Misplaced Pages

For those opposed to an indef block, question

Since the I/P topics and civility seem to be what does the user in, would there be any consideration if you are opposed to an indef block, for a topic restriction in regards to I/P or a civility probation? rootology/equality 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the hostilities have mostly taken place at Malcolm's userpage, and that not-so-nice comments came from both ends, I believe the civility restriction is hardly a fitting punishment. Topic restriction is basically an indef-block for Malcolm so that is even worse. I really don't see why there is such a strong interest in nailing this guy. I'm looking through his edits and there isn't anything particularly unique aside from typical user-page fights. If you bait an editor long enough and treat them like a criminal, of course they are going to get angry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly, that you think all these blocks including those for edit warring a POV are his being 'baited'? Please back up with diffs where he was "baited". This is a guy who was so lacking in AGF and civility that he was actually barred from even editing RFAR by injunction. rootology/equality 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the allegation that the blocks were mostly done by the same-set of admins and some of the blocks were reversed, yeah, I can't say with all honesty that the punishment fits the crime. And yes, Malcolm was baited relentlessly by editors and admins alike. I/Per articles aren't particularly notable for its attraction to good-faith. Do you dispute this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In order we have blocks by all these people: Scarian, Scarian, Elonka, Scarian, Gwen Gale, Smashville, Gwen Gale, Sandstein, Tznkai, Connolley, Rootology, Rlevse, Gwen Gale. That is a lot of different admins, but then we see he was also User:Kwork, who was blocked an additional three times by Jayjg, Jossi, and Jpgordon. That is a total of 12 different admins having blocked him. Again, please provide evidence of admins baiting this guy with diffs. Deleted contribs for Kwork here, which show the exact same MO as his turn under the Malcolm handle. In fact, I see that Kwork is indeffed still, so I don't know how we all missed that Malcolm was even editing--he should have been blocked once it was realized he was Kwork. Again, please provide diffs of all these different admins, even Jayjg and Jpgordon, harassing and baiting him. rootology/equality 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom was blocked 6 June 2008 by Scarian for abusing multiple accounts (which is to say, for evading the Kwork block). I had tagged Kwork's user page and he emailed me, claiming he didn't know sockpuppetry wasn't allowed and after a number of emails, I helped him with the aftermath of RTV for Kwork and Malcolm Schosha (deleting his MS user page history among other things). Then Jpgordon unblocked him on 25 July 2008 and he came back from RTV. This is why (and when) I started watching his account. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing my suggestion of a topic ban/civ paroles etc. based on his history across two usernames, that I just noticed. rootology/equality 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez you really took the time to investigate, eh? I don't know much about Malcolm's previous handle so I rather not comment on it. The degree of action, proportional to the blocks listed, has been extremely generalized and overblown. I'll enumerate and simplify the blocks (though I don't really want to) to prevent confusion:

• Since the sock-violation was in good faith, we shouldn't count those.

• Between June 2008 to May 2009 (we can round it off to a year), 19 blocking-related actions occurred.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were administered by Gwen Gale.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 2 were administered by rootogoloy.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were reversed. 1 block by Rootology was self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:DGG for being "excessive," 1 block by User:Smashville self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:MZMcBride for being "improper," and the last was for sock-proving.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 4 were for personal attacks (one being reversed), 6 were for edit warring (mostly baiting situations), and the rest a mixture of disruption/arbitration concerns.

Out of approximately 5,114 over a span of almost 1.5 years, Malcolm received 15 unreserved blocks. That's 1 block for every 340 edits. But these blocks aren't exactly eye-popping. Edit warring is standard, and blocks are almost solely dependent on who reports who first. Personal attacks etc.. aren't defendable but again words can be miscontrued and Malcolm has laid pretty clear rationales in the past which had led to blocks being reversed. That in itself is a strong reminder of the strong partiality that has occurred throughout this whole ordeal.

Again, can you provide a single diff or evidence that he was "baited"? Especially, how is one "baited" into Edit Warring on article content? rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I'd also like to know how Malcolm was baited. It seems to me that he has done more than his share of baiting around here. In one instance, he described the actions of editors with whom he disagreed as "gang raping" an article; in other situations, he referred to ArbCom members as schmucks and to other editors as antisemites and anti-Zionists. Name-calling may be acceptable on the playground, but it has no place here. — ] (talk · contribs) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Read through his talk page. Either Malcolm is nothing less than an angry troll or people really just want to stonewall him out of wikipedia. Malcolm takes the concept of honesty a bit too high, though his remarks tend to come with clear and obvious rationales. He doesn't call everyone he disagrees with as antisemites/anti-Zionists. It's safe to assume many subscribe to that level of thought, however. Do you endorse the belief that all responses to Malcolm have been done in good faith and without prejudice? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What I believe about his justifications or personal views on topics and policies, or external politics are irrelevant. Can you provide a single diff or edit to back up your claims? It should be easy. rootology/equality 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems Root has taken the liberty of finalizing the issue and declaring Malcolm a "banned" user per direction of the talk page and ANI. I consider this a bit premature. I don't think it is very fair of us to not give Malcolm a voice. I'm sure he has a lot to say. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was reversed by me as well I believe and some days ago. rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right I did not check the date. Apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345: "Edit warring is standard" ??? um, no. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a standard violation in those kinds of articles. Thanks for taking what I wrote out of clear and obvious context. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The context is clear enough, you seem to be saying that Malcolm spent a significant portion of his time at the kind of articles for which "edit warring is standard" and ... he edit warred. After a certain number of warnings, which he had received, and then some, enough is enough. There is no "kind of article" for which edit warring is acceptable. We have arbcom case after arbcom case that makes that point, including the one that Malcolm was disinvited from participating further in. You appear to have several edit war blocks in your own record. I suggest that you need to internalise that you yourself should not edit war. End of story. That would be the best use of your time, I think. This block is sound. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's standard conduct. And the standard response is blocks and topic bans. So, anything out of the ordinary here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good God... 1 block for every 340 edits is appalling. "Baiting" presumes that a person is generally policy-abiding, but in a moment of weakness was driven into an uncharacteristic fit of blockable behavior. You can't be "baited" into 15 blocks - at that point, it's your responses to everyday editing stresses that are inappropriate. This isn't "baiting" - it's someone who has a long-term problem contributing here, and doesn't seem to be improving. MastCell  23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by that 1 in 340 metric, anyone with less than 29 blocks per 10,000 edits is ahead of the curve. I'd be sitting at about 32 blocks now, and I think someone like Charles Matthews or Rich Farmbrough would be around 260-270 lifetime blocks by now. rootology/equality 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, do you dispute the partiality that has occurred? Does sheer # of reversed blocks and dependence on the same admins to make those blocks not bother you? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is much more to the background of those blocks than that: There were many unblock declines following most (nearly all) of those "reversed" blocks, some of which lasted for most of their set length before they were undone, without consulting the blocking admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is not addressing the concerns that have been raised or answering the questions they have been asked. I think we're done here. Consensus for an indef block seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. Please don't shove this under the rug. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rootology asked you for a diff to back up your claim, several times. You went off on tangents. Those tangents have been refuted. But more importantly, this is all after the fact, because the thread above this shows a clear consensus... lots of supports, one weak oppose... and you. It may not be unanimous, but it's a consensus all right. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In a sea of hostility and bad faith I'm expected to point out the obvious? Ok. There are several sets of baiting that have been confirmed by several users, most notably User:IronDuke, but this is the most recent and easiest for me to find because I am a very lazy person:

Self-hating Jew...this should turn out well. Malcolm attempts to explain why mick finlay bite is POV and does not belong in the lead. That in itself isn't really important. The editors seem to take great offense at Malcolm accusing Finlay of being an islamic apologist. This is then followed by a round of typical noticeboard-threats, one by Peter Cohen (who can be found above) This thread contains a violation of WP:BLP and promises to file a complaint. According to Cohen's history, he has yet to do any noticeboard filing, aside from a friendly confirmation of his support for the lifetime Malcolm ban. :D

Prior to this, User:untwirl considered Malcolm's 1-sentence removal violated consensus policy. Malcolm responds, pointing out the obvious that You confuse majority with consensus. There was never any effort by the majority to compromise with other editors.

Then user Malik Shabazz throws the disruptive accusation and threatens to file an ANI complaint.

Malcolm responds: ake it to the appropriate noticeboard, and we can discuss it further there.

This goes on for about 30 paragraphs. Over 1 sentence that clearly was out of place and did not deserve a spot in the lead. Even considering the islamic apologist comment (which is arguably accurate depending on one's perspective, and there are many in this article), editors immediately threatened to sue and you can clearly see Malcolm's mood switch from thereon. We call that baiting, and it worked quite well. Malcolm seems to expose himself way too much in these kinds of situations so the outcome is not a surprise . People want blood and they'll probably get it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis shows the same flaws in reasoning and misrepresentation of the truth as Malcolm's postings did, albeit in more temperate language. Examples of errors in the post to which I am responding include claiming that I did not post to any board when I did straight after saying I would, misrepresenting the initial tone of response to Malcolm by captioning the three moderately worded responses to Malcolm that you link above as "great offense at", ignoring that Malcolm had less than a month earlier consented to the version of the lead following my revision to a previous version meaning that the version as I left it represented prior consensus and not the imposition of majority rule and therefore WP:BRD should apply. And the "Islamic apologist" slur is not "arguably accurate" but a misrepresentation of the truth as argued by several editors in the thread and by me in the linked post to the BLP board. It also shows that Malcolm was resorting to personal attacks in describing those with whom he disagreed prior to what you claim was us all ganging up and bullying him (and with the added problem that Finlay wasn't there to respond to slurs on his character).--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I apologize for saying you did not post at the BLP noticeboard. That was an honest error, I couldn't find the edit in your history but it was rather late at night so again I apologize. But posting at the BLP noticeboard in a non-BLP article over a user's reasonable and fair POV that was hardly the main component of his position is far from sincere and constitutes baiting. Malcolm in no way resembled the troll-like behaviors he is accused of subscribing to in this AN/I. You and several others immediately jumped the gun from the get-go and starting throwing the most damaging and threatening noticeboards on wikipedia. That's called baiting. Malcom consented to this version: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. This was promptly changed to the POV version by untwirl without a *gasp* actionable consensus: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. Former versions: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used by some Neo-Zionist partisans against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. That sentence did not belong in the lead and you took Malcolm's arguably accurate assessment of Finaly to the noticeboard in an attempt to reduce the validity of his proposal. That isn't just baiting, that's downright malice. Just because everyone with the exception of Malcolm harbored similar POVs does not mean the vote tallied towards consensus. Malcolm was assessing your actions in a tactless and uncivil way, but so what. You guys baited him to hell and then essentially cried bloody murder when he bit back. Pardon the bluntness, but all of you should have stepped outside and gone in to timeout. But no, you rallied together and stonewalled Malcolm out of the article which simply gave him more ammunition. Look, I gave a fairly strong example of baiting which was requested and your "analysis" was far from persuasive. If Malcolm is given a temporary stay of editing I'm sure he would be happy to include other baiting-situations because he is far more experienced than I am. At this point I strongly encourage dissolving this show trial or admins should start dealing bans to several users here because many are guilty of the same violations Malcolm is accused of washing himself in. Though that doesn't seem to matter when a "consensus" has your back. :D

It seems Malcolm has been watching the discussion. He explicitly refers to Peter Cohen's history and previous actions with Root and Lars. For the sake of fairness, here it is. I hope I'm not violating any rules here:

I made a series of edits on the arbcom noticeboard, pointing out that the arbcom decision removing of some Jayjg's administrative privileges was irrational because he had never misused those privileges. That got Rootology and Lar pissed off, and Rootology blocked me and then reversed his when block when he cooled down a little and realized it was a bad block. After some further argument with Lar and Rootology, Rlevse showed up and blocked me with this.. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i agree with tarc below. wikifan misrepresents the order of events. malcolm said this, "Although there is plenty in the article, including the lead, that I am unhappy about, with Peter cohen's change to the lead I could live with the article as it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)" and here is what the page looked like at 19:53 . "right-wing" is there at that time. this is a red herring. untwirl(talk) 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you know what a red-herring is. And no, I didn't misrepresent anything aside from falsely accusing Peter of not honoring his dubious and blatantly uncivil BLP threat. If you want to talk fallacies we can do that. For everyone else, please refer back to the above post and ignore the derail attempts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

you are right, i was just being kind when i called it a red herring. it was actually a blatant falsehood, as anyone who looks at the history can see for themselves. untwirl(talk) 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BLP again. The policy applies to any page on Misplaced Pages and not just article pages about living individuals. Falsely calling someone an apologist for Islam is libellous on whichever page it is, and breaks WP:BLP when not reliably sourced. And my announcing that I was going straight to a board is not a threat but a notice or warning of action so that anyone in the thread, including Malcolm, can be aware that I am posting to the board. And doing so about a libel is certainly not dubious and is way less uncivil than the initial libel was in the first place. Yes, the boards can be abused; but using them to bring matters to fellow editors' attention is not normally regarded as uncivil.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Finlay is a Islamic apologist! Zomg are you going to report me for slander now? There is nothing inherently sinister about apologist. Malcolm offers a rather poetic rationale: Concerning Peter cohen's strange accusation that my calling Finlay an apologist for British Muslims is a BLP violation, he aparently does not understand that the word apologist means no more than "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something." The term is not an insult, and the article Finlay wrote in defense of British Muslims fits that definition. I did not say there was anything wrong with his defense of the Muslim community, just that his views needed to be balanced with other sources in the Self-hating Jew article. You took Malcolm's assessment of Finlay and claimed it was libelous, posted it on a friggin noticeboard and even when it is clear you acted out of policy the righteousness still continues. Lars wanted an example, I gave one. He has yet to respond. Peter, feel free to comment on everything else I wrote, or not. I don't really care anymore. :D Editors have invested far too much time in nailing this guy so I doubt even Jesus could save him. Tragic indeed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Lar, singular... some are glad there are not more of me about). I wanted an example of Malcolm being baited, which is what Root asked you for, twice. I don't see where you provided one. As for the time invested... it's more like there has been a lot of time wasted by this user and it's time to make the investment to put it to a stop. You continue to waste time here as well, because even while you continue this, there have been further endorsements of the indef block. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is simple, really. Malcolm is unable to abide by consensus, and falls back on personal attacks and edit warring to address it. In the few direct interactions I have had with him, that is all it ever was...there is a content dispute on an article, ensuing talk page discussion reaches a general consensus, invariably with a single holdout; Malcolm. He'll skate to the brink of 3RR, lie low for a week or so, come back and do it all again while doing a large WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when others point to the past consensus. One only gets so many chances, y'know. It is more than clear that this user is unable to edit collaboratively. As for the Arbcom antics, that isn't the first time he's pulled the antisemite card on other editors. I am surprised he wasn't blocked then and there. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule that forces people to agree with a consensus opinion, nor is consensus defined by having only one user opposing. Pointing to past consensus does not fly in the face of new arguments or sources, or when there is disagreement over the existence of a consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who you're directing that at. As you well know, consensus as the term is used here at WP is rather a wacky thing. But one can have consensus without everyone being in agreement. The normal meaning is that people agree to go along even if they don't agree with the thing being gone along with. The WP meaning (IMHO) is that MOST people agree to go along (there can be some dissent) even if they don't agree with the thing being gone along with. In this case, this particular discussion, we have (WP) consensus. Wikifan12345 is not raising anything new, and not convincing any folk to change their mind. One has to wonder as the motivation for this. This is a simple, routine case. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not the WP meaning of consensus at all, also I would appreciate it if you would not cast doubts on people's motivation. And while the case may be clear (it is clear to me, but with a different conclusion), banning is not routine. Or maybe it has become routine during my absence? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A rogue bot

I am concerned by what I consider a rogue bot. It is working its way through the biographical articles, adding a {{DEFAULTSORT}} parameter to each one.

Various other people have told the bot owner that they have concerns over this bot. Maybe the bot owner paused their bot. But, if they did they didn't leave a note informing those with a concern that the bot was stopped.

What this bot was doing was an enormous mistake, for every individual who does not have a name that fits into the European naming scheme of inheritable surnames as the last component of the name. Chinese people use inherited surnames -- but it is the first component of their name. People with Arabic names don't use inherited surnames at all. That is billions of individuals.

This bot has generated a considerable burden of extra work to clean up after it.

If it has not been disabled, could an administrator stop it? If it has been stopped could someone leave a note to that effect on the bot's talk page?

For what it is worth I think there is no mechanical way that a bot can determine whether an individual's name should be put into a defaultsort template, and this bot, nor its brothers, should not be restarted. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the bot being refered to is DefaultsortBot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DefaultuserBot's owner, Mikaey, has been notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

<sigh>. I don't know how many times I try to explain this to everyone. The bot isn't deciding on its own how to arrange the name, it's pulling the listas parameter of the {{WPBiography}} on the talk page. I agree that it's extra work to clean up mistakes, but a) I think it's doing more good than harm in the long run, and b) we need to focus more on editors who are getting the listas wrong in the first place. Anywho, I've turned the bot off for the time being so that hopefully we can get this cleared up. P.S. -- the bot's RfA is here. Matt (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.

Well meaning, but ill-advised volunteers have assumed the European style of inherited surnames was applicable to all names -- when it demonstrably does not apply. Over the last N years they have added ill-advised, unreliable, templates and parameters, to an enormous number of articles where they do not belong. Bots written by well-meaning but ill-advised bot-authors, which rely on the already unreliable data, are compounding an already serious problem.

At this point more than half of our articles about individuals with Arabic names have had someone add an ill-advised, unreliable guess at what their inherited surname would be. This data is so unreliable no bot should rely on it. Geo Swan (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we come up with a good way of fixing the problem? Geo Swan, what should the defaultsort/listas be? I or other can try to generate a list, then go through purging/just plain removing the offending defaultsorts/listas. - Jarry1250 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's really unfair to call it a "rogue bot", when it was approved by the Bot Approvals Group after positive input from the community. The bot takes sorting information from WPBio and puts it into DEFAULTSORT. The vast majority of the time, the sorting information is correct. When it's not correct, the bot can't know that, and it puts it into DEFAULTSORT anyway. The incorrect information would be there with or without this bot. The correct response is to fix it when it's incorrect, not blame the bot operator. This is similar to a bot that changes malformed links like ] to , but isn't aware that occasionally http://www.example.com/ is an irrelevant link. I don't think this is an issue for the Admin Noticeboard.

So as a solution, it would be great if we could find editors familiar with the Arabic and Persian naming conventions, who can say with a good degree of certainty whether Mohammed Mosaddeq should be sorted under Mohammed or Mosaddeq. Does anyone here have to expertise, and where can I ask? Is there, perhaps, a reference work that lists this? – Quadell 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I posted something on my talk page about to that same effect -- that if the data is incorrect, there's just as much work involved in fixing the bot's edits as there would be if the bot hadn't touched the page in the first place. Like I said earlier, I think we need to focus on teaching people what the right way is. Can we mark this resolved? Matt (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed myself that the bot was adding DEFAULTSORT even if it was needed (for example in single-word terms). IMO this bot was approved very fast, in only four days discussion without enough feedback from the community. BAG must be more careful. For the rest we have to reach a consensus as a community. I always though that adding DEFAULTSORT in all articles could not be a bot's job. Only in small approved lists maybe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's causing a similar problem with Ethiopian names: Ethiopians do not have family names. The surname is their father's name, e.g. in the case of Mengistu Haile Maryam, his name is "Mengistu", & "Haile Maryam" is his father's name. I've been deleting DEFAULTSORT in these bios as I encountered them -- which means in the rare cases where an expatriate Ethiopian does use his father's name as a family name, I'm introducing an error. (And I won't go into the problems of compound names like "Zara Yaqob" or "Haile Selassie".) -- llywrch (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The solution here is to draft the bots in to help. I used AWB to add the Listas parameter to several hundred talk pages, a few months back, but limited the pages under consideration to those consisting of specific patterns such "John" followed by an initial followed by an un-hyphenated capitalised name. Wherever a rule can be laid down you will find a bot editor willing to apply it for you. On other point, don't delete the DEFAULTSORT rather replace it. This makes it clear that the sort order has been deliberately set. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Rich -- this is exactly what happened here. I wrote this bot because I was approached by Carcharoth with the request that, in the end, all biography articles have DEFAULTSORTs on them. The rule we decided upon was that "all biography articles fall into either Category:Biography articles with listas parameter or Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, let's take the ones that are in Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and copy their listas parameters into a DEFAULTSORT for the article". Matt (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The problems are the following:

• Not all articles need a DEFAULTSORT
  • Single word title articles
  • Article where DEFAULTSORT = Articlename (Chinese, Arabic names, musical groups etc.)
• Sometimes the DEFAULTSORT is different than listas for a good reason i.e. YOB/YOD categories listing is not the same with most categories
• Some articles are for duos, groups of more people and the categories should be piped but no DEFAULTSORT

-- Magioladitis (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we can make exceptions for the "articles where DEFAULTSORT = Articlename" situation pretty easily (which, when you think about it, would also cover "single word title article" most of the time, but not always). I'd argue against not having DEFAULTSORTs for single word titles by default because the name may not match WP:MCSTJR.

As far as category sort tags, the bot only removes them if they are identical to what the new DEFAULTSORT is going to be. We realized at the BRfA that some categories may want to be sorted differently, and we made a conscious effort to make sure they were left alone.

Why would you not want a DEFAULTSORT for duos/groups? Matt (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To Magioladitis (or should I address this to Matt?) -- So if you start opting out Chinese & Arabic names, could you also opt out Ethiopian ones? (We can take this specific conversation elsewhere if that works better for all.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about opting out cases where the listas/DEFAULTSORT would be the same as the page title. Distinguishing Chinese/Arabic/Ethiopian names from everything else gets VERY tricky, especially for a bot. Matt (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the value of the article's Category? If the bot edits an article without any categories -- or is missing one of these when it should have it -- well, that's not the bot's problem. (And if this can't be done, no need for an explanation why -- just respond "it can't be done.") -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated many, many times before by me and others in many, many places and was restated by Rich a few hours ago, the placing of a DEFAULTSORT value on a page makes it clear that the sort order has been deliberately set. This is especially true where DEFAULTSORT=PAGENAME. (I have found a few of the latter where the article has indications that the pagename is wrong, however. Sometimes the indications are in the wording of the article and sometimes the indications are in the pipe values for the Categories.)

It is also a good idea to put a DEFAULTSORT value on a page where the proper value would not be obvious or acceptable to the average user, a person who would not be well-versed in the various naming conventions employed throughout the world, with a non-viewable comment that the value is correct and a short explanation of the reason it is correct.

I am not certain what what is meant by the DEFAULTSORT is different than the listas for a good reason and even less certain why it applies to the issue of not applying a DEFAULTSORT value to the article. In cases where a page should be sorted in more than one way the alternative sort value would be a pipe in the category assignment. (The Icelanders seem to do things that way.) The categories that have been moved from the article page to the talk page (for what I consider to be specious reasons -- the first one to be moved was approved because of the precedents) will need pipes because the DEFAULTSORT is not to be used on the Talk page.

This is yet another reason to get groups out of WP Biog. A biography is the story of a person's life as told by another person or persons. However, if separate members of a group have to be put into separate categories and they are not sufficiently notable to have separate articles (a condition that I have seen so often that I have stopped wondering about the notability of the group), that is when pipes would be used. Although doing such may may confuse more than it clarifies.

I agree that one of the answers to the problem is to find a way to teach each of the editors how to construct a DEFAULTSORT value from the information that is in a biographical article. Another part of the answer, and the one that should be applied while we are contacting all the hundreds of thousands of editors.

Those who have experience and expertise at creating DEFAULTSORT values do so. It is not possible to locate directly the articles that lack this value so it will have to be through either of the categories regarding the listas parameter. There are currently 44,750 items in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. That should keep manual editors busy for quite some time because, being responsible people, they will also take care of such things as completing the living parameter, ensuring that the blp banner, if present, is on top, ensuring that the DEFAULTSORT is above the categories to which it should be applied and pipes are used if necessary.

There are other reasons to correct rather than delete wrong values. There are pages that must be sorted on a value other than the PAGENAME. Until all the other pages are removed from Category:Biography articles without listas parameter it will be almost impossible to locate the ones that must be addressed. (This could be an issue for blp as well.) As an imperfect example look at Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. The pages that are there are permanent residents and will always be there but are causing no harm because no one will see them. When a new page is placed in the category by a careless or unsuspecting editor I resolve the conflict as soo as I see it, generally twice per day, because there the conflict occurs on the page there is a sentence in red on the page describing the nature of the conflict, alerting the viewer to the sloppiness of some of the editors.

When Category:Biography articles without listas parameter is down to a dozen or so pages that are waiting for editors with special expertise to take care of them, it will be easy to notice the new pages.

Unfortunately, what all this means is that editors will have to take responsibility for all aspects of the articles on their watchlists, even the way the pages are sorted, and that editors with special knowledge may be taxed with a little more work for a while. This is not work in the truest sense as minimal amounts of force will be moved over very short distances. Much less true work than would be involved in getting another beer out of the refrigerator, for example.

It also means that the work will go much more slowly than is has over the past couple of months. As I said above Category:Biography articles without listas parameter has 44,750 pages in it. When I joined the others who were trying to do things manually there were 375,812 pages in it. A month later when listasbot started there were 334,000 pages in it. The manual workers had managed to do a little over 30,000 pages in a month. In the two months that listasbot has been working the number of pages has been reduced by nearly 290,000.

JimCubb (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing to see any arguments here that tell me that the bot's behavior is inappropriate. So, with that, and also at JimCubb's request (see here), I'm going to let the bot resume its work. Matt (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION The bot, after resuming, is keep adding DEFAULTSORT even if its values its equal to the pagename. Check , and . There is no consensus for something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot owner replied to its talk page. This is going to be resolved by discussion there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

User:Guido den Broeder has been unbanned by User:Cool Hand Luke nearly a week ago, with a topic ban in place. His edits since then include a first edit denying any problems (also ), removing quite normal posts as "personal attacks", a claim that he won't edit Misplaced Pages anymore (). He started being disruptive at . He has already twice reverted perfectly normal edits as vandalism; When called upon this, he removed this per WP:SPADE. Finally, he posted a copyright violation, whihc I removed as such.. When I then explained what he had to do to let it stay, he replied with the summary "pay attention pls" that since the speech was given in public, it was now in the public domain...

This user has been banned before, but has been allowed to return. Since then, he has attacked the ArbCom member who unbanned him and caused all the above problems, all this in less than a week and less than 100 edits. I suggest that we don't waste a huge amount of time on him again but simply reinstate the ban before this starts all over again. Fram (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to add that CHL has acted brilliantly during this, first in the unblocking and extension of good faith, and then in addressing the concerns of other editors. This should not reflect badly on him, nor on the unblocking of problem editors with defined limits and a watchman such as CHL. Verbal chat 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The block log says that the user was unblocked by the Arbitration Committee so frankly, they should deal with it if there are issues. Perhaps WP:AE would be a better venue for this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, AE is for the enforcement of specific arbitration remedies, which does not seem to be the issue here.  Sandstein  21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:AC/N works just as well...I think you understand my point. Should the community really have a big discussion about this if the Committee will again overturn the outcome of said discussion? I really think that ArbCom should be handling the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a point, while Arbcom blocks can only be undone by the Arbcom, unblocks by the Arbcom aren't "binding" and new behavior can supercede the unblock, if consensus is there. Any new blocks are just blocks. I've never heard of Arbcom "unblocks" having any special weight relative to their blocks. rootology/equality 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true. Above, I just assumed the opposite. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I agree with Rootology's interpretation. See below. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For various and good reasons I have removed the discussion in question from GDBs talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no involvement whatsoever with Guido, other than having initiated the discussion that got him banned. I observed Durova's good-hearted attempt to get him community-unbanned, which appeared to fail in the face of non-full disclosure from the banned party. I've also observed ArbCom's well-meaning trial unban and CHL's exemplary efforts to explain limits on behaviour. My sense of the developments over the last week or so is that GdB is more interested in discussing how many "t"'s you spell limit with than getting on with productive editing. This is a serious concern, to echo WMC's supposed personal attack, "this is all going to end in tears". ArbCom may choose to act, but the community may also choose to override ArbCom and re-instate the ban.

The situation bears watching. GdB seems well-meaning, but doesn't seem to understand the value of not shifting endlessly around every sentence and word. I'd say give it another week or so, in which time to try to more firmly establish that there are limits to behaviour. Franamax (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Right then, which administrator is going to make the tough decision to ban such a blatantly disruptive individual? I mean, there has got be a limit on how much wikipedians can tolerate before we get burdened by such annoying individuals, right? My vote is to ban him for the greater good of wikipedia. Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm or genuine sentiment? It sounds a little like what Stalin or Henry II might have said. The current context is that we're trying to restore a previously banned user to good standing. Patience and attempts at education are warranted. These have their limits though... Franamax (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(after 10+ bwc's) :To clarify: I have no intention to edit WP articles at all at this time. My main interest currently lies in policy development, and occasionally I help out editors with policy questions. I suggest certain users to give me some space, refrain from making accusations related to things that may or may not have happened ages ago, and stop editwarring on my talk page, so that I actually get a fair chance. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think that Guido's current behaviour is well within the norms of Misplaced Pages or at least it should be. Of course he used some questionable edit summaries, reverted a humorous edit on his talkpage by William and described it as an "rpa" in his edit summary, presumably meaning "personal attack", and pestered CHL, an absolute gentleman and just a messenger from the Arbcom, with inquiries about the topic ban. But his behaviour is not so egregious as to warrant reports at ANI, imo. I would hope that our behavioural norms are wide enough to accomodate Guido's present behaviour, because I'm afraid that if we reduce our tolerance to perfectly behaving people without any faults, this place will become too much of a cookie cutter factory to be of any use. Dr.K. logos 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact I applaud CHL and the Arbcom for their decision to unban Guido. Any action that expands the boundaries of inclusiveness within Misplaced Pages and extends the reach of WP:AGF is indeed commendable and in the best traditions of this project. Dr.K. logos 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on WT:AC/N - Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Discussion of arbitration decision and enforcement at ANI. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K, the issue here is not necessarily with any one single edit, it's with the "arc of the storyline". An editor was banned, then was un-banned. On unbanning, the editor proceeded directly to discuss (some might say argue) the un-ban terms, and to begin editing at another contentious subject (Global cooling). They now protest that they are now only interested in policy development. Experience shows that this kind of interest in Misplaced Pages often doesn't work out well. In fact, when unbanned editors decide to focus on governance, they often are focussing on why they were right all along, and the whole thing was other people's fault. This seldom ends up well.

Our only interest here is that GdB ends up as a productive contributor to the encyclopedic content here. If a focus on policy ends up with policy better supporting production of content, all the better. If we're just looking at more discussions about (paraphrasing) "that depends on what your definition of 'the' is...", we're just causing other good-faith editors to tear their hair out. As I said above, this situation needs csreful attention and patient education. Success is not guaranteed however. Resumption of previous patterns of behaviour is not a good sign. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• And hair is something that is not in abundance for some of us editors here... :/ --Dave1185 (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK; I knew that "pestering" would be part of being an arbitrator when I signed up. Don't worry about any alleged personal attacks toward me.

That said, I'm sure the Committee would be interested in your thoughts; they've retained review over his activity on Misplaced Pages. I had hoped that by setting some firm conditions, Guido could be steered away from topics that seem to have caused him trouble. I can't say I'm happy with the results so far, but I think the original theory was sound. Incidentally, I have recused myself from further involvement in his case.

I agree with Rootology about the review question. If the community wants to ban someone ArbCom has unblocked, I think they have that authority. The difference is that the community cannot unban someone banned by ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Rootology is entirely correct, the community has that right. Whether they know how to exercise it wisely, is another matter entirely.

It's not specific topics that cause me trouble though. I've had a thorough look at all the topics on my watchlist can honestly say that as things stand, I expect trouble on any one of them, if I were to make an effort to improve their text. This has nothing to do with my editing style, which has always been constructive and will remain so. It has instead everything to do with how Misplaced Pages is currently functioning, to which someone with my background is more vulnerable than others.

This does not mean that I cannot contribute, just that my efforts will be better directed at other things. I have always had an interest in policy development, also in relation to my experience as an administrator, bureaucrat, project lead, etc. on various other projects, and there are still some kindred spirits here that value my input. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Luke, I didn't see your comments when I was replying to Franamax. I think it may have been an edit conflict. I note your comment about personal attacks. It doesn't surprise me because I expected such an approach from you. It is something that I like and really respect. It is nice meeting you. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree completely with all your points Franamax, including the "arc of the storyline", as you so eloquently put it. I have to agree, it is a rather steep arc. I don't think smoothness is one of its attributes. Also you are right about policy discussions and encyclopaedic content. Hopefully Guido and other editors will cooperate in a sufficiently collegial environment that further drama will be avoided and the project will eventually benefit. I recognise that this a difficult case and some of the portents are not very good. But I wholeheartedly agree with your comment that the situation needs careful attention and patient education. Let's hope that this careful calibration will lead to an agreeable resolution. Finally I understand that success is not guaranteed. But I feel encouraged to see that other Wikipedians, such as you, are so fair minded and willing to give this user a fair chance, despite the not so great optics of the situation. I could ask for no more. Thank you very much for that. It was a great pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. logos 00:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

In lines with Rootology and Cool Hand Luke... Guido and the community, ArbCom may have two options:

1. Leave this case at the hand of the community;
2. Close this thread and let ArbCom and Guido deal with it.

If you have any other options or may prefer one of the above please let ArbCom know at AC/N. -- FayssalF - 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What does #1 entail? What happens if this case is left at the hand of the community? What is there to resolve? Dr.K. logos 01:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is left to resolve is whether Guido has violated his return restrictions or whether some other community based action is warranted. With his unban by a majority of arbcom he is still subject to commnunity restrictions like any user with the addition of his return restrictions. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first, clarification has been asked from and will be provided by the ArbCom itself. This is not uncommon with unban restrictions, and I will abide by their decision. On the second, it is probably a good idea if someone could explain to Fram, who started this thread, that I did not violate any copyright. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite amazed that someone who owns a publishing house, and who plans on discussing policies here, can claim that "It's a speech held this morning in public, so it's in the public domain now." This is a crucial misunderstanding of what public domain is and the Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations policy. Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is entirely correct. One expects administrators to understand at least the basics of the concept. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This interpretation certainly doesn't accord with the decision of the 11th Circuit Court as rendered in 1999 in Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. This particular case concerned registration under the 1901 Copyright Act, but irrespective of the registration issue, the court was clear that public speaking is performance, which is protected speech ("Dr. King's delivery of his "I Have A Dream" speech was a mere performance of that work"; "he rendering of a performance before the microphone does not constitute an abandonment of ownership or a dedication of it to the public at large"; "an audience does not thereby gain such dominion over the copy as to warrant the conclusion that the work has been surrendered to the public.") Do you have a verifiable source to suggest that copyright governance of public speech has changed? --Moonriddengirl 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, note that the original decision went the opposite way, so it was on the edge. But you are overlooking two essential aspects. King's speech is a creative work, De Meirleir's speech is a news item. It was furthermore distributed as a press release, even with explicit permission to redistribute ahead of time. Fram maintains that it is not allowed to post a press release. If that were true, newspapers would be out of business. Surely, that would defeat the very purpose of such a release. Kind regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "edge"—that is, the earlier court decision—was related to the date of registration. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, which governed King's speech by date, copyright had to be registered at publication. King did not register his speech until after it was performed. The edge had nothing to do with speeches going into public domain. News items are also governed by copyright; the threshold of creativity, as the courts have clearly noted, is slim. Also, I am unaware of any law or court decision indicating that press releases are innately public domain. Many companies place prominent copyright notices on these. While they may be happy to publicize materials, they do not necessarily consent to these being freely reproduced or modified. For a single example, see this recent press release, Copyright (c) 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. The specifics of this case aside, it is misleading to say "It's a speech held this morning in public, so it's in the public domain now." --Moonriddengirl 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to take into account the specifics of this case, since that's what initiated this AN/I report. As an apparent expert on copyright, help us out here. Is Fram correct by stating that press releases can't be posted, or not? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't consider myself an "expert", though I am somewhat experienced in some areas related to copyright. I look to reliable sources to confirm my impressions. It is my opinion that Fram is correct that press releases cannot be posted without verification that these are public domain or licensed compatibly to allow modification and liberal reuse, unless they are handled like any other copyrighted text under WP:NFC. WP:C notes that "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." A press release carries an implied (if not explicit) license to reproduce for the outlets to which it is provided, but, again, so far as I am aware US courts have not verified that this implied license conveys to other publishers. Since you asked, I did try to find a definitive answer, but could not at least in the time I had to give it. However, the 2000 Handbook of Public Relations seems to support this, with the note that "...neither one's ideas nor those of a client for a press release or campaign can be copyrighted, but the written notes, photographs, printed verbiage, and/or recordings can" (citations omitted. Heath & Vasquez, p.

The handbook is correct, thanks for finding this. Terms are limited to one aspect only: an embargo. Otherwise, it is not a press release. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out where the handbook says this? I only see one mention of "embargo" in the handbook, and it does not relate to this issue. --Moonriddengirl 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Personally I think he should be given some breathing space to further adjust before any further action is taken. But that's just my opinion. Thank you very much for the clarification. Dr.K. logos 01:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I personally look at it, since CFS and ME redirect to the same article, both fall under the topic ban; and if you disagree Guido, consider how quickly editing in ME has gotten you into trouble--it took less than a week. It's best if you just walk away to other parts of the encyclopedia to edit productively, otherwise I foresee continued problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a fair appraisal of the situation. I agree. Dr.K. logos 02:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the faulty redirect. I have not been editing in ME either, I just made mention of news on my talk page and had a friendly discussion about it with Mastcell. There is furthermore no relation between the trouble Fram has caused me and the topic. Please, let's try not to make something of this that it is not. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What "trouble" have I caused you? The trouble of posting a "welcome" template on the talk page of an administrator? The trouble of posting and reposting a copyright violation because you don't understand public domain and copyright? It's a bit to easy to blame someone else for your own actions... Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I take full responsibility for my actions, thanks, and perhaps more importantly: for refraining from actions. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some issues I see:

• Claiming an arbitrator, who made two issues to a contentious topic more than a year ago, is in conflict of interest, seems excessive. Claiming other users with valid, source-based disagreements are too biased to judge things like 3RR violations and the like is a common tactic with POV-pushers, which reduces the number of admins who are familiar with a topic sufficient to judge POV-pushing.
• Claiming he didn't realize ME and CFS were the same thing is absurd given the extensive discussions Guido was involved in over this very topic (and I believe was a substantial reason he was banned). See here, here, here, here (especially) and here. So if nothing else, given Hipocrite's comments, it should be clear that CFS/ME should not be discussed anywhere, including on his talk page.
• Claiming "I've had a thorough look at all the topics on my watchlist can honestly say that as things stand, I expect trouble on any one of them" is probably true, but claiming "This has nothing to do with my editing style, which has always been constructive" is either breathtakingly uninsightful or an outright lie. If that's the depth of insight that Guido gained while blocked, then I very much doubt that this is the last post on ANI we will see. Editing without conflict is quite easy to do if you're not giving due weight to what is said in reliable sources.

My opinion is GDB has done nothing but avoid taking responsibility for his actions, but that is just my opinion. Things haven't reached the point of a renewal of the ban, but it is apparent to me that nothing has changed. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify for readers who are unfamiliar with the content dispute that has been going on since the start of Misplaced Pages: Fram and WLU believe that there is no genuine disease ME but that instead patients belong to some generic and (in their view) largely psychosomatic syndrome called CFS, and that ME was just an old name that got replaced. Therefore they equate the two topics, while I do not. It is now up to the ArbCom to decide where to go from here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to second Rlevse, here, and repeat for the record that ME explicitly falls under the CFS topic ban. In fact, given your previous involvement in that very dispute, the very argument about whether they are or not the same also lies under the topic ban. Step away now. — Coren  12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on CFS and whether it is psychosomatic or not. I have not included any CFS or ME related edits in my post here (the copyvio is ME related, but the reason I listed it here has nothing to do with the subject). I have not edited any CFS related articles for content reasons, only for dispute resolution, vandalism reverts, page protection... This is a weak attempt to change the subject of this section. I have made 9 edits to Chronic fatigue syndrome, the first one on October 23 2008, one vandalism revert in February, two more in February to protect it for three months, and five more, immediately after the protection expired and the disruption started again, between May 25 2009 and May 27 2009. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify for readers who are unfamiliar with the content dispute, I believe that ME and CFS are treated as different names for the same condition. I believe this because of a thorough and reapeated reivew of sources that can be found in the archive links in the second bullet of this post. Please note in particular my first !vote regarding a redirect of ME to CFS on October 17th, 2007 in which I am explicitly agnostic on the topic. Painting me as a POV-warrior who came here with an opinion and a decision to inflict it on the innocent readers is completely, utterly wrong. I have no opinion on the psychosomatic versus biological nature of CFS because there is as yet no well-accepted etiology for the condition, though I have edited to include discussions of it's possibly psychosomatic nature in reliable sources. Guido has attempted to defend the difference between the two, in my mind unsuccessfully. I have analyzed the supporting sources for ME and CFS being different here and here (lengthy, perhaps skip to the conclusion). It is particularly aggravating to me that Guido would have the gall to accuse me of arriving on the scene with a preconcieved idea and pushing it in bad faith. This is a confusing condition, with no universally accepted diagnostic test, etiology or treatment, which Guido suffers from, and apparently strongly wants to believe that it is a biological condition. Anyone who takes lengthy time to review the talk page discussions on the topic will see the issues quite clearly. Put bluntly, I think we are wasting time on an drama-generating editor who has repeatedly demonstrated an an inability to work with other members of the community and an inability to understand and adhere to our policies and guidelines on verifiability, neutrality, consensus, soapboxing and probably a couple others. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@Fram: The informed reader will find these diffs very telling. You call any edit that tries to make the article less biased towards the psychosomatic 'disruptive', despite thorough discussion on the talk page, and when you happen to find several anonymous (but clearly knowledgeable) editors on the other side of the argument you semi-protect the article for ridiculously long periods of time. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend any more time on these edits to CFS or any other CFS related topic after this post, but the fact that the edit warring by IPs started again the day after the 3-month protection expired indicates that it was not a "ridiculously long period of time". The IP has been reverted by at least eight editors now (me, Verbal, Crohnie, RobinHood70, Arthur Rubin, Flaming Grunt, OrangeMarlin, Gilliam), and has not discussed this on the talk page ever, despite repeated requests (through edit summaries and on his or her talk pages). The last revert to the IP preferred state, after the page was protected, was done by an editor who had never edited any article before this. I have engaged this editor on its talk page, only to get this not very promising response. With your "experience as an administrator, bureaucrat, project lead, etc. on various other projects", it seems amazing that you would think that these IPs indicate "several anonymous editors" when, apart from the obvious evidence, you have even participated in a discussion that showed that they were checkusered and indeed were one and the same (Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Guido-s Revenge. Considering that this IP used your name to cause disruption (as Guido-s Revenge), and also uses Angela Kennedy's name to do the same (as Destroying Angela), I wonder what you hope to achieve by defending such an editor. Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not, I am defending the good-faith anons that were reverted and insulted by you personally. The occasional vandal can simply be blocked, without the need to prevent others from contributing. Your actions on the article are in direct violation of the very essence of Misplaced Pages. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop making things up? You were wrong about the copyright thing (above), about the B-Class vs. C-Class (below), and aboutmy edits on this page and the IP's involved. You have provided splendid evidence of my initial post: you are a complete waste of time in many discussions you are involved in, since you keep on discussing long after the obvious and correct answer has been explained to you. I have reverted one good-faith anon on this page, and I have not insulted him or her. I have reverted one IP who replaced the infobox with question marks, again without insults. The other ones I reverted are 87.114.4.66 and 87.114.132.57, who fall clearly in the range of the previous disruptive editing by IP 87.112.34.51, IP 87.115.17.124, IP 87.115.17.165, considering that their edits were quasi-identical. So, which good-faith IP editors have I insulted? The others were not occasional vandals who can simply be blocked, they were single-minded IP-hoppers where page protection is the normal solution. All links to see this for yourself were added in my previous post...Fram (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that WLU is now hijacking this thread to once again spread misinformation on the topics in question seems equally telling to me. Please understand, that users Fram and WLU are not users that I work with. They are users that keep bothering me. I have instead worked happily and constructively with a great many other users, including on these topics. Note that the CFS article was rated B after we had worked on it, and has been downgraded to C (i.e. substantial info is missing) since WLU started editing there. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is B-Class now, was B-Class in April, March, February, January, ... The article was judged B-Class in December 2007, and I can't find any period when it was C-class (I obviously haven't checked all 1000+ edits individually). Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it was another CFS article that received C status. The main article needs re-evaluation, as the text has nothing in common with the dec 2007 version. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were banned from this topic? Verbal chat 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Providing evidence of previous, extensive, source-based discussion is not my definition of hijacking. Providing diffs and section headings is also not misinformation, it's verbatim discussions. The users you work with are the users who edit the same pages as you. Failing to work with them leads to edit warring, blocks, bans and arbcom hearings. And for this discussionto go away, all Guido has to do is stop posting anything about CFS or ME, anywhere on wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Guido: ME falls under MFS, I strongly urge you to drop it, stop the wikilawyering, and move to another area of en wiki. This is my last warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Serious IP vandalism.

I think this is the right place for it. A month ago, both Middle Power and Great Power were semi-protected who tried to remove any traces that UK and France are sometimes considered Middle Powers. He even removed France and UK from the list of middle powers. The middle power page was protected for a month. Today, it was unprotected, and the IP changed it's tactics. A new map was added since protection that explained that countries such as UK, France, Germany, and Japan were sometimes considered great powers. However, he is now changing it to often considered great powers, and I told him in the edit summaries that countries often considered great powers wouldn't appear on the middle power page. However, he refuses to stop. I have warned him once today, and he has removed the warning and continued. I have stopped editing the middle power page so I would not break 3RR. I have talked to 2 other users who are familiar with this IP to talk, and he has removed the message I left them as well. IP: warning 1 I gave him:

warning 1 he erased:

Warning 2 I gave him:

Warning 2 he erased:

Warning 3 he was given by another editor: Warning he erased:

Block message he erased:

Phoenix's talk page he erased (both): , and .

Viewfinder's talk page: , .

Also, here are the stuff from the past reports.

This was the second report with all the IPs including the one above listed. This was on the incidents board. "

We have an ip editor that has been constantly removing content the user finds objectionable in the Great power and Middle power. The user will not communicate and has caused the pages to be constantly ip protected.

Middle power

1. 13:53, 21 March 2009
2. 13:01, 29 March 2009
3. 14:07, 29 March 2009
4. 06:24, 30 March 2009
5. 16:49, 30 March 2009
6. 09:15, 31 March 2009
7. 13:03, 31 March 2009

   13:21, 31 March 2009 - 1 week IP protection

8. 14:06, 11 April 2009
9. 17:42, 11 April 2009
10. 20:29, 11 April 2009
11. 20:31, 11 April 2009
12. 20:43, 11 April 2009
13. 20:44, 11 April 2009
14. 20:46, 11 April 2009
15. 20:49, 11 April 2009
16. 20:54, 11 April 2009
17. 20:55, 11 April 2009
18. 20:56, 11 April 2009
19. 20:59, 11 April 2009

    21:01, 11 April 2009 - 2 week IP protection

20. 10:34, 26 April 2009
21. 18:42, 26 April 2009
22. 15:16, 27 April 2009

    18:08, 27 April 2009 - 4 week IP protection

Great power

1. 15:43, 22 April 2009
2. 07:49, 23 April 2009
3. 10:25, 23 April 2009
4. 15:37, 24 April 2009

   19:31, 24 April 2009 - 1 week IP protection

5. 14:07, 3 May 2009
6. 18:13, 3 May 2009
7. 18:27, 3 May 2009
8. 07:50, 4 May 2009
9. 19:04, 4 May 2009
10. 20:36, 4 May 2009
11. 12:30, 5 May 2009
12. 13:58, 5 May 2009
13. 15:10, 5 May 2009
14. 17:36, 5 May 2009
15. 05:42, 6 May 2009
16. 06:37, 6 May 2009
17. 06:44, 6 May 2009
18. 07:09, 6 May 2009
19. 07:24, 6 May 2009

    09:19, 6 May 2009 - 4 week IP protection

" Previous IP report available here on this difference, .

Please do something about this IP. Deavenger (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I just did an IP trace and tagged the offender's talkpage, hope this helps. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I think it might. Hopefully, the vandalism will end soon. As this has been going on for 2 months with lots of protection in between, and it has not been working. Deavenger (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• No problem! IF the particular anon IP keeps editing in such a disruptive manner following his/her unban (from the stipulated 48hrs ban just handed out to him/her), the administrator will have that piece of information ready at hand to implement something more drastic since it would have proved beyond any doubt that the IP isn't a dynamic one. Maybe a hard-block, who knows? Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. And the anon just removed the tag you placed and . I just reverted his latest remove. But he removed that too. Deavenger (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem is dave, the current IP the user is using is blocked. I don't think it can get any worse then that. Deavenger (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• OR so it would seem... he has been stripped of his right to edit his own discussion page now and banned from editing for the next 48hrs. He does that again and the block gets doubled to 96hrs, and so on and so forth. Cheap thrills gets you nowhere, that I can assure you. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. But if the user's past history is of any clue, he'll be on a different IP tommorow. The only real solution besides a range block is semi-protecting the page. Deavenger (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on history, I doubt that blocking will do any good here. I've semi-protected Middle power for three months. Any admin may modify this as they think best. Note that this guy reverted Middle power *12 times* on April 11. He returns like clockwork each time protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Further proof that the offender is using a static IP address, so it is easy to ban! Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No: several different IP addresses have been used over the course of time. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for June 6th since (s)he is going to remove content at Great power the moment that block is going to be lifted... Are you willing to increase the block time for that page also? -- Phoenix (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I request that both pages be semiprotected until august (middle power is already now). 1, three months will be longer then all the previous blocks, so if he still comes back, then way more serious action is going to have to be taken. 2, both pages can be blocked for the same period of time and be unlocked until the same day (plus, Great power is going through a GA review right now, and might be continuing till June 6th). Also, during the months of June and July, I'm will not be able to try to work against the vandalism as much as I will be in other countries touring or visiting family, and my access to the internet will be short and very sparse until August. Deavenger (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I left a note for the original protecting admin on Great power to see if he disagrees with the longer protection. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mariah Carey mess

We've got a real problem over on the Mariah Carey articles dealing with dueling sockpuppeteers. Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901/Archive) and JuStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JuStar/Archive are both blocked (essentially banned) editors that primarily edit Mariah Carey articles. I keep a close eye on all edits related to Mariah Carey albums and all edits related to Mariah Carey songs, and it's a completely unproductive area: Petergriffin9901 and JuStar reverting all changes to their preferred versions, having their socks reverted, reverting each other. We've had JustarR24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was Petergriffin9901 pretending to be JuStar, for reasons that I simply cannot fathom. We've had ChristopherMix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JornalistaLusitano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who were JuStar socks blocked for being Petergriffin9901 socks. So far as I can tell, there haven't been more than half a dozen productive edits to the entire group of articles in the last two months. There was a brief wave of deciding that Mariah Carey wasn't a pop artist that 93.149.194.206 tried to pull off, but Charmed36 would have none of that, so that pair of edits to each article canceled each other out. Max24 has been fighting hard to clean things up, but the people he has been cleaning up after are Petergriffin9901 and JuStar

What I would like to get consensus for is to take a somewhat drastic action: six week semi protection on every article in the two categories, and full protection on the ones that are hardest hit:

• E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Music Box (album)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Ballads (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rainbow (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charmbracelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

plus semi-protection Circus (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because it's a JuStar favorite.

I know this probably seems extreme, but I don't know another solution. Vigilance and reversion isn't working well, and semi-protection of small numbers of articles isn't doing enough. This isn't an earthshakingly important area: if the information that Carey entered some obscure chart has to wait six weeks to be entered, so be it.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator who routinely deals with this ever growing issue, I would support trying semi protection for a period of five to six weeks. Blocking these users socks has little to no effect, and CheckUser has proven to provide little help. These kind of socks are ones that need to be treated with WP:RBI and WP:DENY, something that protection would help accomplish here. Tiptoety 03:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago I decided to work on Mariah Carey articles as they were a real mess. I've started fixing links, formats, peak positions, and certifications, according to reliable sources. I don't know now if the previous peaks/certifications were put there by mistake or was it on purpose, but they were completly fake. And when I started fixind them, all my changes got reverted by Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JuStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socks. Every day comes another sock and reverts the changes. The most vandalised article is Mariah Carey discography, and all her albums articles. I keep on reporting socks on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page, but just when they got blocked, another sock comes out. This doesn't seem to have an end. Max24 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that if these two are determined to fight it out on the pages, then semi-protect is not going to help; they are simply going to age their socks sufficiently to get autoconfirmed and start over. Perhaps full protection with admins editing per consensus on the talkpage? If we make it really hard for them to effect the viewed page then we may discourage them from logging on... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much my reason for requesting full protection on the most troublesome articles. I don't think it's necessary for all 30 of them.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to invoke WP:SILENCE and claim consensus for doing something? We've had no arguments that doing nothing is necessary. I argued for a mix of semi-protection and full-protection. Tiptoety said "semi across the board", and LessHeardvanU proposed full across the board. Shooting the middle, it seems that my initial proposal represents a compromise. Can someone with the bit act?—Kww(talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Firsfon has installed full-protection on the worst group, based on this discussion (I'm a bit surprised that he didn't comment here about it). Anyone up for installing the semi-protection on the remaining articles in Category:Mariah Carey albums and Category:Mariah Carey songs?—Kww(talk) 11:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech

Yesterday, DougsTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his opinions known on my user talk page about the recent arbitration case results. I unfortunately responded in the way he wanted. Here's the series of diffs on my user talk of his repeated additions and the reverts by myself (and Versageek):

Here is how he responded to various other users and administrators on his user talk page:

• One down
• Your recent edits
• Edit warring

Now, sometime after I had removed the message from my user talk for the third time he had placed it and before he began the "One down" thread on his own user talk, DougsTech felt the need to clarify why he opposes every single RFA with this addendum. I am tired of his gloating about the ArbCom ruling.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech's attitude and behavior is beginning to eclipse disruptive. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And the above diffs exemplify why his oppose votes are preachy. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just plain trolling on DougsTech's account. Support 24h block topic ban from RFA for trolling. MC10 | Sign here! 04:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point, it might look like it's punitive (although I can't really tell the difference anymore). I'd bring back the age old suggestion that he be topic banned from RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's completely unacceptable. Gloating like that at what clearly has to be a hard time for another user isn't okay. 24 hours seems a little light to me... and that's to prevent future trolling from this user. AniMate 04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion, for edit warring, trolling, and just making useless oppose votes in WP:RFA. Support increasing times of block if he tries to ignore his topic ban on RFA. Yes, 24 hrs. is too light; I hadn't seen DougsTech's block log til now. MC10 | Sign here! 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

←I agree that his behavior is very disrupt and serves no other purpose than to harass Ryulong. And honestly, this seems to be Doug's MO. Long term disruption at RFA + personal attacks + edit warring = site ban. Tiptoety 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to seeing a 24 hour block. However, the bottom line here is that DT is manifesting a very clear enmity towards administrators (evidenced above), and as such, he shouldn't be permitted to use RfA as a venue to make his point. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he should be able to continue to vote however he likes at RfA. He makes a simple statement that is not really disruptive if people just ignore it. The beaureaucrats are not stupid, and they weigh his votes appropriately. However, the other behavior, such as his repeated posts today, is not acceptable. LadyofShalott 04:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This isn't a matter of DT voicing an innocuous opinion. Compounded with what I see above, he is using RFA as a platform for disruption and soapboxing. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing? As far as i can tell he has no influence at RfA. Everyone just ignores his one statement, right? Or does he preach there too? David D. (Talk) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is clout and influence a requirement for soapboxing and preaching? One doesn't need to pontificate to make a point. They can be subtle. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Because if everyone is ignoring him and he is not engaging people it is not disruptive. The gloating on the talk page is another issue though. Don't get distracted by the RfA contributions. David D. (Talk) 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It may appear a little off topic - but they are quite interrelated. His behavior above verifies that he has a warped and very negative view of administrators. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we care? His actions, baiting and such are another thing though. David D. (Talk) 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for you, but people can see this as a reoccurring pattern may care. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that he dislikes administrators as a group, but so what? As long as he follows WP policies, he can edit here, no matter what his opinions are. (Of course, things like incivility violate policy, and can not be tolerated. I do not see his RfA votes in that category, however.) LadyofShalott 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he doesn't edit. He just uses Huggle for rollbacks in the article space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a matter of letting him have his opinions. I don't care what they are. Things aren't evaluated individually, but rather as a whole. That's how a community judges the generalized effects of a given behavior. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that the crats do not give any additional weight to DT's oppose votes at RfAs, but I still find his votes useless, as well as unhelpful and demoralizing -- unhelpful because the comments are not directed towards the candidates behavior at all, and demoralizing because it makes the candidates feel like they shouldn't be running for adminship at all. To me, this borders on incivility. While I agree with everyone else that this, on its own, should not be a reason to ban or block him, when you add in his comments on Ryulong's talk page, as well as his edits in his own userspace, it becomes clear to me that this is his goal -- to be generally unhelpful and demoralizing to admins and admin candidates. While I support an site ban/indef block, at the same time I fear the consequences of what he may do after we have made it clear that we do not want him on Misplaced Pages...but, this is probably going to be inevitable. Matt (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite block

• I saw the comments and edit warring on Ryulong's talk page. Had I not been previously involved with this user, I would have blocked. I had hoped that after the last incident, he might tone it down a little and actually focus on making constructive edits. Instead, he huggled for a while, and then went back to doing what got him twice banned from huggle for a month and six months at a time , namely acting as a welcome bot (13 edits per minute exceeds the rate allowed even to flagged bots). Topic ban from RFA is inappropriate no matter who it is. Persistent harassment of admins in general? We put up with that. However, he has crossed the line into persistent harassment of specific users, including a cocktail party at his talk page to celebrate an ArbCom ruling. I once again support an indefinite block. –xeno 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  LessHeard vanU gave DT some excellent advice . If he were to genuinely take on board those suggestions, I would support lifting the block. –xeno 01:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite block. He's obviously crossed a rather wide line here. If he can't be topic banned from RfA given his behavior in totality, then he should be indefinitely blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Basically, if we cant silence him one way, lets silence him another. Right?DougsTech (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Given your embarrassing remarks and edit warring on Ryulong's talk page, and your behavior at RfA, I think it's about time you found something better to do. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yep. The editor has been disruptive at RFA for far too long. This user's use of RFA to state his/her opinion is out of line, and can not be tolerated. I will not stand for that. If this block doesn't happen, I will start an RFC about the disruptive RfA participation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • With that said, I support this block. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my reasons above. Matt (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. Until It Sleeps 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, not that I need to elaborate. I am tired of his constant gloating, which includes these most recent edits to his user talk .—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my talk page. Still not satisfied, eh? DougsTech (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - From the RfA mess to these new disruptive comments to and about Ryulong, it is apparent that DougsTech is here just for disruption and not to do anything really encyclopedic. Time to shut him down. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Time to shut him down" - That is a good way to put it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Plus with this bit to egg Ryulong into an agruement or whatever, that is complete and total disruptive behavior (which is why I removed it). DT needs to be gone and fast. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support. At the last RFC on the RFA talk page I opposed, because I do not see harmless crankery as something to worry about. It does seem now that he has crossed a line. With that said, though, I have rarely seen a single user subjected to the level of abuse which Dougstech has endured, and I think that this type of mobbing shows the absolute worst side of wikipedia. Little niggles from a thousand editors can be worse than stalking by a single foe. AKAF (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Trolling RFA was bad enough, but if he's going to be such an ass to other contributors, we don't need him.--chaser (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I had originally opposed and instead favoured a 24-hour block for edit warring, but his continued incivility after my !vote has caused me to reconsider. I now feel that an indef block and/or a community ban is needed. His comments at RfA were disruptive but not unmanageable, but this is clearly crossing the line. His refusal to apologize for his incivility, as well as his starting a section here to try and have Ryulong banned (which was blanked), suggests that he's not interested in disengaging, and thus the block/ban would be preventative. Firestorm 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Whilst the Trolling at RFA would be tolerable if Dougstech was willing to explain what his "high standards" were and discuss them, or was otherwise a useful editor; IMHO he has now proven a net negative in three different areas of the Pedia in which he has operated (RFA, Huggling and now the personal attacks on Ryulong). Whether he is a clever troll deliberating testing the limits of our tolerance or a well intentioned but counter-productive editor, the pedia is better off without him. ϢereSpielChequers 06:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. He's not here to contribute, he's here to play games, and the trolling below ought to be the final straw. Let him play his games else-where. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Although I did agree with the ArbCom decision to desysop, the behavior by DougsTech was atrocious, and edit warring to keep that in is pure trolling. Misplaced Pages should not spend any more time on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. With his behaviour so far and refusal to get a clue he's either 1) a troll or 2) the most disruptive good faith user known to man. Either way, why do we want him here? What does a user who can't even be trusted to use huggle without cocking up bring to Misplaced Pages? Ironholds (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Ironholds and WereSpiel, really. He's not doing anything very useful, and (intentionally or otherwise) causing a lot of trouble. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 06:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support He's gone past the point of being an ignorable irritation. Whether or not he is intentionally being a troll is irrelevant, he is causing disruption virtually everywhere he participates.--Dycedarg ж 07:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It has been a long time since he made any kind of useful contribution. He has done little more than cause drama for some time, and it is about time we put a stop to it. ~ mazca 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. The Truth indeed. MER-C 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support How much hand holding do we need to do here? He's proven his point and I'm sure he can find a venue to gloat about how corrupt all Misplaced Pages administrators are on another site. Now let's get back to editing. AniMate 09:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is simply disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Slamming a custom "To many admins" template on each and every RFA and simply assuming bad faith on every editor is not the way we are supposed to work together here. The argument he made that he has "Strict Admin Criteria" is void trough nominating a canidate that was opposed by a landslide of votes. Excirial 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Time’s Up — Tiptoety said it best. transwiki to WR, block any soks 2 ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support For the same reasons Excirial just stated. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• DT has exhausted community patience with edits like this. ➲ redvers 09:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ridiculous it's lasted this long. I'm aware what he's doing is his opinion yada yada but Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for his own free speech. I think he'd be a lot better of at WR or Yahoo Answers where slagging off Misplaced Pages(ns) is common nature. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban/indef block Nothing other than trolling from this account, no useful contributions and a refusal to get it. Templated opposes on RFA's was annoying and mildly disruptive, but this baiting and trolling of a desysopped admin is clear demonstration that DT is by far a net negative on the project. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. The edit warring on Ryulong's was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. –Juliancolton |  14:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef ban. Should have happened months ago. He is a net negative to our project. Majorly talk 14:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• This should have been done earlier. He recently said that it was a personal goal of his for Ryulong to be desysopped, and that he should be banned. Trolling Ryulong was unacceptable, whatever you think about him. Acalamari 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support This stuff shouldn't be tolerated and if editors refuse to knock it off, they need to find something else to do. Eusebeus (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• OPPOSE DOUGSTECH IS EXERCISING FREE SPEECH THIS IS CENSORSHIP BAN THE BANNER. Uh, I mean, support. Dissent is allowed on Misplaced Pages like free speech is in the real world: you can say whatever you want, but you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Sceptre 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Per reasoning above. Syn 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Too many DougsTechs currently. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Touche. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The community and the project would be better off with one less troll. Spellcast (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per many above. This editor is not here to be productive. Resolute 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. Would be willing to propose lifting the block if (a) he clearly admitted the problem, (b) promised to stop the behavior that was disruptive, including strange RfA voting and hostility to administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Get rid of the drama, go edit articles.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support He's become fanatical about shoving someone's nose in shit. Law _{type! snype?} 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - minimal substantial edits, maximal disruption of the community = a net loss. Experience says someone who is after the truth about an editor is not helping build an encyclopedia. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. Willking1979 (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Enough. —Anonymous Dissident 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose indefinite block

• Oppose I have seen no evidence so far that merits not allowing this user to continue here. LadyofShalott 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't think enough other things have been tried. We should first try to institute a topic ban and civility parole with some teeth first. I would support a full ban from all RFA-related discussions and escalating blocks on civility parole, however I don't think an indef is merited quite yet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. I suggest a strict civility parole enacted immediately, with any uninvolved admin able to block if incivility like that shown above - blatantly taunting Ryulong, which is very, very much not on - continues. His RFA comments are ill-advised, but not much worth worrying about. If he doesn't get the message soon, though, then longer blocks will become necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• 24 hours - an indefinite block is not appropriate, but a 24 hour block for gaming 3RR would certainly be appropriate. Had I come across this at AN3 or whatever it is now, I would have certainly blocked him for 24 hours. --B (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

24 hour block for edit warring, plus an RFC/U on his disruptive conduct. Firestorm 05:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Moving to Support due to DT's comments made after I !voted. Firestorm 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose a block unless if it has been ongoing since I left the following caution on his talk page: User_talk:DougsTech#Edit_warring. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Does this answer your question?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As you can see in my comment on his talk page, I did not think his edits to and regarding you were appropriate. At the same time, responding to him with "Eat shit and die," is a bit over the top as well and I do not see how such comments help. Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • DougsTech was explicitly baiting me, and I unfortunately took the bait with that edit summary. I have not been in contact with him at all, and he shows up to edit war and gloat on my user page in an already stressful situation. He's no better than TAway with his gloating (after I undid his removal of a userbox from my userpage) and the random IP that showed up to say something of the same sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Don't take the bait. Today someone called me a "fool," not even an edit summary, but rather than insult back, I replied politely, so as if anything let that user look like the incivil one. Best, --A Nobody 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It was inappropriate, but human. AN, you of all people know what it's like to be kicked when you're down.--chaser (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, true, switching to "weak" oppose and I have cautioned Doug again on his talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose-His RfA conduct is tolerable as he is entitled to hold his opinion. Incivility and edit warring are bad but indef block is not justified for that, though a short block is, as in case or any other editor who violates 3RR or is incivil after warning. --PirateSmackK 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  This is the user who brought the wine to Doug's talk page party celebrating the desysopping of Ryulong –xeno 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose only because there isn't an option to support another kind of block. He should be blocked for his attacks and edit warring but not indefinitely. If someone proposes a week or two block, I'll support that. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Very minor incident, and not one-sided either. People have emotions, live with it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just wondering: Did you read he entire post, or just the initial ANI report? There is more to it then some mud slinging between editors. Excirial 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Check the title of this page. If there is more, use other tools. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Administrator's noticeboard/incidents? There are incidents, just more than one. I don't think there's any prohibition against bringing multiple problems here, and in my experience this is the only place where community bans/blocks are discussed - if you know of another, please enlighten me. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, i would say that the reason behind this report is "Editor Conduct", which means it involves all edits the editor made. I believe its customary that any issue involving complex vandalism is reported to Ani - and it is only natural man takes the editors entire conduct into account before making a decision on whatever proposal is made. Excirial 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose with enforced probation and/or topic ban - We do not need a block of him. So what if Doug wants to do some mudslinging. We are too unhealthy with bans. I would prefer the easier way, and put him on an enforced, maybe 1-2 year probation and/or topic ban from the administrator related Misplaced Pages mainspace. (This does not include content parts of the mainspace or the Manual of Style). If he is to violate this, I would switch my position, but I will stay firm now that he should be not blocked and has a chance to be a fair contributor.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 11:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mudslinging" is not when you repeatedly tell someone they got fired and with terminology such as "One down" or "malicious".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. Indefinite is a long time, I concord with Durova that some kind of dispute resolution would perhaps be worth a try. I agree with this block though and then perhaps a last chance saloon, please see comments at the bottom of thread. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC))
• Oppose indefinite block for a little edit warring on a talk page. Nothing he has done on the rfa page is disruptive. David D. (Talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry? We're talking personal comments, goading and taunting users, throwing a "party" to celebrate the desyop of an admin, trolling, a tiny amount of mainspace editing so useless that he's even had huggle access taken away, all without the absence of any useful mainspace contributions. Oh, and a "little edit warring on a talkpage". Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Fine, get all worked up instead of ignoring him. David D. (Talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinite block, the one week block is fitting. I do think his RfA comments are a bit pointy and would support a topic ban from RfA project pages. This said, if he carries on with this kind of behaviour, he shouldn't be startled if an indef block comes his way sooner rather than later. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block, presuming he makes an apology for the personal attack on Ryulong. Being pleased with an administrator going astray losing their sysop status is one thing. Attacking is another. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block There is little so unedifying as watching Misplaced Pages editors (including admins) getting very hostile about perceived slights upon themselves as a group (while permitting perfect strangers of questionable renown to have articles in their name hosting scurrilious rumours and blatant untruths in the name of open editing - but that's another matter, it seems). DougTech's gratuitous skull dancing celebration of Ryulong's desysop deservedly attracted sanction, but his long standing oppostion to admin RFA's is not new and has been tolerated for too long to be censured now - and other than the poking of Ryulong are there any new activities to bear in mind? I hadn't intended to comment, since I take the view that DT wastes too much time anyway, but I cannot in all conscience not register my dismay at the likely end result of this thread... This is not what the project is about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Questions Could someone clarify the "indefinite" part of this block? While I'd support the NPA block at almost all times, and I know the 3RR rule was approached, might I ask if there has been a history of incivility in this case? The RfA issue has now become moot for the time being, as Doug has agreed to avoid that section for 6 months. I see that he's done work in vandalism fighting, UAA, and NPP - so if we have the option of building a better editor, I'd be in favor of that. I know that indef. =/= infinite, but I'm wondering how harsh a punishment is being distributed? — Ched :  ?  23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, blocks aren't supposed to be handed out as punishments, but what the "indef" bit means in this particular instance is that DougsTech must make a public acknowledgement of his sins and repent before being allowed back into the fold. I find that exceedingly distasteful. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the least "distasteful" option is. I have sympathy for what you're saying, but I don't see where we should go, exactly. If he's stated, as he has quite clearly, that his goal is to take out bad sys-ops, and then when someone loses the bit, he's right there at their talk page, gloating, and then edit-warring over it... do we just invite a reprise of that? How much disregard for community standards is too much? I see this as different from someone flying off the handle in a dispute. -GTBacchus 01:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are you proposing that bad sys-ops ought to be protected in some kind of way, and that all who criticise them should be banned? What do you see as the problem with anyone pledging to "take out" bad sys-ops? Lest there be even further confusion let me make it perfectly clear that I in no way condone gloating over the misfortunes of any editor, deserved or not, administrator or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. That's not within a million miles of what I'm saying. I would never say that any user gets special protection. Please read what I said again, and note that I didn't say that. If I ever say that, shoot me. I never dreamed of saying, or thinking, that.

  Did I say I had a problem with someone pledging to "take out" bad sysops? No, I didn't, and I don't. I support what he's doing, right up until the point where he stoops to being personally rude about it. Please re-read what I've written, and note that I have said nothing to that effect. I don't know why you're reading this stuff into my words. I'm coming from the opposite angle that you seem to continually suggest I'm coming from. Please do reconsider these strange conclusions about me. -GTBacchus 03:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest that you might make an effort to be clear and consistent in your judgements. "If he's stated, as he has quite clearly, that his goal is to take out bad sys-ops, and then when someone loses the bit, he's right there at their talk page, gloating, and then edit-warring over it... do we just invite a reprise of that?" --Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• That selective bolding significantly changed the meaning of what I said. The antecedent of the final "that" (in "do we just invite a reprise of that?") is the gloating following the desysopping, and not the desysopping itself. The desysopping, and his mission to see bad admins desysopped, provides context, and explains why it is reasonable to expect this behavior to repeat. It is not the behavior that I was criticizing. I was criticizing the unacceptable gloating.

  I have been entirely consistent. I have no problem with his wanting to take out bad admins. Good work, that. I have a serious problem with his gloating over it, and being obnoxious about it, and telling someone who was just de-sysopped, "you were a bad one". The work he's doing, I support. The attitude he takes about it, I think is terrible. I love that he has high standards for admins. That is no excuse for being a jerk about it.

  Therefore... now pay attention: because he's on a noble mission, and because he's shown that he's willing to degrade that noble mission by behaving like a rotten child.... you get all of that? Because of those two facts (both of them), I think it's fair to say that this is what he's doing. He likes to take out admins, and then gloat about it.

  If he says he wants to take out admins, and then not gloat about it, I'll unblock him. That would be awesome. If, on the other hand, this juvenile crap is how he plans to react to future de-sysoppings, then I think we should ban him until he acquires a clue.

  I have been entirely consistent with this position. -GTBacchus 06:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• In a lot fewer words: The problem I'm unwilling to see reprised is the gloating afterwards, not the de-sysopping. The de-sysopping is not a problem. The gloating is. That part is 100% unacceptable, and the other part doesn't make up for it. -GTBacchus 06:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wasn't Ryulong supposed to be desysopped exactly for this kind of thing? I propose an unblock for Dougstech and a block of Ryulong instead for violation of point, civil, and generalized harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What the heck are you talking about? I did nothing of the sort. DougsTech went out of his way to be an asshole towards me. I didn't provoke him into this. And I certainly was not desysopped for anything resembling this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. LessHeard VanU sums up the way I feel about this pretty well. Perhaps a short block for dancing on Ryulong's "grave" may arguably have been in order, to prevent further grave dancing, but nothing more. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block and support WP:RFC and ban from WP:RFA. MC10 | Sign here! 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per A Nobody ⊕Assasin Joe 04:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef Block; Support topic ban from RfA This directs the medicine to the heart of the illness. If the user tries to subvert the topic ban, or indulges in further grave-dancing, then further steps become possible. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Conduct RfC

The normal thing we do is try dispute resolution. If anyone starts a conduct RfC I would certify it. Durova 05:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting an RfC should a block not happen. The editor has been disruptive throughout RfA for quite some time now, and I will not tolerate it. If an RfC doesn't help, I might request an arbitration case and see if they can deal with it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support an RFC/U, per my comment in the Oppose section above. Firestorm 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've left a note for DougsTech. Have proposed to shake cyberhands if he removes Ryulong's name from the subpage linked from DT's signature, and if DougsTech promises not to act this way after another desysopping. Durova 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, he's taking Ryulong's name out of the subpage. It's the end of my evening so will be several hours before checking in again. If DougsTech modifies his tone a bit then will withdraw the certification offer. Durova 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Looking at the edit summary on the removal I'm not convinced it's him "shaking cyberhands", more trying to avoid immediate problems. Ironholds (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly support Durova's original suggestion While I did strongly oppose any blocks or bans in regards to Doug in the past, I believe that recent events have dispelled much of the AGF considerations that I once held. The idea or concept that admins must be held to a high standard is indeed a reasonable viewpoint to oppose a candidate; however, it is also reasonable to expect the same high standards of the person requiring those standards. Simply put, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and I believe that with the posts made to Ryulong's talk page (apologizes for any mis-spellings), and the subsequent edit waring reverts, Doug has shattered the glass house in which he once lived. I believe that it's time to take this little story to its natural conclusion, and put to bed any further disruption to our community. — Ched :  ?  07:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Will an RfC do anything for someone who's on a crusade and seems far more interested in winning his crusade than actually editing the encyclopedia? I mean, his only edits seem to be reverts using Huggle, and I'm fairly certain I remember he was all but forced to start editing in article space when his antics at RfA proved to be too much and were his sole edits. Also, haven't there been issues with his use of Huggle? Is he really a net positive? AniMate 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

After the painfully boring process of looking through DT's contributions, I have to say I oppose an RfC. He isn't a contributor, he's an automated script user. That's it. He got angry with Ryulong back in August of last year, when Ry removed his Huggle access and deleted his monobook's automated scripts. He then moved on to Twinkle and AWB. After a failed attempt at obtaining rollback, he started using Huggle again. If we were talking about someone who created content or even edited, I'd say an RfC would be appropriate. However, I challenge any user to find a main space contribution that isn't an automated edit. AniMate 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support RfC iff there is no consensus for an indef block. –Juliancolton |  14:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support RFC. I am sick of people trying to cop up a reason to block someone indefinitely because they fail to write text for articles or start new articles or make substantial contributions to the mainspace (how arbitrary is that?). There is NO policy that says you must contribute to the mainspace to be an editor in good standing here. It simply does not exist. So what if he uses scripts? If he uses them properly (yes, he's made some errors, but overall not terrible) it's a net positive for the project. Looking at his mainspace contributions, I see a lot of good vandal fighting. Why is this bad? How is this not contributing to the mainspace? If you want to ban him, fine. But come up with a REAL reason, not some copped up reason that has no basis in policy in ANY respect. Quoting Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians, "Whatever one decides to do (unless it is merely to vandalize), every Wikipedian is presumed valuable." If that's not the case anymore, we've seriously lost our way. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support RFC. I don't know if it will help, and after seeing the above diffs, I don't feel very generous towards this editor. I think his RFA participation is fine, and I'm very disappointed in the community's seeming inability to deal with his participation there in any sane way. However, I'm quite unimpressed to see someone going to the talk page of someone who's just be deadmined, and vaunting over their loss like that. I think that someone who is willing to do that has no place here.

  We don't have to work with everyone who comes along, and I think drawing the line at such blatantly obnoxious behavior seems entirely appropriate. I support a community ban until DougsTech indicates an intention to interact with dignity, decorum and respect. I don't mind, however, doing the RFC first, and seeing if he's willing to adapt. -GTBacchus 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I believe GTBacchus said what I've been thinking but hadn't put to words. I've never felt that his standard RFA comment was something anyone needed to get worked up about. His latest talkpage antics however were certainly over the line and blockable. However If he's willing bring his behaviour into community standards, a second chance may be reasonable.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support RfC There are a lot of people articulating my thoughts here better than I can, so I'll leave it at that. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Come to think of it, I guess that's what I said above, so I'll strike in order to avoid dup !voting. — Ched :  ?  20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• 'Oppose any RfC. ANI is not a forum to whine or to seek a block because someone had their feelings hurt. This is a disruption and it was not caused by Dougstech. Ryulong really should have known better than to start this mess. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? I didn't start anything. DougsTech went out of his way to do this to himself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Excuse you, what I see is the obvious disruption at ANI against someone that you don't like and disobeying 100% exactly what the ArbCom ruling was. You were desysopped because you can't stand criticism and you have your friends get reprisals upon others. Sandstein has a long history of viewing your blocks and denying unblocks, and even increasing your blocks against people that question you. For someone who ArbCom said had a problem because you refused to accept questioning of your actions and attitudes, this is a serious violation. You had how many days since the ArbCom closed to create this outrageous violation? Perhaps you should have gone on a WikiBreak, because you learned nothing just like you learned nothing from your RfCs. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Quite clearly, Ottava, you have no idea what you're writing about. R. Baley (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I've been on the receiving end of the above, and I submitted logs and the rest to ArbCom members that ruled on the matter. I've also put forth a long history of Sandstein's interactions with Ryulong's blocks. Its not a secret, and ArbCom has in record him approaching others also. He was desysopped for this outrageous abuse. Sandstein had no business turning this to an indef, and this had no business being at ANI. I think an ArbCom case reviewing everyone's involvement is definitely in order, and I think stronger measures are going to have to be taken against Ryulong because he obviously didn't care about what ArbCom said. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree. I did not disobey any ArbCom ruling. I was not desysopped because I can't stand criticism. And Sandstein and I have no connection whatsoever. DougsTech did not question my actions. He was celebrating the fact that I got desysopped and doing so in my face when multiple people told him not to. All I did was relay this to the community with respect to DougsTech's other behavioral issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
        • No connection? I already put forth where he reviewed many of your blocks and has shown a close connection to you. And people can celebrate your desysopping all they want. Get over it. You were a very bad admin and multiple RfCs and an ArbCom case stated as much. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
          • And now you're acting no better than him. And as I said last month, Sandstein has always done unblock denials. And there is nothing on this page that has to do with my ArbCom restrictions. You have no idea what is going on and are instead using this as a way to continue to hold a grudge against me for the block I placed on your account last year. It wasn't your first and it wasn't your last. Get over it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
            • No better than who? And this is not a coincidence, as was proven before. The fact that you have users protect you from being blocked over problematic incivility is also troubling. You think its appropriate to request someone to be blocked after telling them to "eat shit and die"? And then having a friend remove their request for attention at ANI after you tell them that? This behavior is completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
              • I blocked a lot of users and notified that they were blocked. Sandstein goes through CAT:RFU and responds to a lot of unblock requests. The correlation is all in your head. I've already stated that I should not have told him to "eat shit and die" but I lost my patience with him being a dick to me. And I have no connection to NeutralHomer who put the original week block and removed the thread he started as a retaliatory measure. The only people who I have any sort of conversation with concerning the people who have been assholes to me since I got desysopped are DragonflySixtyseven (who is not contributing here) and Versageek (who also is not contributing here). I have not asked them to block anyone. I did not ask anyone here to block anyone. I merely relayed what DougsTech has been doing in regards to my desysop. If you think my behavior here is inappropriate, go to WP:AE and suggest that what I'm doing here is a violation of my arbitration restrictions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                • The way you interacted with Sandstein on my talk page was classic good cop bad cop, especially with you having him make the claims that I should be blocked for admin contacting me through email and then you made that block adjustment. I listed many such problematic interactions between you two for ArbCom already, so that doesn't need to be addressed further. But others have made it clear that they did not approve of you soliciting others for blocks in such a manner. Now, no connection to NeutralHomer is a stretch as there are over 5 pages that cannot be shrugged off as a coincidence. But yes, perhaps you are right. Perhaps you got the person who you told to eat shit and die indef blocked while he did not make such an egregious attack as you did. Perhaps there is just a major double standard. Perhaps someone removed a legitimate ANI request over your problematic behavior because they just didn't care enough about standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • You still have no idea what has gone on. You are just agreeing because you and I had a conflict. I'm not going to bother trying to defend my statement to DougsTech because you don't give a shit about my opinion. I solicited nothing here other than supporting long after it was suggested, but you won't listen to me about that either. Again, if you think I'm violating arbitration committee restrictions, you know the channels by which to report that. Other than that, I think we're done talking here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • I'm sorry, but are you trying to suggest that my block over a year ago forced you to tell someone to "eat shit and die" and the disrupt ANI in this manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • No. I'm suggesting that your block over a year ago is making you act this way to me. You appear to be the only person to say that I'm disrupting anything. If you think I'm disrupting, report me to the ArbCom.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                        • I'm sure if DougsTech ANI report of your little cussing fit in edit summaries which is completely inappropriate was still up there would be quite a bit to the contrary. Its easy to play innocent when any one pointing out your impropriety is reverted and then indef blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                          • DougsTech's ANI report was simply a tit-for-tat because I started this thread. I told him to eat shit and die and then rebuffed myself in the next edit. I have no reason to apologize for it. If you want me punished for a lapse in judgement, you know the channels to do so. I'm a user in good standing (ArbCom restrictions or not). DougsTech is not as is evident by the support of the indefinite block. If you want me to be punished for what you believe is disruption on my part and violations of my arbcom restrictions, you know the channels. I'm done talking to you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                            • Rebuffing yourself does not make it appropriate. It would only show that you knew what you were doing was wrong, and your placing it in an edit summary makes it all the worse. To then continue your pursuit against DougsTech when you are making such comments only verifies your inability to evaluate the situation properly. Bishonen was blocked for doing far less than you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima, you need to stop and do a little research real quick. There is no connection between myself and Ryu. I added a banner to a page and removed a thread started by DT. There is no connection there and Ryu is right, that is all in your head. I expect an immediate apology for even thinking I was connected to another user....and if you aren't happy, I urge you to request a checkuser. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The thing about the little script above allows people to decide for themselves. Now, lets say there is no connection between you and Ryulong. Why would you remove a legitimate complaint about someone telling someone else to "eat shit and die"? Why would you ever think that is appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, technically I don't have to answer this, but I will. When someone puts up something that essentially says "hey, let's block this guy because he said "eat shit and die" and he is already engaged in harrassment of that user, that is continued and blantant harrassment and disruption and should be (and was) removed. No one else found it necessary to address this because it was disruptive. Second point...don't believe there is a "connection" between Ryu and I...request a checkuser. Otherwise, I think an apology to both myself and Ryu are in order. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Harassment? No. He had a legitimate complaint. He is a user in good standing. Your revert is the very definition of edit warring, and doing so on ANI is an abuse. Also, your statement about a CU is absurd. No one is accusing you of being a sock puppet. You are just being accused of making a really bad decision and given the benefit of the doubt that you did it for an understandable reason (having a friend) as opposed to doing something completely inappropriate that has no explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
        • It wasn't legitimate, it was harrassment and disruption. Now you are the only one who has a problem with this. I am done discussing this with you. Goodbye. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Really? Because there is an egregious violation of Civility in an -edit summary-. Those can't be struck, and have always been grounds for a block. If you don't have a problem with that action, then there is a serious problem with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support RFC as stated above in oppose to indef block. MC10 | Sign here! 04:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support should there be consensus that the block be lifted. There definitely needs to be something done with DougsTech. If there is an RfC, and the RfC fails to accomplish anything, then lets request arbitration. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Given that there's been a passage of time already, any block would be 'cool off', thus 'punitive', thus against policy. An RfC, however, would be the establishment of a single central place to discuss his disruptive, obstructive behaviors and refer to the evidence thereof in the future, should a single RfC not convey the community's feelings sufficiently. I've little doubt that while he's aware of the community's feelings, he's also enjoying it immensely. I have two regretful thoughts: One, he'll laugh his ass off at our 'processes', marvelling we've no spine to ban him outright and fast, and two, that he'll float and revel in all the attention he'll be getting, and none of it will effect a change. ThuranX (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

R. Baley's block

R. Baley has blocked DougsTech for 1 week. This is DougsTech's response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to want people to know he is blocked and is continuing his harrassment with edit summaries like "now go template ryulong because he was desysoped?". I think a talk page block is in order during his week long block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on notifying this board, but my computer is a little slow this evening. I have no objection to any admin extending the block to indefinite. But these attacks are going to stop. Will appreciate any other admin watching the talk page in order to protect in case it continues there. Getting late, R. Baley (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I bring this to everyone's attention. It is essentially a veiled attack on Ryu and R. Baley. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Our standards after a block - disengage and deescalate

Step away from his talk page if he's trying to dig himself deeper in the hole. People vent after being blocked. Don't egg him on or encourage him, or fight with him on his talk page. If he continues this behavior when the block expires he'll be indeffed in short order by any uninvolved admin who becomes aware of the situation. Don't get into another fight or extend this one now that he's blocked. Unless he starts posting threats of violence on his talk page, step away and leave him be. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let DT calm down. If he continues his crusade after his block, we can cross that bridge then. AniMate 08:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So we are supposed to stop discussing whether or not the individual should be banned from the project because he has been blocked? That doesn't make sense to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is not to engage him on his talk page. Discuss here all you want. AniMate 08:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That does make sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong: I do think ignoring DT for the remainder of his block, would be more effective than rehashing it here. He's just enjoying every bit of attention he gets. He's been a disruptive user from the start and my opinion is that the project won't miss him once he's gone, but we are just enabling him by responding to his trolling. -- Luk 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone who cares enough might want to look back through DT's history and see if he started out this way, or if it developed over time, or if there was some defining incident. I have normally found admins to be helpful, even the ones I've clashed with. There aren't that many admins that I would consider to be out of control. Quite the contrary: If anything, too often admins appear to be overly lenient, and get played for suckers by users promising to do better if they're unblocked (as with a section farther up this page). A user with a vendetta against admins is not likely to be helpful to wikipedia in the short run, the long run, or any old kind of a run. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a bit of a look at DT's edit history.

Dougtech turned up about 14 months ago and immediately started vandal fighting with tools ( I would say he had had some previous experiance of wiki as he straight away was using tools and making hundreds of edits) and after a bit also started welcoming people and then in August Doughtech and Ryulong met when Rhylong switched off or disabled Dougtech's Huggle for a month, here ] Here ] in the discussion about this he talks about 'giving this account a rest' and 'silly admin' . The encounter with Rhylong upset him and he seems to consider it a personal attack, as is shown by his addition to his userpage here ].. Then on the 6 august, rhylong deleted dougtech's huggle for a month to stop him using it poorly/badly and that was the start of it all. Then he goes off using the AWB for a while and in jan he asked for rollback priv and was refused. This set him off and he starts again adding welcome template and ading speedy delete templates, then on 19 march he starts with the oppose too many admins and here we are today. DT seemed to dislike any form of control and set off like an out of control bot with his editing thinking he was doing great work, vandal fighting and welcoming and a bit of sockpuppet accusing and automatic editing...some of which were unwanted and uncalled for. There was no article work. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

DougsTech has never created or manually improved an article, ever. Someone who starts off their wiki-life fighting vandalism simply looks like a sock, at least to me. Majorly talk 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

*cough* :p Nakon 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Nakon is saying there that he started out way back in 2005 doing some vandal fighting and that majorly's sweeping statement is not all encompassingly correct. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Doesn't disagree with Majorly's statement. Majorly isn't saying "a user who starts fighting vandalism is a sock", more "looks like a sock to me". His viewpoint can be expressed without being contradicted by Nakon's contributions. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I was accused of being a sockpuppet because I dared to use edit summaries and proper formatting in my first few edits. I even uploaded an image (now on commons) as my third edit/action. Clearly I should have been banned as an obvious sock... It's easy to find a reason for an account to "look like a sock" but without actual evidence, it's counterproductive to pursue the issue. --auburnpilot talk 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had had experience of wikis prior to my first edit too. Had great knowledge of wikicode and such. However, coming to Misplaced Pages and instantly jumping onto Huggle is, at least to me, a sign of previous experience, be it here, or elsewhere. Majorly talk 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Timing

There's something that needs to be pointed out: during the thirteen minutes leading up to his block DougsTech was becoming cooperative. I had asked him to remove Ryulong's name from his RfA oppose subpage and to give assurance that he wouldn't act like this after future desysoppings. Note his actions:

• 05:40, 29 May 2009: A victory for the community has been reached with the ryulong desysoping, so I will go ahead and remove him from the subpage, if thats what the community wants.
• 05:42, 29 May 2009: DougsTech removes mention of Ryulong from User:DougsTech/RFAreason.
• 05:50, 29 May 2009: I probably wont celebrate like this for future desysopings, but this one was long overdue.
• 05:53, 29 May 2009: DougsTech blocked for one week by R. Baley

DougsTech was already deescalating, so a one week block over the Ryulong incident is not preventative. He has satisfied my request so I will not be endorsing a conduct RfC. Other Wikipedians may wish to take other actions on the basis of remaining issues. Durova 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd point you towards the edit summary here, though - I don't see that as cooperation or any regret for his actions, I see that as back-pedalling (and ineffective back-pedalling at that) to avoid sanctions. "remove, for now" can't really be interpreted in many ways except as the wiki equivalent of hiding from the law until the heat is off. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Yet wouldn't it be more appropriate to deal with a reinstatement if/when it happens? When people get blocked just as they're taking baby steps in the right direction, that often leaves them really jaded and uncooperative. Durova 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, as long as he continues brandishing this attitude, I see no reason to allow him to be here. If he was interested in reaching a constructive solution, he wouldn't have said it IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The truth is, I think he could get himself unblocked within a day if he acknowledges the worries and undertakes in a straightforward way to stop the snark and pointy edits. Most admins I know indeed think blocks are preventative, not punitive. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he goes a bit farther then okay. Here's hoping he understands this situation wasn't orchestrated in a smoke-filled room. The door to a return is unlocked, but he needs to turn the knob and wipe his feet on the mat. Durova 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly think he needs to apologize for the personal attacks, but I also note that plenty of far more severe personal attacks go unblocked. The WP:NPA policy is applied very loosely here, and in most cases not at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't a good idea to demand apologies. We might demand that he withddraw the statements, although most of that is already blanked. We could also require him to pledge to refrain from repeating the mistake. Durova 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• That's the thing. I'm not happy to see DT edit here until he indicates some kind of commitment to stay within our community's standards for how we treat one another. Bygones can be bygones, but we need to know it's not a pattern that will repeat. -GTBacchus 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block imposed

The discussion above is now at roughly 70% in favor of indefinitely blocking DougsTech for wide-spectrum disruption – including RfA trolling, harrassment and incivility – with no change in attitude even after the current one week block was imposed, coupled with a lack of substantial, useful contributions to the actual encyclopedia. That amounts to rough consensus. I also support an indefinite block for these reasons and have imposed it. I propose that, should any administrator believe at a later time that DougsTech has convincingly shown that he understands the reasons for this block and is ready to begin editing productively, the question of his unblock should be referred to the community as well.  Sandstein  16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that you imposed a ban on him Misplaced Pages:BAN#Community_ban, but I believe if I read that correctly it has been tradition that if a single admin is willing to unblock he is not effectively banned. Of course if nobody is willing to rescind the indef block, then the account is banned. We don't do votes for banning, several re-incarnations of that have failed. —— nixeagle 17:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a single admin does not have the right to overturn a community ban. This is, apparently, a common misconception. If editor X is blocked indefinitely, and no admin is willing to give them another shot, they are considered by default "community banned". But a user who is banned by community discussion cannot simply be unblocked at the whim of a single admin. --auburnpilot talk 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; see also de jure vs. de facto. –xeno 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, good call. –Juliancolton |  17:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is ok. He can still say he'll stop the worrisome behaviour. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, things can move along at a rather rapid pace here. I don't want to appear to be doing the "good hand - bad hand" thing, and I know that indef =/= infinite, but Durova points to a few items above that indicate some behavior modifications. I'd certainly support a 30-60-90 day ban from RfA, and I realize that the communities patience has reached its limits, but Doug did also contribute in positive ways outside RfA. That is not to say that any manner of taunting of another editor is acceptable in any way, surely that exceeded the boundaries of our mindset here. If an editor can be turned from the dark side (apologies for the Star Wars ref), then I'd offer that a bit of mentorship might be of assistance. I realize that I was vocal per support of a RfC, and indeed I do believe that some focused discussion on the matter might offer a bit of an outlet for emotions. I'm not suggesting that we extend drama any more than need be, but I do think it only fair to be open to options. I can certainly appreciate Sandstein's efforts to put a stop to disruption, but as Gwen (in a much more concise manner) mentions above, I believe that we should be receptive to possible improvements. — Ched :  ?  18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't see him agreeing to an RFA ban at all. He doesn't think he's doing anything wrong. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 20:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support the community ban against DougsTech, a non-productive, non-constructive user. In addition, for clarification, an administrator does not have a right to overturn a community ban generated by community discussion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How do you define "non-productive, non-constructive" I see an awful lot of very good vandalism reverts. He's not perfect in doing so, but who among us is? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As stated above: Gross incivil behaviour against editor(s), Trolling/disrupting RFA just to make a point all due to his conclict with Ryo, bot like edits... I can believe everyone has a bad day one is a while which can cause negative comments or edit summaries. However, i don't think that RFA vandalism or Uncivil behaviour of this magnitude is ever acceptable. Also, trough his Statement it seems he just has a grudge against admins and still does not believe he is doing something wrong. Similary the comments about his tags at the RFA page and the comments on his talk page were not enough to at least let him see reason; Man can't believe that a bunch of editors come complaining without at least some validity. Nobody is perfect, but these edits and no sign of any form of apology put him, in my eyes, in the vandal corner. Excirial 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. (Cross-posted from my talk page) "Well, I can see that DT has been community banned at this point . . . Looking over the reasons and numbers in the discussion, I concur with Sandstein's judgment and probably would have done the same myself . . . Unless something dramatically changes, I think this should just sit for a while, and the community can revisit and discuss any unblocking conditions should the need present itself in (at a minimum) a few months time." R. Baley (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:LYNCH Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per everyone else, everything to be said's been said :P ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• En-diddly-dorse. Glad to see that someone has finally bit the bullet and put a stop to his trolling, something that should have happened a long time ago. Lankiveil 10:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

WP:BAN/WP:DENY

Shouldn't the user talk page be deleted and redirected to the user page per WP:DENY, with the user page itself blanked and replaced with the template for banned users?— Dædαlus 19:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? As long as the talk page won't be abused in some way, I don't see a need to do this. Anyhow, WP:DENY is for blatantly obvious trolls, not cases like this one.. --Conti|✉ 19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The point of WP:DENY is that we don't maintain a shrine, chronicling the achievements of heroic trolls of yore. It's not supposed to be a kind of in memoriae damniato (how does that phrase go?) to turn bans into sealed caskets. -GTBacchus 19:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? rootology/equality 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he deleted the block notice that basically said, you've been blocked for ongoing personal attacks and harassment. I realize it didn't say this, but the ANI thread it linked to did. The user is still mocking others on the talk page: Don't ever make an admin mad, they will use their tools against policy to silence or get rid of you, just because they don't like you.

As far as I've seen, this user has been banned by the community for dancing over someone's grave, basically, and now we're going to let them sit there and make things look unjust by delinking the relevant thread and lying about what happened? At least post a ban template on the userpage with a permalink to the thread.— Dædαlus 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• DougsTech has not been given a specific reason as to why he was infinitely blocked other than this thread, which isn't a rationale. There's no specific policy being pointed to or anything on which he can correct himself to work towards removing the block. Further, he is perfectly allowed to remove notices from his page. Read the first sentence of Misplaced Pages:UP#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. So what if he removed the block notice? He's permitted to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. I wonder if this falls under "exhausted the community's patience". rootology/equality 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As I understand it, write-protecting a User's Talk page is, in effect, telling that person to go away & never return. Ever. Leaving it accessible to the User gives her/him that one final chance to redeem her/himself. Not everyone is comfortable voting to block another Wikipedian without any hope for redemption. -- llywrch (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I fail to see how WP:DENY has anything at all to do with this situation. That page describes why we took down our shrine to Willy on Wheels, but it has nothing to do with blocking an editor for treating other editors totally unacceptably. If that's not what he's blocked for, then it's a bad block. -GTBacchus 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The one week block was for that reason. The indefinite block, it's unclear why it was applied other than vaguely pointing to this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems to be a community patience ban, partly a result of our community's disappointing lack of patience when dealing w/ RFCs. That still doesn't explain how WP:DENY has any bearing. -GTBacchus 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Nor does it explain how DougsTech can fix the problem. If there's no hope of fixing the problem, then we might as well do what is suggested here. If there is hope, then he needs to be told what, specifically, needs to be corrected. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I've crossed out the deny part.— Dædαlus 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • (ec - reply to Hammersoft) Oh, I think he's been apprised of which community norms he's been violating. Most obviously; don't be a jerk to other editors. Don't make a point of kicking those who are down. Follow the Golden Rule. Be decent.

          The question about RFA behavior... I thought that was addressed when someone put together a template for him to use... whatever became of that? We used to be much more sensible about this sort of thing; I remember my RFA. -GTBacchus 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's policy or just custom, the common practice has evolved to letting an angry blocked user rant for a reasonable time. At that point, he needs to either post a proper unblock request, engage in civil discussion, or disappear. Give him a few days to decide whether he wants to work at wikipedia again. Then take appropriate action with the user page. Baseball Bugs carrots 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure I understand the point of this thread, but I'll have a go. While it may be a broad application of WP:CCC and WP:NOTIMELIMIT, I personally am not in a big rush to get rid of anyone. I do understand that Doug took steps into WP:NPA territory, and it's obvious that community patience has reached the end of its collective rope; but I'd rather see behavior modification and attempt to swell our ranks, than just kicking every incident to the proverbial curb. Perhaps with some quality mentor-ship, would help if he was willing to accept it. I think GTB and Hammersoft have a proper outlook here, and I'd rather close this individual thread down and not embiggen the drama any more than it already is. — Ched :  ?  20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to blocking

Call it my soft spot, but I'm still willing to give DT the benefit of the doubt. However, I realize his actions can't go unpunished, so here is what I propose;

• If unblocked, DougsTech must be willing to not vote in an RfA for 6 months, as well as refrain from commenting on, or providing evidence for, any RfAr concerning an administrator's behavior for the same period of time.
• If unblocked, DougsTech must agree to refrain from editing any pages not in the mainspace for 21 days.
• If DougsTech does not comply with these two conditions, he recognizes that his indefinite block may be reinstated.

--Iner22 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't support an RFA topic-ban, because I think a much better solution would be for us to let RFA be a place where we model better ways than that of reacting to such an editor. Banning him from RFAs is just a way of saying that we're not ready to learn that lesson, so we'll be doomed to revisit it until we do learn.

  What I support a ban for is to prevent edits such as those made to Ryulong's talk page, which initiated this thread. If he's willing to agree to treat other editors with a modicum of dignity and respect, then I'm happy enough to have him participate at RFA. -GTBacchus 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The question for this user or any user is, if you take away these things, what will be left for him to edit? The answer to that question is the key to whether a topic ban will work. As we found from Axmann8, a user focused on a single topic cannot stick to a topic ban. If DT has many diverse interests, then a topic ban might work. Baseball Bugs carrots 20:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If by "work" you mean "enable the community to put off learning our lesson," then I agree. Someday, though, we really oughtta have a look at that thing. -GTBacchus 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  What there will be left for him to edit is what he should be editing in the first place, informational articles.--Iner22 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• If saying to oppose admins per "too many admins" is trolling and indefinite blockable, shouldn't indiscriminately saying to delete all articles per "too many articles" fall under such classification as well? Also, while I think his comments toward Ryulong were ill-advised and personally warned/cautioned him about it (I find incivility unacceptable and unnecessary here) as well as other things he has done, is there other incivil stuff that he has done in the past or is this just a recent bad behavior flurry, because a number of editors have far worse histories of incivility and have shown up on ANI multiple times but have not been indeffed for it. My concern here is that we are even-handed with this sort of thing, i.e. indiscriminate "too man admins/too many articles" is always unacceptable and incivility is always unacceptable as well. Best, --A Nobody 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I will not agree that indiscriminate "too many admins" is unacceptable, nor that he's indiscriminate about it. If we ban him because of that, then we fail. If we want to avoid failing, then we need to learn, as a community, how to handle this type of behavior. The best way is not to topic-ban, nor to make a clear rule against certain types of voting. The best way is to let him have his lone, possibly senseless, absolutely harmless, "vote". Let's teach new admins the power of boredom, and the effectiveness of not-fighting. -GTBacchus 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well said. And then we all have more time for other things. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• I certainly appreciate the AGF in this, and I do agree that some time away from all things adminy would be of benefit to DT. I know there's been some work in vandal fighting in the past; and regardless of the perception of the value in that, it does alleviate any WP:SPA concerns that one might have. — Ched :  ?  20:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Topic bans have proven to be a reliable way to minimize drama and redirect otherwise productive editors into more fruitful endeavors. Why, though, is it that people seem to always say they're against RFA topic bans in particular? If all your drama swirls around topic x, whether that's Some hotbutton article or ANI or FAC or whatever, what is the difference if it's a backend thing or a content thing? Disruption swirls around RFA? Gone from RFA. rootology/equality 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you consider one sentence, the same one, in every RfA disruptive, or even annoying? The disruptive behaviour is the badgering that goes on. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a very good question, Rootology, and I think the answer is this: there's something we can do that's better than a topic ban. That would be for us to model best practices during the RFA process. We expect admins to go forth, and deal with issues such as trolling, and "drama". Wouldn't it be great if the very process by which they're pushed into that world contained a model of the best way to do it?

If this were an article, then the necessity of maintaining a stable, neutral version takes priority, and topic-bans can be very effective in making that happen. This is RFA, however, and passing up the chance to let that process be a lesson in smart dispute management seems like a damn shame.

I dunno; does that make sense? -GTBacchus 20:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me be very direct. The best way to deal with such "trolling" is to give it a minimal reply if any, and move on. We seem instead to want to model the method where we let it get under our skin, and have big public freak-outs about it. I think that's a stupid approach, and I think we should stop doing it. We should maintain a culture where appropriate responses are encouraged, and inappropriate responses discouraged. We're currently making a great big fiesta out of enabling inappropriate responses. I think that's terrible. -GTBacchus 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that.  Sandstein  20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (Although in this case the minimal reply eventually had to come in the form of an indefinite block.  Sandstein  21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Arguing in RfA opposes is rarely a good idea, especially when arguing against such a thin rationale as DT provided. Still, the sum of his actions lead me to believe we're likely not going to suffer too much if his block remains in place. AniMate 21:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For your position to make any sense you'd have to be blocking those who create these "big public freak-outs", not the editor making the oppose which causes those who ought to know better to "freak-out". You also might like to consider why there are rarely any comparable "freak-outs" in the support section. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that blocking people who get upset follows in any way from what I've said. I'm not recommending that we block anyone over this stuff. Next, I don't see blocks as punitive, but as preventative, so if we end up having to block someone, better 1 person than 30, except that the problem will recur, with another editor, if we don't choose to learn from this experience. The solution I suggest is a permanent one. As for support votes, people aren't bothered by positivity nearly as much as by negativity, nor by praise nearly as much as by criticism. I don't find that to be mysterious at all, but it doesn't make the responses we've been seeing appropriate. Perhaps those who dislike his votes so much should consider whether those votes would actually do any harm if we just stopped responding to them, or if we always responded with, "Thank you for your vote." -GTBacchus 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Going back to this threads topic: Given that Doug is now requesting an unblock, and linking directly to this thread, and there are several admins who might be inclined to grant that, I offer the suggestion that a "Stay away from Ryulong" item should be spelled out as well. To be honest, I have some very conflicting thoughts on this at this point. I've seen some very sound reasoning all the way around on both sides of the block/ban issue. I agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, but I really want to AGF too. I guess it's really not that important since it's not my decision to make, but I do think it's important that the attack on Ryulong item should be addressed in any conditions that one might be willing to grant at this point. To be honest, I guess I had hoped that Doug would take a day or 3 to step away from the keyboard, but I guess we work with the tools we have. — Ched :  ?  21:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

DougsTech (talk · contribs) is requesting that his block be reversed, stating that he would like to return under the conditions laid out by Iner22 (talk · contribs) above. --auburnpilot talk 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We generally expect blocked users to understand the reason for their block before we unblock them, so as to make sure that they will not continue with the conduct that caused their block. I'm not sure that's the case here.  Sandstein  21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you should make him beg, on his mother's grave. Naively I'd thought the purpose of a block was to prevent disruption, not to extort confessions, but there ya go. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't thinking asking for someone to acknowledge why they were blocked is equal to forcing them to "beg, on his mother's grave." AniMate 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would be against any unblock after this post that says his goals were to "remove bad administrators, keep bad users from becoming administrators" and again, without saying his name, referenced Ryu's desysoping. He shows no sign on stopping his harrassment of Ryu and if he is to return that should be one of the stipulations for his return....leave Ryu alone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• After DougsTechs's continual disruption of RfA, I wouldn't let the user have another chance. I think the editor should be permanently banned for that reason alone. All the user mostly does other than that is welcome new users at high speed. I don't a need for him/her to be around, and I think Misplaced Pages is better off without him/her. Let's ban DougsTech permanently. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This all seems very reasonable. Since his RfA !vote seems to be a major cause of irritation to some members of the community, and he is willing to keep away from RfA for a while, I see no reason to keep him blocked and endorse his unblocking. I'll probably just do it myself but need to wade through the miles of stuff above where he seems to have been booted off from wikipedia faster than Bush went to war in Iraq. I thought consensus was supposed to be a deliberative process! Ah. The modern world. Moves to fast for the likes of me! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't unblock against the consensus of the editors above. A new consensus to unblock needs to be formed to unban. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I don't think there is a consensus. What little there is seems to revolve around his RfA vote (a crusade of which I don't understand the rationale on either side). Nevertheless, a tentative ok to your request. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with R. Baley generally, but I think it would assuage our concerns if he agrees to stay away from Ryulong and RFA permanently.--chaser (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I absolutely think he should continue to participate at RFA, but if he won't agree not to engage in future personal attacks, I don't think we should unblock him. It's not about Ruylong now, it's about the next person he decides to kick while down, and then the next one, and then the next one. Wanting to stop bad admins from abusing the tools is a Good Thing. Engaging in juvenile gloating and name-calling is not. -GTBacchus 23:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I still believe that the entire "Bad admin abuse" case is no more then a matter of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Seeing that his originally included a specific mention of ryu (Along with the bunch of directed incivility) i have a hard time to believe that this was solemny "For the good of removing bad admins wikipedia". Excirial 23:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That may be, or maybe not. In either case, replying with a simple "Thank you for your vote" each time, and teaching others to do the same, would completely neutralize the disruption. Let him make his point (or "POINT"), in each RFA if necessary, and move on.

      In general, by the way, I haven't found it helpful in any situation I can think of to try and decide whether the other person is trolling or not. Just respond in a way that's appropriate either way, and then don't worry about it. -GTBacchus 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • So the proposal now is that DougsTech should remain blocked because of what he might do? Don't you think that's taking punishment a bit too far, striking preemptively so to speak? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • • Malleus... that's about as thoroughly as you could have missed the point. First of all, I'm not making a "proposal", I'm talking. Blocks being preventative and not punitive is certainly not a new idea - it's what we've been saying around here for years. When I block vandals, it's to prevent further vandalism, not to "punish" them for what they've done. I learned this in my first week at Misplaced Pages; how is it new to you?

          If someone is doing something, and they don't indicate that they're willing to change doing it, despite being blocked for it, then we assume they'll keep doing it, and we do what's necessary to prevent disruption. DougsTech has said that he's done with Ryulong. That's different from saying he'll refrain from doing it to the next admin who's de-sysopped. Considering it's the hobby-horse he's been riding for some time now, it's not much of a stretch to say he'll still be on it. -GTBacchus 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

          • It is by no means "new to me" that blocks are meant to be preventative, and neither is it new to me that they are are frequently used as a punishment. Hence the demand for recognition of sins and contrition before the block is lifted. Unlike you I don't have a crystal ball, so the kindest interpretation I can put on your hypothetical concerns for administrators who may in the future be desysopped is that it's a desperate scraping of the barrel to silence an editor who holds an opinion with which you do not agree. Hardly a "moral high ground". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
            • That's really the "kindest interpretation"? Have you even noticed that I support his participation in RFAs and do not agree with topic-banning him? What on Earth opinion of his am I disagreeing with? All I've come out against is kicking people who are down. I think his RFA participation is great, and I encourage it.

              A demand that an editor recognize what they were blocked for, and indicate that they won't do it again is entirely consistent with preventative blocks. If someone doesn't indicate a willingness to change, then continued blocking prevents further harm. As soon as they say they'll play by the rules, the block can be lifted.

              I have no crystal ball, and I've never claimed to have one. However, I block vandals to prevent further vandalism. When someone shows a propensity to engage in personal attacks, we block them unless and until they indicate that they're willing to play by the rules. I don't I'm saying anything controversial here, but you are welcome to read whatever interpretation you want into my words. -GTBacchus 01:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

              • • I think DT's contributions here are a little more complex than those of an obvious vandal and linking one with the other is not a particularly productive idea. But, here we have the editor agreeing to a set of conditions that should qualify as 'recognizing what they were blocked for' (though, to be particularly frank, after reading all this I'm not clear what exactly he was 'indef blocked' for), and that should be sufficient, under the 'quality of mercy is not strained' principle, to unblock the gentleman. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • I agree that there's no apt comparison between DT and a vandal. I mention the vandal simply to respond to Malleus' suggestion that blocking people for probable future disruption is somehow out of the ordinary. I think that all blocks are to prevent possible future disruption, and that to criticize such reasoning as "crystal ball" gazing is not "a particularly productive idea". Does that seem fair? -GTBacchus 07:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Even if this is just a case of failing to keep cool i am especially worried by the lack of any form of well, lets call it him backing down. Even after being blocked he still has a not so friendly edit summary and took another kick at ryu. If he would at least give some indication that he believes that there might be a chance of him being wrong, rather then posting drama about admins all over the place while then i would say a cooldown period and a RFA/Ryu ban would be more then enough; But seeing that even friendly notices from non admin users | weren't taken seriously i can't see how things will go normal after an unblock. Excirial 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry

An anon user, 96.255.198.219 (talk · contribs), started editing last night while all was going down with DT. The user then posted this and this to DT's talk page. Now this wouldn't be anything, but the first post with the line "These admins are immune to your logic and find any excuse to ban people they don't like" sounds VERY much like what DT was spouting off about last night. I would recommend a checkuser before any unblock request is granted, if not anything just to be on the safeside. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anons are allowed to stay anons - which is why someone may want to post as an anon. It's scary to think that a checkuser would use the tool to be 'on the safe side.' How is anyone going to be safer, regardless of the outcome? If it turns out that it is not Doug, it goes from a fishing expedition to an invasion of privacy. CU should not be used 'just to be safe.' Law _{type! snype?} 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and CU, i dont care. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

CU isn't used per user unless it is an alternate account. In this case, we already know what IP this user is. The checking CU would only check DT, to see if his IP matched this one. They wouldn't have to check the IP.— Dædαlus 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So this is urgent enough to bypass WP:SSI? It was a very benign couple of comments left on Doug's talk page. Law _{type! snype?} 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that it is impossible for DT to be me as he is presumably autoblocked. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that DougsTech is not engaging in sockpuppetry, since the statements by the anon are too close to those of DT. If he isn't, he has no worries and like Daedalus969, it would only check DT. I personally see no harm in this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech's actual account is blocked. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been a number of cases recently of users pretending to be sockpuppets. It is not safe to take their activities at face value, including the one farther down the page that's called an "admitted" sockpuppet. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User page

My understanding is that DougsTech is indef blocked currently, pending his agreeing not to engage in uncivil comments towards a desysoped admin? On his userpage a {{banned}} template has been put up. And now all content there has also been removed. I do not think he has been banned (except perhaps from RfA? Which I would be opposed to, but I don't have time to read all the discussion). Can someone correct this improper templating and user page blanking please? I don't really want to be involved in an edit war on a user page at the center of this pitchfork and torch fest. Have a nice day! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think he's been banned, then what would you call the 70% in favor of doing so above?— Dædαlus 22:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that everyone needs to calm down while this is being discussed. This rush to template other's userpages is unseemly at best and is unnecessary. Let an administrator do it if it is deemed necessary after debate has ended. AniMate 22:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The template being added is on me. I added the template, it was corrected by another user. I thought the discussion was over when I added it. It obviously isn't. I apologize for what seemed like my rushing to add a template. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect ban

I have seen a large majority, yes, but not a consensus to indfinitely block or ban DougsTech. I think the indefinite block was made in error, and I think the extensive thread here is an overreaction of the community's part. DT's recent behavior has been very bad, but people seem mainly angry over his RfA votes - a reaction that seems entirely overblown to me. The incivility to Ryulong is intolerable, but not worthy of an indefinite block (a week seemed fine), and it is extremely unjust to block over the RfA votes. All in all, this adds up to an incorrect ban, in my opinion. LadyofShalott 05:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to steer clear of posting at ANI, but if I'm reading this correctly there was a shaky consensus that a small block isn't enough due to his block log.Drew Smith What I've done 05:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A community ban is a ban by the community, when a significant portion of the community agree a ban is necessary. In this case, they do. Comments like "DT's recent behavior has been very bad, but people seem mainly angry over his RfA votes - a reaction that seems entirely overblown to me. The incivility to Ryulong is intolerable, but not worthy of an indefinite block (a week seemed fine), and it is extremely unjust to block over the RfA votes. All in all, this adds up to an incorrect ban, in my opinion." indicate your personal opinion, not the opinion of the community. That you disagree with 70% of the people here doesn't make the block incorrect, since we use consensus as a governing model. Ironholds (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were a vote, which it isn't, I would suggest that it runs for at least two weeks, as on other language versions of Misplaced Pages, and that the community is made aware of it. AN/I regulars do not well represent the community at large. Also, 70% doesn't strike me as convincing, and it's less than that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As i am writing this, if we would see this as a straw poll the results would stand at 39 Support, 18 Oppose and 9 RFC. We cannot really count the RFC's as there are a lot of duplicate votes that state they only support RFA in case an indef block receives no consensus. Counting only Support and Oppose it would mean that that currently 69% is in favor of indef, 31% is against. The amount of votes are about half that of the average RFA, and they are certainly more then i see on average proposals or polls. Also, 70% is roughly the percentage where RFA's are decided to go succesfull. If anything, we can at least say there is no concensus for not blocking him.