to, I might feel differently, but I don't really see that. What annoys me the most is that, generally speaking, Giano rarely goes berserk of his own accord - people just can't resist poking him, and using the inevitable response to try and ban him (again). Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result... Ale_Jrbtalk 12:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I think what really triggered this was the recent RAN/TT incident (plenty of threads at ANI about this). - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I read that, and I disagreed with Giano in that instance. What I meant, is that I fail to see what especially he did that was so inappropriate (yes, it was annoying and pointless. Yes, it caused some drama. But that describes everything that happens on these noticeboards), when most of it was caused because other people obsessivly bait him. In the RAN case, I think TT and some of his defenders acted poorly, and just kept the situation going longer than it should. Had anybody else opened the thread, my question that eventually closed it (i.e. what admin action are you looking for? It was closed like 4 responses later...) would have been asked much earlier, and the thread would have gone away. I'm not really defending some of his actions - but the reason that bans always fail, imo, is because the mitigating circumstances are always so massive, because people just won't leave him alone. He does sometimes start things, but (much?) more often than not it was somebody else. Ale_Jrbtalk 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You should probably go look at all the places this latest dispute was being played out in. This was not restricted to ANI, and even Giano knows to tone it down when speaking on the admins board - he has leeway, but he is not daft. The place where has was actually blocked was his own talk page, but the attacks were coming from him toward TT for a sustained time and over many areas before that though, his restoration of an attack and compulsory contempt for the admin who warned him not to do it, was just the inevitable finale. And to repeat it again because it cannot be said enough apparently given some of the stock theories emerging here, Giano was not baited in this incident, not by any stretch of the imagniation. He chose to take up someone else's cause, and due to something that is unique to him and his status here, he chose to take it up with the full repertoire of attacks and conspiracies and declarations and threats and everything else that comes with it. Leading eventually, like an unstoppable and predictable train, to the warn/restoration/block/unblock referred to. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And he was also warned about half way through the unfolding campaign by another admin aswell, but this is just another aspect of the dispute that people just want to ignore/overlook, if they are even aware of it. I probably didn't even think to mention it myself because it's become just another part of the accepted institutional aspect of Giano, that it's almost taken for granted in any dispute that there will be at some point, ignored warnings from admins in there somewhere, in the rare cases that admins even bother to warn him now. I mean, why are you going to bother warning someone who cannot be blocked? Not to mention the fact that warninsg are only really there in the few cases a perpetrator can, in good conscience, claim to not know what they were doing was an out and out violation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Super Super Super Strong Oppose: This counts as four oppose votes, as you all know. I still consider myself a new editor, but I have seen enough to applaud Giano for his good work. Too many editors (though a very small % overall) on wikipedia become insane hall monitors, and all Giano does is call a spade a spade when he sees it. It was the freshest breath of air I saw in a long time when recently, on Malleus' talkpage, a civility-pushing troll was told to "Fuck off troll" by Malleus. Frankly, in the real world, we all need to be told to fuck off once in awhile, it keeps us honest. MicMacNee's opening comment here is essentially a very long version of "fuck off Giano" comment. Now that some steam has been let off, just close this dramamongering thread. A ban would only create more steam and drama. I agree with Sam Blacketer's comment.--Milowent (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Go on then, fuck off. Leaky Caldron 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Now don't you feel better?--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I bet you wouldn't dare to tell someone to fuck off here though, would you Milowent? I've done it before, it felt great at the time because I thought the guy was trolling me, until the indef block came crashing down. You want Giano et al to have the right to tell people to fuck off, then fine, just make sure you get and I get it too. It's rank hypocrisy otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I do tell people to fuck off on here, but not using those words. So do you. And the fact is rules are never enforced precisely evenly against everyone in the world, and never will be. Its not rank hypocrisy, its reality. Giano is more abrasive then some, but in totality, he does not deserve a ban by any stretch.--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Another super Strong Oppose for any sanction against Giano either now or in the future. Vulgar language may be objectionable but infinitely less so than ganging up to harass productive editors. I appreciate the desire that all editors should be treated equally under the rules, and therefore a more elegant proposal has been raised to resolve this situation. One that will be of net benefit to the community rather than impoverishing it with the loss of one of it most noble, colourful and creative contributors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Just 'wow' for that proposal. Thankyou everybody who has turned a blind eye to Giano in the past, you've just got a really big reminder right there with that insane proposal as to what kind of a fucked up place you've turned this site into MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Mick, a quiet word, if you must run up and down this thread like a racing grehound, could you moderate your language. It's getting just a trifle obnoxious. Thanks.  Giacomo  19:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The amount of wishy washy, sycophantic clap trap spouted by some of the appeasers of this contemptible individual and others like him is breathtaking. They want an elite cadre of “great content contributors” who, because of their status are not obliged to follow rules relating to civility. That immature, self-centred attitude will drive away ordinary editors. There is “no net benefit” in supporting these disruptive elements and those who believe that there is are simplistic followers. Leaky Caldron 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Hey who here, callng MickmcNee an "contemptible individual" is a personal attack. You could be banned for that.  Giacomo  19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt and to put a prick in your thinly veiled attempt at humour, it's you I'm talking about. Leaky Caldron 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose No time for lynch mobs. Mo ainm~Talk 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) What Tarc Said. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose a ban on Giano, who is a net asset to the project. Support TT and MMN not commenting on every post in this thread they don't like. EdChem (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I do like this one :) ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Strong Support I've observed Giano in various cases, and have been disgusted by his attitude. I can recall one ANI thread in particular, where he had been reported for misuse of rollback. His response to the thread was, in a nutshell, go ahead and remove it, I don't care if I have it or not. One argument that has been posted in this thread, that Giano's incivility is the result of provocation, also does not hold water, IMHO. If he doesn't keep his response to these "provocations" within acceptable limits, he is at fault. Furthermore, I have seen other troublesome, yet productive, editors told that their useful contributions could not offset any disruption they had caused. So, I am not inclined to overlook his behavior because of his contributions. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) NO! Shock! Horror! "I can recall one ANI thread in particular, where he had been reported for misuse of rollback." You nust be mistaken it is strictly verboten to bring a rollback complaint to ANI - where is Stifle? Stifle tell this man he is mistaken - it could not have happened.  Giacomo  22:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Here's a link to the thread I refer to: [2]. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, yes, yes, we know all about the thread, but my chief antagonists think that a person who brings such a thread to ANI is doing nothing but shopping for trouble and drama. Your point is rather shooting those who want to ban me rather than helping them.  Giacomo  09:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose, it's true Giacomo & I have slightly bumbed heads, but that was 'cuz of my being nosey & attempting humour at the wrong times (while butting into his problems). It's very rare that I'll support a community ban for any editor, unless blatent sock-puppetry is evident. Some may say I'm thick skinned or thick headed, but for the moment I shall not support exile. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I have a complex solution, which automatically rules it out of serious consideration, but I'll say it anyway. Everyone agrees that Giano does good content work. Why should interpersonal disputes (unrelated to the content) result in the forfeiting of his content work? So I say simply impose a firm civility restriction: any admin will be empowered to block him for any comment, but only for the set duration of 12 hours per block. If Giano continues to be uncivil, he'll simply go through an unlimited number of those short blocks (perhaps that sounds like a pain, but it would actually involve less drama than the current situation). Everyking (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose - (1) Giano has been doing content work off and on i.e. still an active content contributor. (2) He had the courage to suggest events needed further examining in this recent chain of dust-ups. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Object to the question. WP:AN or ANI are the wrong places for this proposal. Either do an RfCU or take it to the ArbCom.   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Weak Support - Exiling editors is very extreme, and he's worked a lot for this website, but I've seen his attitude a number of times, and it stinks. In the past, a lot of time has been wasted discussing what should be done about him. I'm sure people have better things to discuss by now. Orphan Wiki 10:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Support - I seen enough here. Walking the blues (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose, still support his content contributions and his willingness to be Wikipedia's conscience from time to time. Yes, he does need to do it with more civility. Not sufficient for a ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Support: He has gotten away with being uncivil. I've noticed on ANI that there is editors that are treated differently if plenty of people defend them, no matter how many rules that they broke. A recent thing that I saw was admins defending someone who cussed at others with the reason that if they don't call the person a cuss word, it's alright despite cussing breaking WP:CIVIL. How can someone honestly think that he is good for the project when he is rude to anyone that disagrees with him? He even tried to delete this thread with an edit summary that said that the starter of it was a troll. I don't care how many articles he created, if he breaks the civility policy constantly, he should be blocked. Joe Chill (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Wait a week? A week ago-ish we had a general discussion on AN on community ban proposal policy, focused on discussion duration but covering a number of other related topics. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#General discussion - community ban discussion durations Carcharoth proposed that we put in a one-week cooldown period between a precipitating ANI incident and a ban proposal. It was moderately supported and not that I see opposed, but not established firmly as a policy or best practice. I feel somewhat guilty for having pointed the ANI discussion towards doing a ban here and not having simultaneously brought this issue up before this ban was filed. However, that said; I am somewhat concerned that this is an overly early time and that people are in an overly confrontational mood, and that this discussion is trending towards more heat than light. So - question for those viewing. Would there be objections to closing this and reopening it a week from now? In a related issue, would anyone terribly object if a more neutral party drafted the proposal next time, assuming we do close this one? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oh let them get on with it.  Giacomo  00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) A week, a month, it won't make a blind bit of difference. I'll repost it whenever, unless or until there is an amazing turnaround in Giano's behaviour, or in the admin corp's general dynamic toward him, or until arbcom accepts or declines the case outlined at ANI, meaning that we at least get some institutional recognition of the situation, for future reference. MickMacNee (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You seem to be engaging in a crusade. Wikipedia isn't the place for battles, even more so for crusades. You seem to be hugely concerned that a block was overturned – which de-escalated the drama – and yet you tell us that you will forum shop for a sanction, creating more drama. Wikipedia would be better off if you'd just let it drop. I know you won't put any weight on my advice, as a mere "content contributor", but there must be someone whose advice you can listen to. --RexxS (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You've got me confused with someone else, I have no prejudices about content contributors or non-content contributors, I only have prejudice toward vested contributors. And you seem to be mis-remembering quite a lot of this latest incident, because there was no drama while the block stood, and there was actually a de-escalation after it was placed, because it was valid, and because it was Giano who was bringing disruption to that situation with his repeated attacks and direct provocation of an admin even, although as we see above, you apparently think it was part of exposing The Truth so it was OK. The drama only occured when it was removed unilateraly, meaning that Giano just carried on where he left off, and the de-facto situation of Giano being a special class of editor as regards enforcement remained in place. And as always, it's just a rich irony to be accused of crusading when the subject you are tying to highlight is Giano and his effect on the pedia, this is a happy club several editors and admins have found themselves in. Anyway, the real reason I do not put any weight on your advice has nothing to do with Giano at all, it is because you seem to generally not accept the basic concept that it is not OK to throw out the personal attacks, irrespective of how right you believe you are, in any situation. MickMacNee (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You can talk all you want Mick but the fact remains that Giano became RAN's champion. You cannot ban a champion because the champion said an impolitic word to the perpetrator of such emotional violence on that poor contributor. Either he planned it or not TT descended like a wiki maelstrom on that poor soul RAN. Giano screamed murder and now you want to ban Giano. Hello? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You mean the situation with TT and RAN that had already been raised many times, and was already being dealt with? The situation that, despite Giano getting involved, only actually saw one person blocked for being disruptive, namely Giano, even now. The situation where the people 'riding to the rescue of RAN' didn't even have the first clue what the outcome of the last similar situation was? (it was no blocks, no censure for harassment, and seemingly no lessons learnt about what is and is not bullying, and most destrucitve of all for this fantasy narrative presumably, the 'victim' being politely urged to get his content issues fixed). The situation where even RAN rejected some of Giano's proposed 'solutions' as being innappropriate? The situation where Giano came up with all sorts of decrees and missives and promises to right this and expose that, yet has still not done anything of the sort, yet again. This fantasy account of Giano nobly riding to the rescue of RAN, and nobly flinging the personal attacks at the evil TT because that was all he could do to help within our awful regime where we apparently have no other recognised mechanism of dispute resolution, is frankly a load of rubbish. It's beyond rubbish. MickMacNee (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, the wheels were turning slowly even before Giano intervened. But Giano's involvement sped things up considerably and raised the profile of the issue while shedding more daylight on the underlying issues. Giano became the champion of a beleaguered editor. That's a fact and the record speaks for itself. The rest that you are mentioning are just trivial details. I know how demoralised I felt during TT's reign of psychological error. Giano's intervention turned the tide for me. In fact during my almost four and a half years here I never saw such a massive upheaval of an editor's work perpetrated by another editor. It was a really terrifying wiki-experience on an almost epic scale. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I know how demoralised I felt during TT's reign of psychological error [sic] – can you hear yourself? Do you have any sense of proportion Doctor? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yes I do. I mentioned psychological error because I find that it is psychologically erroneous to attack a fellow editor this way making RAN feel under sustained attack and the admins blocking him because you started soliciting his punishment. On top of that the sockpuppets also descended on RAN, while the admin reaction intially was hostile to him. I never saw such maltreament of a fellow editor before in Wikipedia and I felt terrified imagining the stress RAN was under and demoralised because at first I did not know how to help RAN while the system was in such complete dissarray with the socks running amok and everything else happening at the same time to RAN. I specifically avoided using the term psychological terror but obviously you did not get the point because you still link to inappropriate topics as is your custom when you talk to me it seems. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Ah right, so you, like Giano, had a prior reason for wishing ill on TT in this case. That's good to know, and as they say, the devil is in the detail. It's amazing what people are prepared to dismiss as trivia when they have a horse in the race. MickMacNee (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Very clevah Mick. Blame the victim for the terror instilled by the wiki-inquisitor. Very clevah. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Quite frankly if I had to give it a name, I would call the proposal to ban Giano, an Indecent Proposal. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And it seems the appropriate thing here is to wait a week and then mebbe someone neutral will open a similar discussion about MickMacNee. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) For what offence? If I'm getting preferential treatment from admins, or if people are ignoring when I go on 24 hour campaign to malign other editors by calling them harassing bullying odious people, based on my personal belief they've done wrong, it's news to me. You go and try and hunt down anything you like in my history. You could even suggest I be topic banned from talking about Giano, I would love that, because the only time that's ever happened to me in my time here, the guy in question was perma-banned not 6 months later, for being the person I had correctly been describing him as all along. I'd gladly try for 2 for 2 on that score. MickMacNee (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Well, Prodego's indef rationale was "attitude not compatible with this project", which aligns well with my take on you. Jack Merridew 03:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It didn't align with many others though, which is rather the point, and one I'm happy about. MickMacNee (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) WP:CCC ;) Jack Merridew 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (unindent) A few things are pretty clear. Giano will continue to commit significant civility violations until and unless something is done. Nothing will be done here or at another meta-forum as things now stand because there are enough among the noticeboards' armchair quarterbacks who either don't believe in enforcing civility, or who like the drama of accusing the accuser, to scuttle the overwhelming consensus usually needed for a community ban. But something will be done eventually. There are only two reasonable likely outcomes. One is that eventually a community ban or an Arbcom action leads to a ban. The other is that someone blocks Giano for a while and Giano decides either to moderate his abusiveness, or leaves on his own because he won't agree to it. Unblocking not only prolongs the problem, it removes the second option and makes the ban more likely because it incites Giano to keep doing it. If he thinks he can get away with it because people support it and thrwart attempts to deal with it, he'll keep testing everyone's patience until they have none left.Ideally we could give Giano an ultimatum: if you want to continue editing, shape up. I don't think this was the right time for this proposal, but it's pretty obvious that we have a civility policy, that Giano is breaking it in a disruptive way, and that despite some sputters and coughs the policy does get enforced. Plenty of long-term editors are now indefinitely blocked or banned on that account. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Sure. From your point of view this seems logical, according to the parameters that you defined. But many other parameters you have missed. So I find your analysis seriously flawed because it starts from incomplete boundary conditions. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It starts from the premises that: (1) we have a civility policy we will enforce, (2) Giano violates and will continue violating it unless something changes, and (3) longevity and productivity are not a free pass to be uncivil here. These are so obvious I see no point discussing them here or entertaining arguments otherwise. The only weak part, as far as I can tell, is my speculation that something will change, and exactly what it is that will change. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) But what about the emotional violence perpetrated by the wiki-inquisitor? Victim issues etc? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) If we stick to blocks and bans being solely for purposes of avoiding future disruption so that we can keep the project humming along, I don't see how those questions apply. What are you thinking there? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) What I am thinking is that blocks and bans based on incomplete criteria are both unjust and ineffective. Banning Giano, for example, but leaving the inquisitor untouched will not address the underlying problem of emotional violence that any inquisition brings and will send exactly the wrong message to the victims of the inquisitorial rigour. The solution is to systemically prevent inquisitions not to kill the messenger of injustice. If the system prevented such outbreaks of injustice there would be no need for Giano to cry foul. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Why don't you start a discussion about punishment to "the inquisitor" instead of arguing that whatever Giano (or anyone else) does is justified because of who he is attacking? A system of justice doesn't work if punishment is meted out solely on the basis of the person's intent (let's not even debate who's definition of righteousness you are demanding we all follow). They are two separate points and I find it completely ridiculous to claim that individual editors should or should not be punished just because of their views. Note that in Giano's discussion, numerous editors shared his view about "the inquisitor" and nobody is arguing about them sans Giano. Is it your view that anyone who would support his view (including, let's say, yourself) is liable to being driven off like he is? Is it your view that if Giano had acted the exact same way but in fact was arguing against "the inquisitor", you would argue differently? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Screw it. I should know better. Giano shouldn't be blocked because there's enough admin here who support his conduct no matter what because of his views and they will unblock him in a second. It's a waste of time to do so. The cow has already left the barn, the community has spoken, let's move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) That was fast. What happened? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I read enough of your arguments to realize I don't care to engage you. I'd rather look at it from the practical perspective that, similar to the various attempts to clean up the unreferenced BLPs, Category:Unreferenced BLPs from June 2007 is still full of plenty of articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I share your opinion that there are far more productive things to do here than arguing at length on noticeboards. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not therapy. If Giano is not in control of his reactions then he needs to be blocked immediately. You can't have it both ways.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Wikidemon, the premises you put forth are seriously flawed. (1) we have a civility policy we will enforce - firstly, the policy itself is flawed, open to gaming by editors who want to skew content towards their own POV (see WP:CPUSH for a discussion); secondly, its enforcement is both selective and subjective - reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes an uncivil comment, and real-world community standards differ from place to place. You might see WP:CIVIL as an unambiguous asset, but that view is not universal. Further, many people believe that context is critical in discussing civility issues, and judgment and discretion are essential for just decisions to be made. To offer a real-world analogy, if I called some random person an asshole on the street, the police would view that as using offensive language (in my country, at least). If that person were in the process of mugging an old lady, and I called him an asshole to distract him from beating his victim, would the police be looking to charge me? I think not. The context of my action would both explain and excuse (if not justify) my action. You wish to divorce Giano's actions from the treatment of RAN (which included incorrect blocking of RAN, fyi, and there is serious examination of Fastily's admin actions at ANI now, so please don't suggest that only Giano recieved any sanction); I, for one, will not ignore the surrounding circumstances in looking at Giano's behaviour. (2) Giano violates and will continue to violate it unless something changes - this is an assertion and a prediction, not a statement of fact. There is clearly disagreement in the current circumstances as to whether Giano violated the civility policy. When you advance an argument that treats opinion as if it were fact, your argument is substantially weakened, potentially to the extent of being fatally flawed. As for your argument about blocks and bans being solely for purposes of avoiding future disruption, again we have a problem, concerning what constitutes the greater disruption. It is my view that disruption of content development by civil-POV pushing is a more significant and substantial disruption than minor and arguable incivilities, yet which gets more attention? Similarly, Giano's telling truth to power and calling a spade a spade in my view reduces long-term disruption by maintaining accountability, and so I don't accept that a ban on Giano would lead to a net reduction of future disruption. I realise others may disagree with my assessment of Giano as a net asset to the project, and I hope you can recognise that your reasoning is not the only reasonable approach to these questions. EdChem (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Civility, being one of the WP:5P, is a safe assumption. Maintaining a collegial approach so that we can create an encyclopedia together is a fundamental tenet. I too believe that RAN's block was improper and that TT's actions were incorrect. I do not need to call anybody's names or impugn anybody's motives to prove that point. When someone flies off the handle, the question isn't what event precipitated the inappropriate reaction but that the reaction was inappropriate. There is no legitimate disagreement as to whether Giano was uncivil, it's safe to dismiss that out of hand. There is no fatal flaw, we don't need to entertain preposterous positions. Disruption is stuff that interferes with editing process, it makes no sense to redefine it to include other things that follow process but yield bad content. We have content policies and guidelines for reasonable editors to follow and discuss in process of making content contributions. We have behavioral policies and guidelines to deal with break-downs. I can call a spade a spade without also saying they're a liar or an asshole. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You would be normally completely right, but in an ideal wiki-society and under ideal rules. Unfortunately the current version of our wiki-society is far from ideal. On one hand we have an editor who in the past not only used the word "odious" but actually enshrined it in policy and on the other another editor who created a sustained inquisitorial tsunami against a single editor with a multitude of socks at the tail of the inquisitor living in a kind of opportunistic parasitic symbiosis with said editor while at the same time the enforcers of wiki-law blamed the victim in the beginning. This does not seem, at least to me, like an ideal wiki-society. But it does look, at least to me, like a small, but odious and odorous, (because of all the socks you understand), wiki-apocalypse. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) So can I, and I have certainly never referred to anyone as an "asshole."  Giacomo  16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I asked Giano to account for his reasons for raising his recent issues on ANI rather than pursuing dispute resolution. You may read and evaluate his responses for yourself. Having read them, it is my opinion that the solution to this problem is that Giano be banned from the Wikipedia namespace, with the exception of dispute resolution and perhaps featured article processed. This narrowly failed to pass at the IRC arbitration case, and I still consider it to be an effective solution. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I would also support this in principle, since it would work if adhered to. Whether or not it would lead to Wikilawyering and huge arguments about exactly what was permitted and prohibited, however, is quite another matter. Giano's comment below specifically makes me concerned that this would not be an effective way of preventing disruption. (Incidentally, I believe that the convention with namespace-bans is that they don't have to be accepted by their subject.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 09:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Then you had better ban me now. No way will I ever accept it. I will continue to expose anyone who bullies, intimidates or harrsses another editor right up to the moment I am banned. I suggest you attend to the real problems of this site Stifle. There is a real reluctance to address the true problem which is pile-on bullying, and I find that very odd.  Giacomo  09:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Giano, Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. We don't do exposés. We have several accepted ways of calling users to account for their actions, with which I am sure you are conversant. Posting ANI threads which cause pile-on drama is not one of them; filing requests for comment/mediation/arbitration are three, and under this proposal you would remain free to do any of them. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Stifle, I think you are deluded.  Giacomo  10:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You're welcome to that opinion. I ask that no administrator treat it as a personal attack or in any way actionable or blockable. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you so much Stifle, for allowing me to have a personal thought. Doubtless that is something else you and your frieds will soon see changed.  Giacomo  10:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I do not wish to deny anyone thoughts, opinions, or indeed the right to call other people on their misbehaviour. I am just desirous that it be done through proper channels, which is something that it seems to me you are not willing to do. This seeming unwillingness is causing unnecessary drama and wasting time of others, and I am seeking the least-resistance path to change that. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Can you please tell us all where one is supposed to report an incident of an admin abusing rollback privileges? You suggest RFC or DR? Can one then ask why Giano was not afforded the same process as you suggest he take when he misused rollback? I fail to see why ANI is not the place to report an incident of adminstrator abuse of tools. Not directed at you personally Stifle, but the hypocrisy on Wikipedia is absolutely astounding. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Rollback flag != admin flag. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I see nothing wrong with Giano's response to you Stifle. In fact his responses are spot on, especially pointing out the hypocrisy of an admin abusing rollback and, seemingly, nothing being done about it. Shoot the offender, not the messenger. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Neither do I. I was merely hoping to ensure that no other admin would find the comment uncivil and take action that would exacerbate the issue. As for the matter of nothing being done about an admin allegedly abusing rollback, that would be because, as I continue to state, the venue that Giano chose to do the pointing-out was incorrect — dispute resolution would have the power to take action against him; ANI has only the power to generate drama. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I am talking specifically about his responses on his talk page in relation to your posting there, by the way. If you feel that ANI only has the power to generate drama, then might I suggest that you instead try to get rid of ANI completely, as it seems ANI isn't worth it. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) That isn't a bad idea. Splitting ANI into smaller boards with specific purposes, and forcing editors to use other processes, such as those mentioned by Stifle could be worth considering. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) MickMacNee For how much longer are we to have to watch MickMcNee and Treasury Tag racing up and down the thread hectoring anyone who opposes their ideas? While it's pretty obvious that they are concerned the proposal won't stand alone - some people may find him and Treasury Tag just a trifle intimidating - or is this their intent?  Giacomo  10:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I have not "hectored" anybody for opposing a ban on Giano. They are, of course, entitled to that view, and they are probably right-minded, no matter what Mick says! My interjections have been limited to defending my own honour from those who have, among other things, accused me of running a "reign of psychological terror" – for how long are we going to watch Giano desperately attempting to get this thread closed after just twelve hours? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 10:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You are forgetting, that have said this was a very bad idea and removing it as needless drama designed to take the spotlight of the real issues here, it was me who gave in to the edit war and re-instated it, and what a good idea it has turned out to be after all. Watching you and MickMacnee has been most enlightening.  Giacomo  11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) this is the only reason you self-reverted, which is a dynamic which will come out at arbitration, that and the realisation that there are thankfully still some bright line offences that you have not managed to gain immunity from blocking for yet. Still, as we see, the PA thrown in was allowed to pass by, into the night, like a hundred or so before it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) TreasuryTag and MickMacNee have the right to reply to comments here, and I don't really see their conduct as aggressive or intimidating, at least they're managing to do it without insulting anyone, hmm? - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)(edit conflict)I would say the proposal for a community ban should be closed as very unlikely to achieve consensus, and MickMacNee should read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) In the immortal words of RAN, Stifle... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 11:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I didn't say it was a Wikipedia approved policy; I just said he should read it. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I know, my tongue was half-way into my cheek! :) ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Well FWIW, I don't think this would be the est time to be closing this proposal. It's still active, hasn't even been open for a day, and actually seems to me to be slightly more productive than the previous threads (after the one opened by Giano, that is). - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I would say for as long as people support your theory that the entire policy of no personal attacks was written simply to curtail your freedom of expression as you go about fighting the good fight, and as long as people continue to pretend that it is not ironic in the extreme in that case, that evidently you are the only person on Wikipedia who is given the lattitude and indulgence to willfully and freely ignore it. MickMacNee (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks to all those saying the nice things and who don't think I am the devil personified. However, entertaining as the McNee/Treasury Tag performing duo are, it's too nice outside to stay in and watch it, so I'm off to watch the cricket instead, I'll probably look in later and see how they are getting on, Ciao.  Giacomo  12:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Just for the record, though I'm sure you know this, Mick and I are not a "duo" – we have (if I recall correctly) never corresponded either on user-talk pages or offsite. I did not know he was going to propose a community ban until I saw it in my watchlist. Any accusations to the contrary cannot have any basis in reality. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 'Devil personified' is your spin on it. What I actually said is you were an editor who frequently attacks others, apparently has extraordinary leeway to do so, and is not going to stop anytime soon because he does not accept our basic rules. And I don't see anyone disagreeing with me, even on the oppose side, although obviously you are never going to see that as a disturbing sign. Infact you revel it actually. It's all part of the anti-hero cult that's been built up around you. Which is why the real issue is going to go the forum I always intended, the forum who has the responsibility to ignore suich insane cultishness, and weigh a person's actions against our actual rules, for the benefit of the actual community, the one that wrote the rules in the first place. If any of the opposers here want to start rewriting our rules to reflect their opinions, I wait with baited breath. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) What have you baited your breath with? I wait with bated breath to find out. If you always intended to go to another forum, why did you choose to create needless drama here? DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It's been said about a dozen times here, but if you missed all those, go and look at the ANI arbitration thread. MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Hopefully for as long as free expression is permitted - I do find it extremely distasteful in having people blocked or otherwise sanctioned because their passion for their beliefs may lead them to make vexatious commentary, for which they are conveniently silenced and the cause ignored. I happen to disagree with TT and MNN (and their selective, to me, memories) but the principle is more important than my opinion. I suspect you, Giacomo, may come to understand that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Simple question, requesting a simple answer Why did Giano report the alleged rollback abuse by Fastily, and the alleged harassment of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), to ANI, rather than raising dispute resolution requests? Stifle (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I have already explained to you why Stifle, at length, on my page [3]. If you don't like the answer that canot be helped, but it has been answered.  Giacomo  11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Most editors come to ANI if there is a problem with an Admin, particularly an Admin with a history of ignoring attempts to communicate. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) He rushed to ANI in the case of RAN because he had of course uncovered The Truth, and had presumably missed the two or more times the TT-RAN interaction had already been raised at the board, and, having mysteriously missed the outcome of the last time someone tried to label mass-tagging as harassment, had some idea that there was going to be new case law set, presumably. I think we can see how well that has gone, for all parties, as a method of DR. And in the case of Fastily, it's apparently because he just doesn't do official processes, something about 'not being a Kangaroo', and he has this odd idea due to him being the victim of admin abuse in the past, that the ANI board has the moral duty to act, forthwith, by summary block, on any admin he ever finds abusing his tools, having been found guilty of such an offence in the court of Giano. MickMacNee (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) @Duncan: So informing more people about the problem (which an ANI report does) is more helpful than fixing the problem (which a DR would have done)? (I'm not trying to be smart-assed; I'm genuinely trying to get to the bottom of the reasoning behind Giano's choice to list these on ANI.) Stifle (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Would DR have fixed it? What exactly did you have in mind - an RfCU (which as we all know would never create any kind of drama at all, he said, his voice silky with sarcasm)? DuncanHill (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Speaking strictly in the theoretical realm, an RFAR could well have resulted in Fastily's use of his rollback rights being restricted on pain of desysopping, and an RFC could have established the boundaries for resolving the issues with Richard Arthur Norton's image uploads. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Speaking strictly, RfAR would have required previous attempts at DR, and both RfAr and RfC/U are both eminently capable of producing at leaast as much drama as a thread on ANI. Still, if you feel that straight to RfAR is the way to go with unresponsive admins I'll certainly bear that in mind for the future. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) There were previous attempts at DR in this case, weren't there? Or am I getting muddled? - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Of a sort - certainly people had tried talking to the admin on several occasions. I'm just puzzled as to why any admin would want to hide away discussion of a sub-optimal admin. I'd have thought that admins would want to see the highest standards from their colleagues, and that admins inherent respect for and trust in the community (as evidenced by choosing to go through RfAd) would make them pleased to involve the community in such discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Stifle, why are you contributing to the drama which you say yourself should be avoided? You asked the question to Giano on his talk page, and he has already answered your question there. There is really nothing to get to the bottom of in that regard. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) He's answered in respect of Fastily (although perhaps dodged the follow-up questions), but has not done so in respect of RAN. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Do we have to get your permission now to post at AN or ANI, Stifle? DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Not sure what exactly you're referring to, but in the unlikely event that that message wasn't sarcasm, obviously not. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Banning Giano from the site is a horrible way to deal with issues in project space.--Chaser (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Semi-Protect AN and ANI

Resolved

 – Proposal withdrawn by originator

At present, AN and ANI are semi-protected due to vandalism. I have lost count on how many times this has happened this week. Be it sockpuppetry, vandalism, harrassment, personal attacks, whatever...the page is almost always semi-protected anymore. Let's make it permanent.

I propose that AN and ANI be permanently semi-protected and any anons and new accounts could use a seperate page (perhaps WP:AN-ANON or WP:ANI-ANON) to voice complaints or issues. The new pages could be just as watched as AN or ANI, but vandalism on the main AN and ANI pages would be down to nothing. The new pages would be only for anons and new accounts that haven't reached the magic edit number yet. Yeah, it would be a temporary fix, but it also couldn't hurt. What say you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That countermands the principle in WP:ADMIN that admins should be open to approach from any editor, registered or not. Many editors come here in the absence of experience of other venues, and we should not deny them access. Meanwhile this page is only semi-protected when absolutely necessary, and for the shortest possible time. A sub-page for non-autoconfirmed editors would merely shift the problem elsewhere, and require duplication of Watchlist monitoring, and overall, I don't see it being useful. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Where would we get all the complaints about zOMG admin abuse? Even the valid ones? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying we deny anyone access, just "push" them onto another page. This would keep the main AN and ANI pages open and free of vandalism and other crap, while there is a free and open page for anons and non-autoconfirmed users. When they are autoconfirmed, they can go to AN and ANI. But the anons will be at the "side pages". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That proposal denies the equality of editorship that we are keen to promote here. Although I've seen vandalism mostly from IP's, I have no wish to create a ghetto here. Rodhullandemu 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea. I will see how it goes for others, if it looks like a snow "no", I will pull the proposal and ask an admin to close it....but I would like to get more opinions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are so many editors watching AN and ANI, things get fixed way fast, one way or another, allowing GF IPs mostly easy input. Setting up pages for IPs alone could stir up even more woes, WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sending IPs to other pages will not lower the amount of abuse the noticeboards get; it will just move it to new places. Like an old man used to say, if you want to break the vase, you will find a way... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I'd much rather the noticeboards got hit than the articles.©Geni 01:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it was worth a shot. I never said it was a great idea, just an idea. Since this has been all "no"s, any admin (involved or not, no matter) can mark this resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahya Alavi fard

A call needs to be made here. I normally close these no consensus with leave to speedy renominate but I do not feel comfortable doing that with a BLP with all its sources in Persian and which was deleted on a sister project. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Closed as delete, invoking IAR if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, if this were an article on a Pokemon I would have had no problem punching "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another ban proposal

This is pissing me off having to watch all these pointless arguments on here and ANI. Therefore I propose that Giano, MickMackNee and Treasury Tag all be banned from posting to AN or ANI for at least a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you notify all the editors concerned? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(Hint: answer = no.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I figured they'd see it when they came back here to bicker with each other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• fishfood.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• catfood. Rohedin ^TALK 19:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose bans for myself, Mick and Giano—this is not the only issue on which I edit ANI. If anybody has a problem with specific edits of mine here, they are (as always) welcome to raise it with me. However, the principle that editors are allowed to propose community bans (yes, you may consider it "pointless" but that's scarcely objective) and the principle that editors are allowed to defend themselves from accusations are both well established. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• support but instead of posting how about "starting threads about each other" for a month. Enough is enough. Giano is calling a spade a spade. Sorry that he's makeing you all look foolish....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  I would not oppose a ban on starting or editing threads about each other, FWIW. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 19:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  Well if we're just going with commenting on each other on AN and ANI (rather than a total ban from the boards), I propose we make it indefinite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose indefinite. Support up to four months. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support', I also support White Shadows proposal too. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  Support to White Shadows proposal. Rohedin ^TALK 19:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, cannot quite bring myslelf (for one reaon only) to support Striking and changing to support as it now included needless dramaseeking arb cases. However, anyone like to take a look at this [4][5] it does rather show a cartain double standard here.  Giacomo  19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah that's one big typo of your's TT. I understand Giacomo but this has gone on far enough. That's why I made that counter suggestion.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  And the repeated hounding on my talkpage after it was clear I didn't want to engage with him? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But Treasure, it's your favourite subject, I thought you wopuld be thrilled. I'm distraught.  Giacomo  20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop it the both of you.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban on starting or editing threads about each other. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this going to include starting and commenting on each other in Arb cases?  Giacomo  20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Not as you phrased it, not as I interpreted it when supporting, and I seriously doubt that any admin would block for participation in an Arb case. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

pardon me I meant to say starting Arbcom Cases as that would just be a loophole for these sanctions.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my support does not extend to your amendment. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly, not pissing off Mitchell is the uppermost concern here. Barring the ban proposal, I've never started an AN/I thread about Giano, nor he about me, so God knows what White Shadow is on about. If you want to restrict thread starting to people who are previously involved, well, good luck with that. It's been going great these past few years. Like I said, it's arbcom that needs to look at this dynamic, and it's arbcom where I'll be going next. MickMacNee (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That thread over at ANI says otherwise....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus christ. Fine. read it as "Apart from when I started one ANI SUB-section, and one AN thread, about the same subject...". Satisfied now? MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mick, I'm not sure that's wise, the Arbs will also want to look at Treasure, won't they, and er... of course you! I do wonder....  Giacomo  20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy Crap. Well, I'll just have to take any admin that tries to ban me from filing a case about you, to arbitration first. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: This is not a typo FinalRapture - † ☪ 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  And [6][7][8] this is not constructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Pointless to single out this individual case. Or are we going to expand the ban to include Giano and Fastily not starting topics about each other as well as TT and RAN? I'm in agreement that ArbCom is going to get involved sooner rather than later, and judging by the nonsense at VPR, it is going to happen sooner. There are a lot of parties that simply need to back away from each other, go to their corners and just write articles for a while. Resolute 20:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  LOL. Rohedin ^TALK 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Double LOL! The arbs will likely reject the case as a massive waste of time. If not, no way will i be going back to article writing until Giano is vindicated. All it takes on the admins board for aggressors to get there way is for good natured editors to stay out of it. Hopefully things are better on the arb board but i wont take the chance might even have to curtail my world cup viewing! Grrrr! If there one silver lining to these threads its that so many good editors have came out to support someone whos being attacked for defending a quallity editor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever actually been involved in an arbitration case? It's a lot different to a mash up at AN, mainly in the way that people actually have to provide evidence for their arguments, or at least show how their perception/recollection of events at least has some grounding in reality. And ultimately, opinions like 'it's ok to personally attack someone if you are defending another editor', are simply ignored, as prima facie bollocks. Arbs will take advisement from people who can actually frame an argument in policy, but ultimately, there were elected on the basis that they already know it, so the case won't have to bother itself as to what various people have tried to claim is and is not permitted, behaviour wise, above. I think that for those people who think Giano is a net assett, they will be praying that the case is not accepted, as it's frankly the only way he will come out of it the same old Giano. Which is kind of the point. If they don't like it, they really need to start changing some fundemental policies of this site, rather than just revelling in their apparent need to be seen to be righteous rebels, fighting The Man. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct, Feyd, that ArbCom won't touch a Giano case, but they have much stronger motivation for avoiding it than just it being a time sink. EdChem (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Such as? And arbcom cares not for time-sinks, it's their stock in trade. It is the only way that disputes which have been allowed to go this far, can be properly examined. MickMacNee (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

MMN, if you follow ArbCom cases and incidents, then you should know what I'm talking about. If you don't, then I suggest you don't know enough to launch a reasonable case relating to Giano. Perhaps you could do everyone a favour and stop trying to make a bigger mess than already exists. EdChem (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I do, and I honestly don't. And before you start calling it 'doing people a favour', why don't you have a look around and see just how many editors aren't as happy about the Giano situation as you seem to be. Not enough for a community ban it seems, but it's enough. MickMacNee (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment it appears that there is unannimous support for HJ's sanctions (with my tweaked bit) so can an admin please make it oficial?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  After the thread has been open for an hour? Don't be ridiculous. EdChem (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I must agree with my learned friend on this point. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the record... if another tagging spree happens, any editor should be able to bring it to the community's notice, and that includes MMN and TT if Giano went on a deletion nomination rampage, and vice versa. EdChem (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I forgot. Things here take days.....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This current ban proposal could've waited until the other ban proposal runs its course (as both are related). GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Incidently, I would also support a complete interaction ban on all parties for at least the same duration. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Readers sensibilities are important, but not so much as the ability to bring up matters of concern. Looking away from the latest bunfight is commendable - but not a habit I indulge in, obviously - but looking away from issues of alleged misbehaviour is not. Not only does Giacomo have pertinent things to say about the other parties, but they also have pertinent things to say about Giacomo (for me, it is issues about degrees of pertinence). I am against constraints upon good faith editors bringing forth issues in the hope that they may be resolved (regardless of the history). There are real issues here, so look away if you must but don't stop it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Spevw (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, established blokes must not be barred from these pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  established doesn't give you license to piss all over the project.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• support but with the exception that if someone else starts a thread directly about them they can respond to that thread only.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  I would hope so too frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Wikipedia needs Giano, and not only for the quantity and quality of his content contributions. WP need him to stand up to abusive admins, corrupt arbs and the self-appointed politeness police, who selectively enforce civility through bullying. It even needs him to speak up to co-founders who regard themselves as sole-founders and fancy themselves constitutional monarchs while acting as absolute monarchs. It needs him to speak up for the powerless and speak the truth to the powerful...something he's been doing since long before it became popular and none do more ably or credibly. To ban Giacomo would be to ban what Wikipedia has left of a good conscious.R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We were not gonig to ban him, just ban him an TT from starting threads about each other. FWIW, I admire Giano's effort to bring light on the admin abuse situation and call a spade a spade.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As is oft said on here banned is banned, and I still oppose.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Giano and WP will survive if the three of them are banned from posting to a noticeboard for a while- maybe it'll encourage Giano to go back to writing the featured articles he does so brilliantly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite why you think I'm a prolific ANI thread starter is beyond me, but the few I do start, it's when I shock horror need an admin to perform some perfunctory task using their tools. I'm a three year veteran, I know full well when an AN/I posting is a waste of time and when it isn't, so if this 'ban' passes, you are my goto man for those few times I might need someone to get shit done for me during the ban period, or whoever you want to pass me onto. Or are you so 'pissed off' at the sight of one ban discussion here that you want to deny me this basic right? MickMacNee (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. A most sensible idea, as proposed by User:HJ Mitchell. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quelle suprise...et tu Cirt...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this comment is helpful at all. -- Cirt (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Yes, enough is enough. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose (am I allowed to do that as a non-admin?). I enjoy drama at ANI, and these characters are always good at stirring it up. In all seriousness, I think that being able to report perceived incidents in good faith is far more important than trying to limit the drama on that board. As LessHeard vanU says, "Looking away from the latest bunfight is commendable... but looking away from issues of alleged misbehaviour is not". Buddy431 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  [A]m I allowed to do that as a non-admin? Yes, as far as I'm concerned. We tend to oppose semi-protection here so that non-registered users can still post, so a registered editor with a well thought-out comment should be very much allowed. Disclaimer: I am not an admin, but I watched ANI last night on TV and I think I got the gist of it... TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support If an important incident arises which simply must be brought to AN or ANI, these editors would easily be able to find someone to post their concern (possibly by linking to a section on an editor's talk page). We have to draw this nonsense to a close and a break is a very sensible way to achieve it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  It depends what you define as important. If I see a BLP issue or copyvio violation on my watchlist, I'm really not going to bother my arse about how to raise attention to that while being 'banned' from ANI, I'm certainly not going to fuck about linking to sections on my talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose, per LessHeard vanU. Preventing any user from posting here should be our last resort. The pains in the neck here ("TPINH") are far more tolerable than the various vandals and trolls that crop up and result in temporary semi'ing here. We all need to consider how to help this situation - it's not going away, and pushing it to talk pages, email and elsewhere hasn't worked in the past. TPINH also need to take on board that the community is reaching the end of its tether - find better ways to deal with this. I might be averse to topic bans at ANI/AN but I am certainly not averse to blocks where appropriate. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 09:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support particularly if you change "month" to "century" --B (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Stockholm

I've unprotected this article (has been semi'd since March) with the backing of an edit notice. Please can we be less lenient on any editor who vandalises the article that we might normally be. There have been sockpuppet issues with this article in the past too. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment & outing by User:ScienceApologist

Hi, apologies in advance if this is not the proper venue; and if it's not, I'd be grateful if someone could correct me. (Added Note: It might be better at AE?

I am filing a formal complaint about User:ScienceApologist. He was topic-banned sometime in 2009 for about six months. Sorry that I don't have the wikilink at hand, but the case is well-known, and User_talk:ScienceApologist/Approved_articles includes discussion of what he could and could not edit (typically, he pushed the boundaries as far as possible even when banned).

What he is doing now is harassing me by making completely baseless claims that I have a conflict of interest, and outing me for good measure. WP:COI clearly states: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." I have such expertise in acupuncture and Chinese medicine, and have contributed a lot (under retired usernames as well) to acupuncture. I understand the boundaries around here, and heed them, so I don't get banned or blocked. For example, I understand that WP:COI says that as long as I'm not pushing my own practice, writings, gizmos, etc., then it's fine for me to edit acupuncture. But not in ScienceApologist's world:

• he filed this patently absurd complaint about me: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Middle_8,

• and in so doing attempted to out me by linking to what he believed was my professional webpage. (Note: diffs oversighted by User:Vsmith; here's a multiple diff with the information excised).

About a year ago I retired one account and started a new one precisely because I wanted to stop all use of my name on WP and be completely pseudonymous. I was quite clear about this.[9] It even came up in the context of ScienceApologist's ArbCom case that led to his topic ban (and please note that I'd have to provide that diff offline for privacy reasons).

This is harassment, pure and simple, and if I recall correctly it was behavior like this that led, in part, to his topic ban. I generally just ignore him, but occasionally, Darwin forbid, someone gets in the way of his latest jihad and his full wrath rains down. Today I get to be that special someone. Tomorrow or next week, who knows? And how long does WP tolerate this?

I request and challenge the good people at WP:AE WP:AN to deal with this as harshly as possible, and then some. If I read WP:OUTING correctly, outing is a serious offense that usually results in an immediate block. But there are aggravating factors here. ScienceApologist is a recidivist, disruptive editor who drives away some editors and sets a bad example for others. I suggest a preventative siteban of significant duration. Thanks for considering this issue. Middle 8 (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you claim professional expertise. Like Essjay did. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and other than the fact that he lied about it and I didn't, it's an awesome comparison! (Seriously, I've always said that any admin wanting to know my identity in good faith can email me.) --Middle 8 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This information is all linked from this editors various accounts, and was posted appropriately as part of a COI report. If the editor wants to start afresh, perhaps they should start a new account and avoid acupuncture articles. Verbal chat 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, I believe you are familiar with the history: I retired my old account (which was connected to my real name), and started this one stating that I desired pseudonymity. On-wiki, I never connected this with my old account. Off-wiki, I told a few editors, you among them, my identity, and was clear that on-wiki I wanted to retain pseudonymity. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember warning SA about respecting my pseudonymity, though I'd have to dig up the diff (he was whining about the supposed COI thing). Read WP:PRIVACY; my requests for privacy are all well within accepted guidelines on WP. How could I have been clearer that I didn't want my personal information revealed? Put it in my fucking signature? --Middle 8 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It was and is clear that the two accounts are linked. You are free to start a new account that cannot be connected with the old. Verbal chat 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Verbal, that's just not true -- and I wish you wouldn't play fast and loose with the facts. If what you say is true, please document the supposed link between the two accounts. Just for the record. Thanks. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8, you should consider this discussion from the recent Russavia-Biophs ArbCom case. In it, Biophys (who had WP:OUTING issues and was sanctioned in the case) discusses establishing a new account for privacy reasons. Arbitrator Shell_Kinney makes some comments that are particularly relevant to your situation:

• [10] "While editors are able to start new accounts for privacy or decide to vanish entirely, there are some limits to what you may do if you decide to start another account. See WP:CLEANSTART for details ... one of the things the community feels strongly about is that you do not enter the same discussions or disputes without disclosing that you are the same editor that was in these disputes before. This precludes the ability to start over for privacy and re-enter the disputed topic area."
• [11] "... the community feels strongly that editors should not start new accounts, unlinked to the old, and start editing in the same areas/disputes. This has to do with transparency, accountability, not giving the appearance of additional support for a position and not being able to hide behind a new account and bother the same editors."
• [12] "... unless you intend to never edit in the disputed area again, it's likely that creating a new account would do more harm than good. We've seen it happen time and time again - if you edit the same areas you were before, especially when those areas are heated, editors will go to extreme lengths to figure out what your old account was, possibly link them together and may handle things more poorly as a result of feeling that you are trying to hide something."

I make no comment on ScienceApologist's actions - I haven't looked at them - but if you previously edited in alternate medicine areas, which can be controversial, and have returned to them, and in addition have a potential WP:COI, I'd say the chances were high that your old and new accounts would be connected by someone... no matter what your wishes might be. I'm not arguing that this is the way it should be, more that it is the way things are. EdChem (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, EdChem -- I took all of these issues into account, and contacted editors off-wiki to let them know who I was and that I just wanted to be pseudonymous with my new username. I was careful not to give the impression of additional support for a position. I was all about full-disclosure, just some of it off-wiki. All I want(ed) is for my requests at pseudonymity to be honored: an analogous case is User:Shoemaker's Holiday, whose name-change and privacy-boundaries seem to have been well-accepted. Thanks again for that background. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8 - happy to provide the links. The problem with full-disclosure, just some of it off-wiki is that it only takes one editor to whom no disclosure has been made to get suspicious (say because of something you said reminding them of something you said with your previous account) and to start digging. The only real way to ensure pseudonymity is to stay away from your previous areas. Without knowing your history I have no idea how closely it is analogous to Shoemaker's Holiday's case, but I would say that his experiences were pretty nasty over an extended period. His privacy may be relatively well accepted now, but that took a long time and his former editing identity is known to a considerable number of users. If you have been through anything like the amount of shit that SH was forced through then you have my sincere sympathies. EdChem (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Tennis expert is back, jumping between anon IPs

Just a heads-up that the aforementioned user is back (recently editing as 70.253.89.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 70.253.81.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) - the recent edit history of these IPs, along with the geolocation and IP info easily pass the duck test. Any admin who watches tennis pages, in particular, please be aware. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Two further IPs have just been used : 70.253.78.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 75.34.100.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)