Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive655

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:CactusBot[edit]

Could someone block my bot for 12 hours? There was an enhancement suggestion I want to implement and I've currently no access to the computer where bot runs.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Cactus26 (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy on Classification by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality[edit]

Resolved: this is a content dispute and not an issue for admins; please visit Wikipedia:Content noticeboard instead!!

Hi, I have a problem with the article White Argentine. In the article I mentioned many people who are Argentine by birth and by option (they immigrated when they were children and stayed in Argetnina until their death, or they are now living there). All those people mentioned in the article are perfectly Caucasian by phenotype, and all have European/Middle Eastern ancestry. To see the names, check this older version of the article, for they are now removed. This is because some users appeared criticizing the article and alleging that mentioning all those persons without a source that explicitly define them as "White Argentine/Argentinian" was a breach to Wikipedia's BLP policy. Is that true? Because I read the article of WP policy on categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and the topic "Race" is still under dispute. Besides, one of the users that criticizes the article is also involved in the proposal/discussion/RfC of the policy itself. If the matter isn't still resolved, can they apply a rule that it is not fully valid yet? If I provide sources that every living Argentine mentioned in the article is of predominantly European ancestry, isn't that enough to define him/her as White? Please, help me clarify this doubt.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what administrator actions you want here. But anyway, Wikipedia:BLPCAT has been part of BLP policy for a long while and is linked from the page you link to. I can't remember if the par specifically mentioning lists has always been there but I think it's been clear for a long time it's meant to apply to them. Of course even without that section, labelling a LP without a clear source (whether using WP:Syn reasons or not) still wouldn't be acceptable since it's a basic part of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
When in doubt, the principle of self-determination is paramount. You need to provide evidence that a person thinks of themselves as a member of the category. In order for a person to be listed at the White Argentine, or categorized with a similar category, you need to provide clear, unambiguous evidence that the person thought of themselves in those terms, such as a direct quote from the person where they call themselves that term. Race is not a term which has any basis except one which is culturally determined, so there is no absolute "scientific" means of identifying a person with a race. Treat race like religion; if a person doesn't clearly state they are a member, don't include them. --Jayron32 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
"All those people mentioned in the article are perfectly Caucasian by phenotype". When the misused term from genetics is replaced by what Pablozeta apparently means, this amounts to "they look white to me". Also, Pablozeta himself has stated that the term 'White Argentine' (or any reasonable translation of) isn't commonly used in Argentina (here). On this basis 'White Argentine' isn't an ethnic group at all, and therefore cannot be the subject of an article about one. This is all going over old ground, and the relevant policy has been explained to him numerous times. The article as it stood when I and other 'outsiders' first became involved seemed to me to be in gross breach of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Given that Pablozeta seems unable to understand this, I have, along with others, sought to correct the worst errors of the article, though it clearly needs more work. It is of course debatable whether the article is necessary at all, given the excellent coverage of Argentinian migration, ethnicity, culture etc in other Wikipedia articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Andy the Grump - this is a huge problem with articles about ethnicity in all of latin america. American racial categories are being conflated with ethnicity and applied into a context where they are not valid or mean something else, and with no supoporting sources people are being conscripted into racial groups (posing as if they were ethnic groups) based solely on subjective perceptions of their family background or phenotype. It is clearly not viable.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered bot?[edit]

It would appear that Fti74Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an unregistered bot. WuhWuzDat 18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 70.127 edit warring and using personal attacks at Mercy11 on Oscar López Rivera[edit]

Resolved.

can someone monitor this article, the IP is edit warring with Mercy and calling him/her nasty names, they just called Mercy a retard which is offensive, I think this IP needs a block to get their attention--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source which proves that clemency was offered on August 11, 1999. Not September 11, 1999. The source also proves that Oscar refused clemency. Despite this, Mercy11 keeps reverting the source and claiming that Oscar was not offered clemency. This is false. What's the problem? I'm just trying to add correct information. Read the source if you don't believe me.

http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm

--70.127.202.197 (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

you called him a retard thats the problem, it was uncivil you should have stopped and went to the talkpage -Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There are incivility concerns, and I have spoken to the contributor about that. However, the incident occurred before your final warning. While the tone following that final warning still could use improvement, the "retard" comment has not been repeated. I don't think a block would be appropriate. In terms of edit warring, it's hard to see what's going on, since Mercy has been reverting without comment, but now that you've opened a discussion at the talk page perhaps conversation will follow, if the IP's source is for some reason in dispute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
ok but if you read the edit summaries, 70.127 has insulted mercy in all his edit summaries, and then he taunted him on his talk page saying he couldn't block, but we will wait and see how things go Moonriddengirl --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Since Mercy has again reverted without explanation, here, I've made sure that s/he is aware of this thread and asked for participation either at the article's talk page or here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


THE ANONYMOUS user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This matter is not about when clemency was or was not granted, but about uncivility by the anonymous user. An encyclopedia cannot be built if you are dealing with uncivil people, as the anonymouns user has demonstrated to be. The sockpuppet anonymous user (first anonymous at 72.186.98.71 and then annonymous at 70.127.202.197) violated Wikipedia WP:CIVILITY policy. My reverts violated no policy.

The history of violations by this annonymous user (who may quite well be a sockpuppet of a real registered user as well) goes like this:

72.186.98.71 at "White Eagle (robbery)":

"You're a moron" --- HERE

"You're an idiot" --- HERE

"You're an idiot", again --- HERE


72.186.98.71, then showed up as 70.127.202.197 (locations 12 mi away from each other) at "Oscar López Rivera" as follows:

"I already did[,] you moronic radical twit" --- HHERE

"Here's your sources, you radical nutcase" --- HHERE

"Not gonna happen, retard." --- HHERE

"You are a major retard." --- HHERE

The anonymous user continued the offensive, personal attacks even after I contacted user at the anonymous page in question HERE. The user changed IP addresses immediately after this to the 70.127.202.197 address and has not abandoned that IP address since.

If we check the dates and times of the above edits, the offenses and personal attacks had no other intention than to disrupt the harmonious building of the encyclopedia. The attacks were deliberate, premeditated, repeated and, to this moment, unremorseful. They harmed the building of the encyclopedia by being disruptive as they were also intended to garnish moments of glory and delight for the offending user at the expense of the intention of producing personal harm. This anonymous user should not be allowed such significant levels of disruption to the encyclopedia.

The user should not only be blocked at the 2 IP addresses, but the 2 articles in question should be locked until such time as civil editors can look into the validity of the anonymous user's alleged corrections of fact. A 30-day lock should be granted given the current and upcoming holidays.

Again, the anonyoums user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This is not a matter of the article having an error of fact on the date of the presidential clemency; this is about uncivility by the anonymous user, and we should not lket the user fool us into thinking this is about anything else but that. An encyclopedia cannot be built if anonymous users are holding a gun to your head while arguing about an alleged matter of fact. The actions of the anonymous user are a violation of policy, and it should be dealt with accordingly: and prevent further changes to the article by anyone who is not a registered user.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Civility is important, but we have processes for handling problems with it. If somebody is aggressive in a way that you think is detrimental to the project, you need to seek assistance, per WP:NPA. Blanket reversions of unblocked contributors because you find them incivil is a kind of vigilante justice that's not supported by any policy. There's no doubt that this IP's behavior has crossed the line, particularly as you point out that it has persisted across two IPs. Blocks are not punative, but preventative, however. If the behavior continues, a block will be certainly be forthcoming. But there is no exception for reverting rude people at Wikipedia:Edit warring. It's also important to provide an accurate edit summary. If you haven't looked into the content, your edit summary should make that clear, rather than implying that yours was the "last good version." And you have now not only reverted the IP, but reverted this edit by presumably an uninvolved editor (User:Quazgaa) with a summary reading, "Issues regarding this article are under currently discussion at the ANI board." The article isn't locked. Is there substantive reason to revert User:Quazgaa? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The short answer is "NO", and I went back into the article to undo my revert of Quazgaa's edits but I see the anonymous user in question had already reverted them - as well as his own. The longer answer is that my intention was not to revert Quazgaa: I was reverting the Anonymous User's comments when I got an Edit Conflict, due to Quazgaa's concurrent edit. Thus I reverted both - it seemed like the right thing to do at the moment, and as a note to Quazgaa and any potential future editors I also entered, at the time of my double undo, a note into the article's Talk Page HERE that the matter was being discussed in this forum, and hopefully put on hold other editors' potential changes. I don't claim to be perfect, and maybe some might consider my double undo wrongful action, but the record shows that the anonymous user started the controversy and continues, still unremoseful, to disrupt the encyclopedia by dragging additional Wikipedia resources into something that shouldn't have been. We cannot build an encyclopedia when an editor insists in having his persistent and unremoseful uncivility condoned by this forum. This is disruptive. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Nobody is condoning the behavior. It was flatly, unacceptably incivil. There's no justification for speaking to others that way on Wikipedia, and if it continues there will certainly be sanctions. That said, it is best to deal with incivility through the means set out at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly, then, are we in this forum for? The Anonymous user has already been proven to have engaged in unprovoked, intentional, repeated, and flagrant personal attacks. He's also shown he is not willing to work with everyone else going forward - never mind rectify his past wrongdoings. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were both openly violated by a user whose contributions have been Zero, and whose track record HERE has been nothing but to inflict damage and disrupt the encyclopedia every time he shown up. I have made my wishes clear and they do not conflict with policy. You seem to be best versed with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; please initiate, then, the necessary action to deal with this matter. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message. (crossed out by Mercy11 in favor of my message below to the Anonymous User.)

This is ridiculous. The article makes it clear that Clinton made the clemency offer in AUGUST 1999, NOT September 1999. It also makes it clear that Oscar refused the clemency offer. Despite this, Mercy11 ignores the source and continues to insist that the offer was made in September 1999 and that Oscar was not even offered clemency. My behavior is not polite but that doesn't give Mercy11 the right to ignore the fact that the article proves that clemency was offered in August, NOT September and that Oscar WAS offered clemency. --70.127.202.197 (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Once again, please read this link, Moonriddengirl and Mercy11.

http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm

Sorry I couldn't get here earlier, It seems Both parties are involved in edit warring and are to blame, Mercy shouldn't have edit warred neither should have the IP even though your edit is correct you don't edit war to get it kept. the IP is also to blame for incivil behaviour even though you stopped when I warned you, you haven't apologised to Mercy and you adamently have refused to when asked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Lerdthenerd is quite right about edit warring, 70.127.202.197. If somebody reverts your improvements to the article, you should follow the procedure at dispute resolution. It may seem to add a bit of extra headache, but as this shows in the long run it has the potential to save quite a bit more. It's worth taking the time to discuss differences to avoid larger distractions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • TO THE Anonymous User: "My behavior is not polite" and "Please" go a lot further in this place that the other 4-letter words. That article and the other 13, plus the 4 or so individuals associated with the Wells Fargo robbery need updates and your sources were useful. If you are willing to contribute without attacking me personally and otherwise following policy, I am willing to forget about the whole thing. I await your response.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Fine, I'm sorry for being rude. My sources are accurate though. Let's hope that Rivera gets parole. --70.127.202.197 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Green tickY OK, then as far as I am concerned this is a closed item. I'll let the appropriate individual seal and archive it as customary. Mercy11 (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

LOIC[edit]

In short, I'm after a bit of input from administrators here. Should LOIC include a link to the tool at the bottom? Technically it's not an illegal tool, but... is it appropriate? A few people have come up to me via email and IRC and voiced their concerns, so I thought I'd bring them up here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator.) I would say there's no problem with having the link there, but the article might benefit from mentioning the warning given about the tool by Carole Thierault from Sophos as quoted by the BBC here [1] Keeping the link while also having the article potentially slightly misleading, could be a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(I'm not either.) Articles on software generally contain a link to that software's official website. I think we should do the same here, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason not to. Maybe bring this up at the Software project? They should be used to dealing with issues like this... Bobby Tables (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One arrest has been made

...a 16-year-old boy was arrested in The Hague, Netherlands, in connection with the distributed denial-of-service attacks against MasterCard and PayPal.

Count Iblis (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(Neither am I!) Open source software mate. It's nothing you can't download from the second Google link that turns up if you search for it. We can't control it's use/misuse (and we shouldn't, either). If someone wanted to download the LOIC, I think not listing it on the article really isn't going to make a difference - Amog | Talkcontribs 20:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest looking to see if there is a standard among similar articles - do they or do they not have a link to an application/download within the article. We simply stay consistent with that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Realising, of course, that there may not be consistent practice...
LOIC is a legitimate Sourceforge collaboration, and it shouldn't be off limits to Wikipedians just because it can be misused. An e-mail client can be misused. However, I'm not so sure about the third external link offering a Javascript version of LOIC pre-set to point at Paypal with the comment "We need your help in support of wikileaks leave this page firing as long as you can". I'm kind of surprised such a page hasn't run into some misfortune by now, but in any case I'm not sure it's an encyclopedic resource. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(not an admin) Most software pages have a link to the project or download page. I agree with Wnt that we should not link to any "preloaded" examples, however, as that's not NPOV. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The PayPal issue seems to be moot, PayPal has just capitulated. The WikiLeaks funds kept by PayPal will be released, but Paypal will not do any further business with WikiLeaks. Count Iblis (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn kathir[edit]

The User:Ibn.Kathir has been using quite aggressive language; baiting and insulting users. Such language can be categorized as attacks based on race, religion, /creed, etc. The user is continuously refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content on Talk:Aisha despite being urged to do so by various users. Other users have tried to point out during discussion that they are uncomfortable with her/his words but s/he relies on same language. S/He during discussions at various times have used sectarian words discrediting all attempts for abusive in nature. He is too busy in pushing her/his agenda (of discrediting all Western and Shia Muslim sources & is even selective regarding Sunni sources & selection of matter from them, I quote her/him ,"...most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic...") to respect anyone's opinion &/or Wikipedia policies. It seems s/he has set her/his own guidelines and policy regarding acceptable references. Few of his comments are as follows:

  • idiocy of the...
  • i wont agree to any sunni sources that are quoted or sourced from shia or shia sources...
  • turning this into a shia propaganda piece...
  • More idiotic shia misquotes...

S/He has consistently shown his hate/dislike towards Shia, Ahmadiya, and western community in general & scholarship in specific. S/He has shown similar behavior on pages Talk:Criticism of Muhammad, Talk:Abu Bakr, etc.
Also, it seems User:Ibn.Kathir is employing sockpupputs to advance her/his cause, e.g. User:Ewpfpod, User:Howard.Thomas, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, etc
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, from your explanation. If you think there's sockpuppetry involved, you should file an WP:SPI report. Also, User:Ibn.Kathir doesn't appear to be registered; did you misspell the username? GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Believe it is Ibn_kathir.--KorruskiTalk 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Informed the user and corrected the username in the thread heading. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"Looks like a content dispute" ? This matter was filed because of bad user conduct, how is;

More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has.

simply a content dispute? Tarc (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to quote the entire sentence; I made it clear I hadn't been able to locate the discussion and that from the quotes the user provided it appeared to be a content dispute. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Certainly not a content dispute - civility with perhaps a racism undertone starting. Nothing blockable yet from what I see - of course, this is an issue that should have been at WP:WQA first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, correct name is User:Ibn kathir. And yes it is regarding content dispute but it seems s/he agrees to nothing and keep using allegations and accusations towards users, communities, creeds, etc. I didn't requested for blocking anyone I just reported the happening and my concerns. The attitude of user is blocking activity on Aisha & it seems on other articles also. We have tried to engage the user but s/he refuse to be constructive contributor. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right that it's not just a content dispute. I've warned them about crossing the line into abuse, hopefully they will take heed. Fences&Windows 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The SPI report was filed on 30 November at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi by Faizhaider. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Those comments where not aimed at him and meant in the general sense which is different from saying someone is specifically an idiot, further more anyone who can check ip addresses will see i have only one account so i think the person reporting this is doing their utmost to silence any opposition to his views.Ibn kathir (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling a group of people idiots rather than a specific individual only magnifies the problem. If you are calling more than one person an idiot, its a personal attack against more than one person. It certainly doesn't excuse the behavior. --Jayron32 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The way to handle this, Ibn, is don't comment on other editors, comment only on content and how to echo sources in the text. Keep in mind, some sources might not agree with other sources and more than one outlook on a topic can be cited, following WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

if you read the entire section you may come to think the other persons actions [quotations] where deliberate considering what i said earlier, hence my outburst, but yes you are right and i will tone it down. Just to clarify something Shia are not a race so their is no racist undertones. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Some do, sometimes and in some places, see Shia as ethnically linked. Either way, putting down a whole swath of believers in a given strain of faith can be every bit as harmful as a racial slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I never intend to silence any opposition, in contrary I (& others) tried to include user IK into the discussion and tried to address IK's views and comments even if they were opposite to mine (this can be checked by referring to the conversation on Talk:Aisha) but IK insisted on some points which are even contrary to WP standards (infact we were ready to accept that also and we asked for list of references IK will agree but to no avail). I only reported incident to ANI when it became unbearable for me (& to other users) so that corrective measures may be taken.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

no less hurtful or harmfull than calling Aisha a wretched women, read the comments and you will clearly see that being said prior to anything from myself. She is considered a saint among my people. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither making a religious slur, nor answering with another slur, is on here. It only makes things worse (as seems to have happened). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add User:Ibn kathir insulted me as well in Abu Bakr and Islam and Aisha talk pages, and he called my contributions idiotic and garbages [2].--Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
User IK was the first person on Talk:Aisha to use words like idiotic and garbages and down play opinions of others by labeling them fringe/minority belief/opinion and addressing users based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. e.g. Shia, Ahmadiya, Western, etc. User IK opinioned that no reference on the article Aisha is acceptable except Sunni sources that to interpreted by Sunni scholars and used by Sunni users i.e. practically user IK wants to block away all users from article who contradict opinion of User IK based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. User IK is sort of running Non-cooperation movement added with insults and accusations which target whole communities save individuals.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

a western person cant be anti western, the best muslims i have met in terms of hospitality and respect are the shia of iraq so im not anti shia, labeling something as inherently shia [such as thier hatred among other thing for the prophets wife's and companions which is exclusively their belief hence the label] is not anti a community its just stating a fact, and none of what you have said is relevant on this admin board so i dont know what else you are trying to prove. I will concede that the incident played out different in my mind but the time stamps say something else, but as i clearly stated earlier i was reacting to the other users quotes and accusations in which he essentially said Aisha the prophets wife hated her husband and lied about him and then their is this blatant lie in which he claimed the prophet called his own wife "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” i know the full context of the hadith and its explanation by experts in exegesis and it has nothing to do with Aisha, but again this has nothing to do with the admin board.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add prior to the quotes i had advised the other editor that primary research would not be accepted and pointed him to the relevant wiki policy of primary research after which he thanked me for the advise and said i had made matters easier for him and not long after he quotes what i stated and said the above, i thought it was a deliberate attack against her. Ibn kathir (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User Ibn Kathir, what was written in Aisha page, were from prominent western secondary sources. That western orientalists have reported Aisha's life the way you don't like is not problem of Shia, it's your problem, and you can not solve this problem by insulting Shia users.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
i dont know what you are talking about, random comments about things i haven't spoken about wont increase the likely hood of me being banned. Ibn kathir (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent comment of Ibn kathir at talk page of Aisha reveals user's stand, I quote user's comment on discusion page hereunder:

lets make things clear i wont agree to shia interpretations of sunni primary sources, i think that can be used as a baseline.

— Ibn kathir (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC), Talk:Aisha

Preceedings discussion can be reffered to see that user is dicrediting WP policies/guidelines/conventions and general consensus and suggestions given to User on various paltforms including thisand user is persistent in not having a constructive work or allowing it (if not involved atleast) to counter user is consistently threatning to block any further activity (thiks gor some sort of veto power & that everybody is obliged to consider and act accordingly). In my precceding comment I specifically said that, "I didn't requested for blocking", but now, imo a corrective action is needed. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

i give up, ill make things easier for the admin's, can you please ban me because, i don't see Faizhaider making a case against me in any of our life times.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back[edit]

User has been blocked, talk page access removed, and user refered to WP:BASC for further review. This discussion has long passed the point of being useful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can we indef block this guy? Per this, he's been indef blocked twice already with other accounts, one being the super-troll User:Bad edits r dumb. All of Fat Man's edits are trolling, and he has been calling other users "dumb" constantly as of late. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For saying what? "I hate admins?". Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any recent diffs to support problems recently? Wikipedia review notwithstanding, do you have any on-wiki evidence of recent disruption? Perusing his recent contributions, I do find some positive content work, including some extensive work on expanding and cleaning up at least one or two articles. While content work cannot override bad behavior, his edits don't appear to have consisted of, "All... trolling" as you claim. I am well aware of this users past, blocked identities, but given that he seems to have turned over a new leaf, and is not currently causing a problem, on what specific, diff-supported grounds do you wish to see him blocked? --Jayron32 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
[3], [4], [5], [6] to name a few. I just think that his trolling has far outweighed any positive contributions he has made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This ANI section is more disruptive than anything linked above. Please contribute to the encyclopedia rather than attempting to ban a good editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does everyone keep trying to defend this troll? "Good" editors don't have their main accounts indef blocked four times now. His unblock requests even show that he is just a troll (see his talk page). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please side with love rather than hate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"The love you take is equal to the love you make." Such as the love shown for both the editors and for the English language, in comments like "u r dumb." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it's time to block. Per my comments here - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That's four sketchy edits in the past month. I agree that the 4 edits you provided are bad, and should ideally never happen, but I do not think that they rise to the level of instantly blockable. --Jayron32 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine with an indef block. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You people are being unnecessarily ruthless and thin-skinned. Users should not be blocked for something they wrote on another website with the exceptions of canvassing and child pornography.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
[7], [8], [9]... all within the past month. I don't read the crap he writes on WR, I am basing this purely on his disruptive editing here and with his other trolling account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
He said "u r dumb" as recently as today.[10] Having escaped 4 indef's, he probably figures he's teflon. Maybe time to apply the brillo pad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Teflon is cheap and artificial; I'm more like carefully seasoned cast iron, rich with years' build-up of carbonized grease and free of metallic flavor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Slippery, either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Then why start off with a link to WR? That appears to be the motivation for this thread. These wiki-links (mostly from early November) appear to be attempts at humor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"Hey, Saturn, U R dumb!" That was pretty funny, yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I LOLed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I will now file a grievance at WP:EQ.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm shaking in my jackboots. :) Or is it Fat Man who'll be your target? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The things that really made me start this thread were (1) his post on WR right after BErD was indef blocked, and (2) the diff provided by Bugs to TCNSV's talk page, which is on my watchlist. I searched through WR for the original post (I assumed no one else made the connection between the two accounts yet, for which I was mistaken), but found this one instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
After Fat Man's sock was blocked for giving wikipedians the BErD, it's odd that his original account was allowed to continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Never mind what I said earlier, based on his last comments here today, he shows no remorse or signs of intending to take the project seriously. I would support an indefinitate block here. Significant is his prior history. I would never think of blocking a user if this was the sum total of problems. But given his extensive history of general trolling, I see no evidence he intends to stop. --Jayron32 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I, er, refactored my comments, like when i said that guy was dumb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, yeh,[11] after the threat of indef started to look realistic, and meanwhile invoking the ID of your indef'd sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Every comment here, including this one, is troll feeding. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM P-:--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why, again, are we not blocking him until he starts acting like an adult human being again? --Conti| 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, clearly hasn't changed and is evading block. Someone just do it. Netalarmtalk 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
NOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! i will submit to mentorship and adoption and arbcom sanctions and all manner of indignities. but pls don't block me because i have a lot of constructive edit todo before i die. :-(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I can only hope this means you're going to die soon... HalfShadow 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly at the end of something resembling cable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
HE MADE DEATH THREATS TO ME!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Looks like a hope for divine intervention of some kind. That's not a death threat. Unless he has God's private phone number on speed-dial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Times like this I wish the computer had a punch button. Isn't there a cartoon you could be watching, Fat? HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Judging by that block log, the blocked sock and the several nonsensical comments above, the user is either on a long-term trolling campaign or simply does not have the temperament required for useful contribution in a collegial, collaborative, adult environment. I agree with Jayron32 and Eagles247 and support an indefinite block.  Sandstein  22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
i hope you do not become an arbcom sandstein becos you are wrong in this case. also a lot of my block log are outright MISTAKES (do your research) but a couple of them were legitamate and things like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I have blocked User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back indefinitely for trolling and disruption. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef[edit]

I see a whole lot wrong with this block, and it needs to be undone. First, several of the diffs above are old and have nothing to do with current activity. Second, Eagles jumped into a matter that was already settled. Third, the allegation that TFM has made no productive edits is simply wrong. Is no one paying attention here? You don't get to re-block someone based on an old, already visited block without new problems. This is a bad block, looking like someone just wanted to block The Fat Man based on a months old post to WR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that another boomerang coming this way? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's troubling that Eagles247 puts up old diffs, of an already discussed unblock, then alleges no productive edits (which TFM's contribs clearly shows is untrue), jumps into an already settled matter to allege disruption, and then everyone else piles on like sheep and no one bothers to check. Bad all 'round. If you want to block TFM, you can't do it because you don't like something he wrong on WR months ago. Is anyone paying attention here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I made a judgment solely on his contributions on Wikipedia, not WR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
i actually agree with this block, but why did the administrator Eagles start the thread in the 1st place if he was just going to block the guy regaldess of anything anyone here said? why not just do it yourslef if you werent seeking consensapproval without going through this weird ritual? User:Smith Jones 22:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know what Eagles was doing in there at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
While I would have agreed with the block being a person who supported indef before, there was no consensus in here for a block, the best solution is to create an RFC. So unblock and develop a better consensus on this Secret account 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to do anything as big as this without first getting the opinions of the community. I am still a newer admin, and TFM has been indef blocked many times and subsequently unblocked. I waited a little bit for another admin here to do it, but I decided to step up and do it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That is really poor reasoning, as are your old diffs, your diff to an old post on WR, and the 22 minutes you allowed for discussion. Please undo this bad block now, and gain consensus for an indef. Deciding to "step up and do it" doesn't show the valiant judicious decision you might think it does; it shows impulsivity and a lack of diligence or even review of the matter. What brought you to this matter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sandy - did you even read the crappy luz-filled edits from this editor just above?. I give him top marks for being a manupilative and clever little prick, and artfully manouvering various editors as they jump though wiki-hoops to AGF etc. etc. Ultimately however a pointless troll whose fun needs to end (if only because we're all bored of it now - Fat Man - seven year olds find repetitive comedy humorous - the rest of us like fresh material - there's a good chap) - keep blocked and block the future socks. It's not complex. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pedro, why are you not blocked for calling another editor a "clever little prick"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know Sandy - perhaps you have an idea - why not fill the rest of us in on your thoughts? Whilst we're at it I've a mental list of admins and bureaucrats whose behaviour has gone well beyond blocking yet nothing ether happens - your mate Raul being a shining example. I'm sure there must be a reason why these people (me included) don't seem to get blocked.... Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks to be a freshly minted admin making a mark. But others weighing in here didn't exactly look at evidence before issuing an indef. Wrong on many levels; 22 minutes between notification and indef block? That's lots of discussion. Unblock needed. Pedro, I think LULZ is a rather normal response when one is targetted by a freshly minted admin. Yes, I went through all the diffs before weighing in here; how many of you did ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, with respect I'm not exactly the most block happy admin around - but the "oh look a death threat" and "nom nom" all caps bullshit is hardly overlookable. I don't need to remind you that indef doe not mean infinite..... I personally think we'd all be happier without Fat Man, but that's my opinion only and consensus may well be different. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
For gosh sakes, why not respond with lulz to something as stupid as this? Beats indignation. Of course, we don't yet know the background or what brought Eagles247 to this matter anyway. Maybe you'd be happier without TFM, but speak fer yerself. I'd be happier with less child admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure which bit of but that's my opinion only you missed in my comment immediately above yours but funnily enough I was speaking for myself. Complex stuff, clearly. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something really obvious here. But if he has been indeffed under other accounts, and those indef blocks still stand, is he/she not evading a block with this new account? Sorry this question seems so obvious I think I must be missing something.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

...or is The Fat Man account the master account and the former accounts were blocked as socks? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Fat Man is the main account, then he devised the plan to troll with BErD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
it doesnt really matter whether or not that Eagles is a new admin or not. he has the right to block accorind to Wikipedia policies. my real confusion here is why he bothered to even make this WP:ANI report in the first place. he was already convinced that The Fat Man should be blocked when he made it; he left it open for about .22 hours worth of comments then indef blocked him. my question is -- why not just skip the WP:ANI rigmarolodex and just block the guy, if consensus is so unimportant?? User:Smith Jones 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If everyone here said "NOOOO DON'T BLOCK HIM!" then I wouldn't have blocked. I wasn't sure what the rest of the community would think about my decision if I just blocked him, esp. because other admins have unblocked TFM in the past. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
the notice here was made for teh Lulz. now eagles is a big time AN/I endorsed admin blocker of problem editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
no offense, and i dont want to tell how to do your job, but you shouldnt really care about that. or, if you are going to care aobut that, you should give us more than a couple of minutes to talk about it. opening this thread and then abruptly resolving it without ereaching any consensus just creates more bad feelings than if you had just blocked the sucker (evne though i agree with your block, i still think that you picked a weird way to do it). Your decision was right, but you kind of took the long way around and now you're rubbing lots of people the wrong way who now think you just asked for their opinions specifically so that you could cut them off and ignore them halfway thorugh a convservation. User:Smith Jones 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
As a wise admin once said, no one is perfect when they obtain the tools. Adminship is a learning process, and I have learned from this thread how to address a disruptive user. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the diffs I have to say I support this block. It's annoying because the user has made good edits, no doubt about it. The user himself asked on User talk:Gimmetrow (can't be bothered fishing out the diff) "Can I have, like, a trolling "allowance" where I can perform mostly (let's say 93%) innocuous edits?". No, that can't be allowed to happen. And it will happen if he is not indefinitely blocked. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Eagles, those diffs look stale to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate further? I know he was blocked less than a month ago, but he clearly has not changed based on his comments in the thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Posts on WR are mostly meaningless here. As for the en.WP diffs, blocks are preventative, not punitive. What's he done lately? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
A proposal should be made to Fat Man that he should stop trolling, or it's indef the next time it happens. Undo this block and I'll propose a solution, his comments and article writing are sometimes spot on. It's hard to tell the difference between trolling or a good faith comment. Secret account 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with this proposal, but I doubt he'd take it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? We block troll accounts all the time. Why is this one an exception? AD 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not do your homework instead of asking dum questions here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The admin did the right thing by asking some opinions first, which is what good admins should do in cases that might be debatable. Fat Man / BErD is only blocked, not banned, so he's free to make a reasonable argument as to why he should get unblocked, if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The only opinions one is likely to get in 22 minutes are those who have this page watchlisted. This may be a cross-section of you, but not of the community. And how would the community have been damaged by a full discussion before the block, given the age of the incidents complained of? Kablammo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe every user in wikipedia should be notified of every possible decision under discussion, so that we can actually get full input from "the community". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
22 minutes from notice to the editor until indefblock is hardly adequate.
Do you really contend that it is?Kablammo (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe if some real admins had weighed in, instead of the usual denizens of this dungeon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that he's "mates" with certain 'respected' and 'influencial' editors. This would not otherwise normally be tolerated. Wikipedia is (meant to be) a serious project. Jokers are for the schoolyard. AD 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost. Who are we talking about? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Erm, The Fat Man... AD 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
How you might quietly unblock with a note in the log, "no consensus yet"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Focus, boys, focus. We're talking about 1) what brought you (Eagles247) to this matter and why didn't you read TFM's talk page, and 2) why isn't Pedro blocked for calling The Fat Man a "clever prick"? And in general, we're talking about why a small subset of people who hang out at ANI make decisions to indef a user in 22 minutes with little discussion, no homework, and no knowledge of the situation or the editor in question. Or, as Gwen Gale says, how long it's going to take Eagles247 to figure out how to undo the bad block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
1) I was part of the BErD blocking discussion, and I saw TFM's post on WR about how fun it was to mess with Wikipedia. I was a little frustrated, but an admin assured everyone prior that there was a legitimate reason for the alt. account. I have Tele... 's talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed TFM's "u r dumb" comment to his page. I investigated into TFM's return, but failed to notice his recent block. 2) Dunno, probably not that severe of a personal attack 3) I did my homework on TFM, thank you 4) Gwen never said whether she was for or against the block, but rather she didn't agree with the process (like many others, including you, here). I'm not going to unblock unless consensus can be reached here. There's no need for TFM to troll here when he is perfectly able to request unblock on his talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It was a good block, and if Fat/BErD really cares about it, he can post a reasonable unblock request. What Pedro said is more a comment on behavior. Calling people "dumb" is a personal attack, a hundred times worse than metaphorical comments about body parts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Glad we're clear that it's ok to call people pricks on Wiki; Baseball, if I call you a prick, will I be blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I'd recognize that you're just needling me. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sandy, can't say I'm surprised to see you defending this editor here. If you're so concerned about the lack of discussion here and the supposedly early block without properly understanding the situation. I fail to understand how you could have supported Gimmetrow's unblock (after countless unblock requests being declined by a number of admins, and without any discussion at all. I suggest anyone who does want to do homework on this read User_talk:Gimmetrow#What_do_you_think_you.27re_doing.3F. As to Pedro's behaviour, while highly improper, it's not relevant to this, you're making that mistake again, of thinking that the actions of certain users (specifically admins) justify trolling by others. As to what brought Eagles to this matter, I again fail to see the relevance. Also, saying the edits are stale is a poor excuse, and that the fat man had been unblock after some of them even more so, considering the circumstances of the unblock. It seems like most users here support a block. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not surprised that you again fail to see any relevance, or that you still haven't understood that Gimme's unblock was proper. Hang in there, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we just take this down a couple of notches please? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Would that be from "prick" to just "dick", or just how would we go down a notch from the typical discourse acceptable at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The fact that Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today is the answer to the question, "What has he done lately?", never mind the socking he got away with (for awhile). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised to see SG here, as she is usually a voice of reason. However, this editor has clearly stated their intention to troll Wikipedia and disrupt our project. Instead of being given clear reasoning for unblock, we've been rudely ordered to "do our homework" and "stop asking dumb questions". I did my homework, and I see an editor who has been trolling our project, quite plainly and deliberately. Insulting the admins/editors that comment here isn't going to help anything, rather the opposite. AD 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Eagles, the next time you bring thoughts of a block to ANI, wait a little longer for the consensus you seek. As for Pedro, I think he's a bright shining, helium-spewing star of wiki-love :D Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, well thats fine so. Wiki love for the admin. Eagle getts 'a little frustrated' reading off site, comes back to wiki, goes through the contribs, plucks out a few from a while back, calls for a lynching, blocks, closes discussion. Job done. Hmm. Could I log in tomorrow or next week and find myself blocked for a combination of things scattered, days, weeks, whatever ago? Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for misunderstanding the timeline, Ceoil. Appreciate it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Ceoil got the timeline exactly right. Just what are you trying to prove here, Eagles? You read some very stale diffs, an offsite old post, and indeffed an editor based on that and one current and already resolved misunderstanding, after 22 minutes of discussion. If you'd like to make a name for yourself as a new admin, this isn't the best way to go about doing so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll keep saying this until maybe you read it: Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today, and only retracted it after the lightbulb went on and he realized he might not escape his own self-constructed noose this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You're so right, Sandy. You're always right. New admins are different than older ones. His four previous indef blocks were mistakes. In fact, TFM isn't a troll, but a constructive user who has never joked on Wikipedia. </sarcasm> What you are missing in all this is the fact that the BErD incident happened months ago, not yesterday. I've told you all of my "motives" for the block, and yet you choose to ignore them and judge me based on your ignorance to any opposing side. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Eagles, that is a response fit for a child. Wasn't one of Fat Man's blocks for using the word "douchebaggery"? How is that worse than "prick"? Thank you for confessing that you merely blocked him because he had been previously blocked; great adminning there. In fact, you reblocked him for stale diffs already discussed. You're impressing me more by the minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Is sarcasm anymore helpful than what is no more an irritated response to self-righteous insults? AD 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The timeline is a simplified and biased hyperbole. "Calls for lynching", really. This is a website, not 17th century New England. AD 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
@Gwen: Got it, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block. Enough is enough, this user has wasted too much community time. --Elonka 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What a perfectly strange thing to say; I don't see TFM wasting anyone's time here-- looks like this is the Eagles247/Baseball Bugs show. Did you perchance review any of the history? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The guy had a chance to come here and explain himself, and instead he hanged himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Accusing everyone who disagrees with you (most of the users in this discussion) of not properly reviewing the situation (when they have) isn't very helpful. Those looking at the history may also want to look at your history with this user. I understand you get a laugh out of following The Fat Man's trolling on various sites? - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I spent some time looking through the user's entire history: His block log, his contribs over the last month, and other edits going back years. Is he 100% a drag on the project? No. Has he done anything particularly helpful lately? Not that I can see. Is he disruptive? Definitely. Mostly his edits over the last month have involved leaving insults on talkpages, and posting numerous bizarre questions at various Reference Desk pages, like, "What would happen if scientists blew up the moon?", "Do Filipinos worship chicken bones," "Why do American football coaches dress so sloppily," and "What are the worst American accents in movies?" These kinds of things are not helpful to the project. TFM may have done some good work on Wikipedia in the past, but more recently his actions seem designed to disrupt, and "for the lulz". That is why I am supporting the idea of a permanent ban. Enough is enough. Let's get rid of him and get back to work. --Elonka 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block If we're voting... I've yet to see a single argument that shows TFM is a net positive to our project - only insulting, sarcastic and unpleasant remarks to those who are supporting a block. And yet, I've seen, through diffs here and my own research, that he is unfortunately a net negative currently. So with regret, this is my position. AD 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock: You shouldn't block someone for something said on WR, nor should you block someone for comments made nearly one month ago. This whole episode was a spontaneous reaction (perhaps to what was read on WR) by Eagles247. There was no need for this discussion or block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You're way off the mark. He called someone "dumb" just today, which demonstrates he's learned nothing from having escaped from previous blocks. And he wasn't blocked for WR, just that WR alerted the admin to the user bragging about having escaped 4 blocks, which merited further review of Fat/BErD's situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) You've seen it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock Secret account 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block of Pedro for calling The Fat Man a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I second this. Also, check out today's featured article. How appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a vote on how many editors agree with Pedro's assessment of Fat/BErD's behavior? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, now you're trolling, and boring at that. Do you read arb cases? Consensus doesn't overrule wiki pillars, and civility is supposed to be a pillar, and is supposed to be upheld by admins. If a gazillion editors agree with Pedro (they don't), that doesn't make it OK for him to call TFM a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You're funny. OK, how about if we recommend to block Pedro for an appropriate length, like maybe 5 minutes? Or maybe 10, in order to appease the poor, innocent, aggrieved indefee. Never mind, I see they already took action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Blocking Pedro will just cause unneeded drama, yes his behavior should have been better, but the last thing we need is OMG Drama and lose valuable contributers. We already lost several in the past month, including our FA leader. I left a message on Fat Man's talk page in language he understand. Secret account 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No, let's have kiddie kool-ade, while an editor is unjustly blocked and called a prick by an admin. And goodness, let's not cause any drama, for heavens sake, this is ANI !!! Aren't we here because of Eagle247's drama and isn't that the purpose of his thread to begin with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If Pedro does it over and over, and creates a sock to do it also, then your argument will have some merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block, per TFM's trolling in this very discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. I can't see anything in his recent history to justify a block, not even a short one, unless I'm overlooking something. I think the dumb comment was meant as a joke. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    What makes it okay if it's a joke? And what exactly is funny about his edits? You're aware that The Fat Man's humour has included the mocking of mentally disabled people in the past? As to the recent behaviour comment, it is clear from the older behaviour that this is an ongoing problem, it is clear from the (albeit minimal) recent behaviour that this is still ongoing. It's logical to conclude this isn't going to stop (TFM has made at least two promises in the past to stop his trolling. Also making a comment saying he would stop his disruption at ANI, and then making comments like this) see here, a comment from the last admin who unblocked (this comment was prior to comments like this. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    Kingpin, your dislike of The Fat Man is well known, but you really shouldn't make up stories about him mocking mentally disabled people in the past. That's not nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    I have no dislike of TFM as a person, it's his edits I have issue with. Such as this mocking of mentally disabled people. I fail to see how that is not mocking mentally disabled people, maybe you could explain? - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    These are jokes, Kingpin. I honestly don't see that comment as harmful, and the "U R dumb" thing was nothing. He has a particular sense of humour that maybe you either love or hate, but he doesn't mean any harm. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    Nobody has explained to me how this is funny, or this for that matter, and I fail to see how anybody could find them funny, or how attempts at humour justify attacking other editors. As to him not meaning any harm, he's clearly aware that he is trolling, and clearly wants to continue doing so (as evidenced by asking for a "trolling allowance", and making sarcastic promises to stop) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with Kingpin: these comments are insulting to people who have intellectual disabilities, and offensive to people of good will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per SlimVirgin. Kablammo (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, Slim has it right, we don't block users based on stale diffs and reading something old offsite we don't like. This was admin drama, nothing more. SandyGeorgia 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block I'll agree that nothing recent is in and of itself worthy of a block, but there has been various amounts of trolling from this account for too long. AniMate 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock I think the comments made (in bad taste) were over and done, things said in the past are sometimes best left in the past...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    And what makes you think these comments will not be re-made by TFM in the future (e.g. not leaving them in the past)? Considering one of these comments were from yesterday (just over 24 hours). - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Because our fundamental principle is WP:AGF...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
But this is a user who has been trolling for years. And seems to be incapable of stopping. One year ago he promised to stop, and continued, one month ago he promised to stop and continued. Of course, he later claims that both of those promises were sarcastic. So what exactly makes you think it will stop this time? what is different? AGF only stretches so far. A user who has been trolling this site for years? No, I think it's fair to say they will keep trolling it for years if we let them. - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block - issues about his behavior clearly needs some more discussion, perhaps on a more personal level on his talkpage, allowing input and understanding from the blockee. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: I ask this in good faith because I don't see the answer above in this wall of text, but how is an editor who has admitted to being another indef blocked trolling editor still allowed to edit here in the first place? Blocks are for editors, not accounts. Am I missing something? Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block - for unrepentant attacks on everyone's integrity, and especially for having socked and been allowed to get away with it. He should have been indef'd and banned at that time. The community's generosity towards Fat/BErD was met by a metaphorical "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Should never have been unblocked in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock of the Portly One. Honestly the drama that surrounds his Wideness is a product of over-reactions to his rather innocuous funning. People who are offended by him would do well to simply ignore his harmless carry-on rather than initiating major dramafests here at ANI. Crafty (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block, he's had plenty of chances to contribute usefully and he apparently still doesn't get it. Nakon 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock the Fat Man, per the FAC Lady and the Slim one. Ferrylodge concurs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: it takes a special kind of talent (or perhaps a special kind of talent) to make such a complete and utter mess of indeffing a user who so blatantly deserves it. The mess is clear enough (ANI / 22 minutes / no clear consensus / indef block by person bringing the matter to ANI / ?????), but so is the fact that the user is clearly not a net benefit to the project. Between the abusive sock account and the general manner he continues to communicate, quite apart from whatever lies further in the past, enough is enough. Site ban, and refer to WP:STANDARDOFFER. Rd232 talk 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more. This block was handled horribly, but the outcome is probably right. AniMate 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block The Fat Man is a troll. We block trolls. I don't know why some users are leaping to the defense of such an obvious troll. I'm all for a little genuine levity and humor once in a while, that is not what I see here, I see blatant, deliberate trolling. I'm sure he is loving all the noise generated here by those who insist on defending his trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Reality check: As long as I've been aware of TFM here, it has been clear to me that he is a capable editor, for example, making the Ima Hogg article not only a Featured Article, but also working hard to make it so on the WP:Main Page as an April Fool article. That is creative talent that should not be thrown away unnecessarily. Having said that, however, that isn't a reason for unnecessary disposal of an worthy, although I would welcome comments from him, on the basis that "you may be good, but unless others agree with you, you are on your own". I live in hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talkcontribs) 02:05, December 7, 2010
  • Support Per above. Unfortunately. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock What has gotten up with ANI lately? Geez, it's like a swarm of hornets landed and made everyone into ban-hammers. Let's go through this in order. First off, the original reason given for the creation of this discussion was a comment made by the user on Wikipedia Review, which is clearly not relevant to actions on Wikipedia and makes me doubt Eagles' understanding of how policy works here. Then, the edits that were mentioned. This is a rather silly comment, but when did dumb become a curse word? Besides, the fact that the user's actions seem to often be rather sarcastic to me. This question was made in reference to the user reading Religion in the Philippines and not seeing anything about chicken bones written in there. Maybe a silly question, true, but nothing bad. Calling someone silly is bannable now? And this is the most ridiculous one of all. This edit was made in response to this section being created. Either the two of them have a joking relationship, which is what it looks like, or Mike R's comment was completely out of line. It's one or the other. The other ones are about the previous block, which doesn't apply to this one. So, what are we left with? Oh, right, nothing. This is ridiculous. SilverserenC 03:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indef; shoulda-coulda stuck last time... but *no* we had to endure moar shite. Jack Merridew 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indef block His edit history speaks for itself. Each separate action could doubtless be justified by a skilled wikilawyer, although so far noone has managed to do this very convincingly. The combined effect and intent, however, seems clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block per Baseball Bugs. --John (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment What I don't understand is why any admins would spend so much time trying to find a reason to ban an editor with a contrary sense of humor but who is otherwise harmless as opposed to helping out here, where there is evidence presented of editors who serially violate WP's more serious policies like NPOV and NPA. Before editors like the Fat Man get blocked, the more serious violators of WP's policies need to be dealt with. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Disclosure request. Could users commenting here to support an unblock please state if they are Wikipedia Review contributors. (We'll assume block supporters aren't, but if any are, please state as well.) Rd232 talk 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock He hasn't done anything recently even remotely warranting an indefinite block. Sure, he's done crap in the past, but he should have been blocked then if it was such a big deal. If he's really the horrible troll you all think he is, he'll do something in the future warranting an indef block and you can block him then. He should be kept on a relatively tight leash due to past incidents, but this is really ridiculous. Activities on WR are irrelevant to this discussion. I do not comment there, and I do not care about what the people there do. This thread is by far the most disruption he's managed to cause recently, and that's far more the responsibility of the admin than of him.--Dycedarg ж 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block There seems to be a school of thought around here, espoused by those I call the Incivility League, that it is OK to cleverly impugn people's integrity, writing, etc. so long as you don't use a slightly-expanded Carlineque list of specific words. I can't agree with that. If it was meant to be insulting, and it had the effect of being insulting, than what difference does it make if it used a vulgarity or not? Form over substance is a bad idea. TFM should stay blocked until he promises to cut it out, and if he breaches that promise, should quickly and non controversially be blocked again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block until he starts acting like an adult human being again. --Conti| 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per Silverseren and per "you need to get a sense of humor and stop taking yourself so serious". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block This user cannot even communicate in this very discussion properly, let alone the frequent disruption he causes elsewhere. Yes, he's made some good contributions in the past. But he is simply not worth the time and effort taken to deal with his utterly unnecessary nonsense. He doesn't want to take Wikipedia seriously, so I see no reason why he should continue editing here until and unless he does. As an aside, I wholly disagree with the absurd notion that he has to start swearing and cursing before it should be constitued as "real disruption", so to speak. --Dorsal Axe 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block Making some good contributions much of the time doesn't entitle you to troll the rest of the time. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is new at some point, but this editor is neither new nor making mistakes. His responses in the thread up above indicate to me that he thinks the project is a joke and that we don't deserve his respect. The impression I get is that he doesn't care if he's blocked or not. And on top of that, it appears he has created at least TWO sockpuppets for purposes of disruptive trolling in the recent past. One of them is Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) and the other is WatchingWales (talk · contribs), as he himself states [12]. He shows no indication he will stop this behavior, even taunting the community with more "jokes" in the thread above. This is behavior detrimental to building an encyclopedia and is well into WP:DISRUPT territory. - Burpelson AFB 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unblock Per Stephan Schulz and Silverseren and per the fact that humour should not automatically be equated with trolling. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block: Having a particular sense of humor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to disrupt the project in various ways over a long period of time. Kansan (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • [13] and [14]. Can we agree now that he is just here for the lulz now? I don't care how good of an editor he was two years ago, he doesn't want to be here anymore. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support block He's just taking the piss at this point. HalfShadow 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Obviously support block: a block-evading troll is indeffed, and instead of collapsing and not feeding the trolls, we waste everyone's time? Way to give trolls what they want, guys. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedro blocked and unblocked[edit]

Pedro unblocked

Now Geni blocked Pedro for three hours for his language, while this block won't affect him, as he's in England I believe it's still puntative. Unblock Secret account 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the UK. And having seen the damage late night admining can do you would have a hard time arguing it is not preventative.©Geni 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No more punitive than the block of TFM. Sometimes I think the "preventive not punitive" mantra is overrated here. Disruption over a long period, as in the case of TFM, is difficult to deal with because people will always say it has to happened right here, right now, otherwise nothing can be done. So the trick is, to troll in small enough doses that aren't really that bad on their own, but altogether present a big problem. Now that Pedro's once clean log has now been marked, maybe he'll be more careful to keep the atmosphere a little less crass. AD 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
According to Pedro's contribs he's surely in bed now. The block was to "set an example". Not sure of the utility of that as cause for a block, but it would be good to just let this one lie and not go drahma-crazy over a three hour block during sleepy time. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, let this block stay. Should hopefully encourage Pedro to stay a bit more calm in future, and not attack other editors like that (regardless of how disruptive they are). Blocking wouldn't have been my choice of action here, but equally, unblocking wouldn't be, if another admin decides a block is necessary. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Blocks "to set examples" are not directed to a general audience unlikely to take cognisance of them, so must surely be irrelevant. "Pour encourager les autres" does not necessarily work as a lesson here, and never has in historical terms. Meanwhile, the block of Pedro was poorly-argued, especially on the blockee's Talk page. Call me cynical, but if I am being sanctioned, surely I have a right to know the chapter and verse that authorises that, and the particulars supporting the block under those provisions. We do not operate as a legal system here, but some things are both above and beyond that. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu has now unblocked. Oh well. AD 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea lets not wheel war over this Secret account 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I had said 5 to 10 minutes would fit the crime, and it turned out to be 14. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Indef for you are dumb, 14 minutes for 'prick'. Lovely. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If Fat/BErD had only said it once, maybe he wouldn't have been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back was blocked for rather more than that.©Geni 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you know Ceoil, block lengths decrease exponentially with the seriousness of the comment made :) Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There is zero point in blocking any editor for three hours, unless it's a rapidly-redistributed IP address. To do so for an established editor, in the absence of a course of conduct that requires immediate action tends to become beyond preventative, and tends towards punitive. Pedro is a long-time editor here, and is due some respect for that. The best of us occasionally err. However, calling someone a "prick" isn't necessarily that different from referring them to WP:DICK, although it might have been better worded. But that's no reason for blocking, and certainly not without appropriate warnings such as are the entitlement of any editor here. That's why I unblocked, and if you think I'm wrong so to do, your remedy is thisaway. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • My comment above continues to apply: lets not go drahma-crazy of an unblock of a three hour block while the editor concerned is fast asleep. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. None of this is worth your bits, or an RfC, or an ArbCom asking questions about wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

This discussion is done, people have said what they wanted to say, fights broke out and were resolved; It's time to close this. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if this doesn't stop soon people are going to start hugging and that just gets creepy. HalfShadow 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a motion to close the Pedro thread, but there isn't any consensus on Fat Man block or unblock for that matter so I oppose a full closing of the thread for now. Secret account 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No. There was no consensus to block to begin with, and therefore there does not need to be consensus to unblock. And despite what one editor says above, The Fat Man has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the past month, including work on BLPs. He should be unblocked immediately. Kablammo (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This section was opened less 8 hours ago, and the block has been in place even shorter. Keep it open until it is actually decided. AniMate 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I closed the section about Pedro. Ban discussions run at least 24 hours. So will this discussion.--Chaser (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a block review, not a ban discussion. But yes, there's no reason to close the discussion...other than to restart it in a way where all of the noise, personal attacks, etc. are stamped out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
By the banning policy, if the community decides not to overturn the indefinite block he will be considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Ergo, this is a ban discussion.--Dycedarg ж 08:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The discussion should continue. - Burpelson AFB 13:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • - I disagree with user Dycedarg's comment - this discussion is not to confirm the indef and ergo a ban discussion - this is a discussion to see if there is support or not for the user to be presently indefinitely blocked (this does not mean forever} whilst he considers his recent contributions and the community opines the best way to progress so that he can edit more constructively or at least so as issues like this do not continue to arise. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

General observation[edit]

As a general matter (not at all limited to this block and in fact I've raised it before, but very relevant here), there is a lack of clarity to some basic issues concerning blocking and unblocking policy that is surprising, given that the issues have arisen many times in the now 10 years of the project. One of these may be very relevant here: Suppose Administrator A blocks User:X, and there is about an even split of opinion on ANI about whether X should be unblocked (so, no consensus either way). Does this mean that X should remain blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block) or that X should be unblocked (because unblocked is the default and there is no consensus to keep the block in place)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My own take is that, given this was brought here for review, if there is no consensus for that block, then there should be no block (getting there by unblocking if need be). Doesn't seem to matter if the block has already been made or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel the opposite way. The administrative action has already been taken, and admins are entitled to some deference in how they use their tools. The discussion is regarding a proposed unblock, and needs consensus to succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what the person immediately above me (As at 12:27 on the 7th of December 2010 UTC) said. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Would it be unreasonable for a sock and a disruptive troll to stay blocked unless and until he makes an unblock request, and then that request can be considered on its merits? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
"Disruptive trolling" is in the eye of the beholder in many cases. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What an absurd position Wehwalt. Admins are not entitled to any special "deference", and it's distasteful even to suggest that they are. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There should be consensus for a block, or to uphold a block. The result should not depend on who took action first, who got here first, or how the issue was framed. And deference to "discretion" gives the personal judgments or whims of administrators the force of law. Admins serve a ministerial role, to apply standards, not create them. And those standards should be consistently applied. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
An example of the point: The first post in this multi-part section is by an admin looking for consensus to block. The admin did not wait until consensus developed, but imposed a block soon after the thread started. The issue here is whether there is consensus to block. There is not. Kablammo (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not like some contributors to one of the previous headings; I will not insult people's understanding, or their intelligence, however cleverly fashioned. The people who have just posted their views are all intelligent, thoughtful, experienced editors. And yet they profoundly disagree. Regardless of who is right, shouldn't this be resolved? I will add that NYB is in a much better position (hint, hint) to aid in the resolution than I.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • @Wehwalt: If I review a situation, and decide a block is not appropriate, can I post that opinion somewhere (the editor's talk page maybe), and then other admins must show deference to my opinion, and gain consensus on ANI before they can override my opinion and block? If so, then I disagree (as it then becomes a race to dispense with fact finding and lock in one's opinion first), but at least it would be consistent. If not, why not?

    An admin should only be blocking people if they think they will have consensus to do so, and the default in the case of a lack of consensus should be an unblock (or, better yet, compromise and negotiation that can lead to a consensus). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

    • Floquenbeam's last sentence seems to sum the answer to the query quite well. I would add that if this seems to lack clarity in the eyes of some, then I'd suggest that this is a good time to get up to speed...this is a piece of cake compared to the disputes and queries that are going to arise in the future, both near and distant. In those cases, I don't think even the most experienced users are going to have any easy answers to assist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to Newyorkbrad's question: a sufficiently substantive "no consensus" discussion should override any individual admin decision. This is a community-edited encyclopedia, and if an admin can't persuade the community about what they did/wish to do, then it shouldn't be done. Private information which cannot/should not be discussed onwiki may complicate things, but that's what Arbcom's for. Rd232 talk 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A complicating factor here, is if a disruptive editor has the support of other disruptive editors, does that count towards community "consensus". Sheer number of voices either way isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of community consensus, especially when some are stating obvious untruths or have long block logs themselves. I think most of the people participating in this discussion are acting in good faith, but there do seem to be a few who are jumping in for no other reason than that they enjoy giving the pot a good stir. --Elonka 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
God knows there's cliquism on the wiki, but who decides if votes should be discounted because of it? --Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't just discount input because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even in the above discussion, an admin seems to be causing a rift by wanting another website to shape what happens on this website; unless you have good evidence to show for a breach of our site policies, there's nothing to justify the need for this. Users should disclose their involvement (if any) in a dispute - that certainly plays some role - and that might extend to another website. But that's as far as it goes. Categorically stating that anyone who edits on Wikipedia should disclose if they've edited Wikipedia Review is a bit silly. It wouldn't be much of a project if every single thing was simple, easy and exactly how you wanted it. Ncmvocalist (talk) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Cliquism, where there is good reason to suspect it may cause discussion not to represent the wider community's view, needs to be identified as far as possible. Only with the benefit of that disclosure can the weight of argument (WP:NOTAVOTE) be determined by a neutral observer. As to the argument about external websites: we shouldn't police activity on external websites, but nor we should ignore information relevant to policing our own merely because it originates externally. Rd232 talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well either you have some reason to have a suspicion, or you don't; you are not here to be police, prosecution, judge and jury. Allowing strong unsubstantiated personal opinions/assumptions to prejudice the way administration occurs on Wikipedia is precisely what impedes genuine resolution on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some genuine reason why being a Wikipedia Review participant is relevant to this discussion, it really is not appropriate to require any editor to disclose that information, nor is it relevant to what is happening here. And in saying this, I note that I am not a participant on WR and I don't believe I have ever interacted with the editor in question - I might have possibly in 2008, when I was asking many ArbCom candidates some questions, but I honestly don't recall. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
? Fat Man is a participant in WikipediaReview, as are some of the editors commenting here (as you would expect in the circumstances). That is sufficient grounds for asking for disclosure, in order to properly evaluate how representative this discussion is of the community's view. Rd232 talk 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not sufficient grounds; your understanding is fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia Community is diverse, and each member will have memberships to or participation in many other websites, organisations, and so on, or might not have any at all; listing which of these may "potentially" have any effect on the project is limitless and outside of our scope, capacity, and resources, and it poses a far more significant rift within our own Wikipedia community as we start defining Wikipedia based on individuals who are exclusively signed up here and here only. What each editor would need to disclose is their level of involvement, if any, and it's up to them to state if it's not total involvement and why. Merely being a participant is insufficient; it's being a participant and the extent of interaction or activity with the user in question, and in some circumstances, how they became aware of this discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I can disclose I'm a (somewhat inactive) member of Amnesty International. So what? Am I likely to meet people there who are likely to have a very particular view of FatMan's indeffing, and are they likely to turn up here and comment? The point is fundamentally that discussions must reflect the community's view; but since the entire community cannot participate in any given discussion, we have to make sure that the sample of users participating isn't biased. This shouldn't really be a tricky concept. it's the same concept as that behind WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS (neither of which policies seems to apply here, but the reasoning for the policies' existence does). Rd232 talk 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems you have difficulty understanding simple messages, so I'll try to be clearer one more time. The policies exist to say that MEAT and CANVASS behavior is prohibited; they do not say that anyone who is registered on another website can be excluded from the Community on your unsubstantiated say-so. So, unless you can provide an actual basis for bias from members of that website, this information is not relevant or required at this time and there is no reason for those users to be excluded from the Community. As you have not produced any actual basis for requiring this info, no one needs to comply with your disclosure requests; in line with policy, all they might need to do is state their level of involvement (if any) and that will address relevant issues of bias. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
ROFL. "difficulty understanding simple messages" - yes indeed, considering that you're agreeing with me - state their level of involvement includes involvement offsite. You would (I presume) hardly object to a disclosure request if WR was a private mail server like EEML, so why should it be different because it's a website? Rd232 talk 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If an editor is registered on Wikipedia Review and has not had any involvement with the editor in question, they do not need to disclose all of that exhaustively - your request for disclosure seems to expect all of that, but that info isn't actually necessary: such an editor could say they are uninvolved. This incident has been complicated enough; requiring disclosure about whether or not each editor is registered to another particular website (that doesn't have a CANVASS/MEAT issues that you are actually aware of) is just adding more unnecessary complication. Aka, the undue focus you're putting on Wikipedia Review (or EEML, or any other specific website/mailing list/organisation/etc) is not helpful. So in the future, a more helpful disclosure request would be neutral and broad (eg; "Please state your level of involvement (if any).") instead of unduly focussed on a single website. Do you understand yet? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The request was aimed at "Wikipedia Review contributors". Implicitly (we'd hope for common sense, but...) that was meant for active contributors who've engaged with Fat Man at WR, or who otherwise have engaged enough at WR to feel some kind of tribal affinity (a phenomenon which isn't overly hard to observe from reading it). The point is of course, as I keep saying, to clarify what you might call "involvement", though I preferred to phrase it in terms of commenting editors not reflecting the wider community view, because "involvement" suggests their views are invalid, irrelevant, or ignorable, and I neither said nor implied any such thing. Rd232 talk 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to force users to declare their interest in WR. For example, I have an account at WR (only posted once or twice a year ago), and I haven't read anything since. Does this discount my opinion on my own block? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: The second move advantage is something which we haven't been able to solve. I'll grant your "no block" proposal, if by the same token, my refusal to unblock then becomes an admin decision that it's wheel warring to reverse.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider the "second move advantage" something that needs to be solved. Second move advantage means it's in the blocking admin's interest to make sure they're doing the right thing, and make sure they're going to have consensus. First move advantage means it's in their best interest to act quickly.
Wheel warring refers to repeating an action you know another admin disagrees with. Like BRD for admins. I can only assume it was defined the way it is in recognition of the advantages of having a second mover advantage over a first mover advantage. Unblocking someone that has been refused a previous unblock request isn't a repetition of an action. (That said, I can think of very few instances where I would unilaterally unblock after a previous unblock request was declined.)
But a deal I will make is for us to discourage making controversial second move unblocks without consensus, if we also strongly discourage making controversial first move blocks without prior consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hear hear. But this is getting increasingly out of scope for ANI. Rd232 talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If the damage is done because of a block which is not having consensus, Wikipedia hasn't designed its processes so as to maximise that damage. Sometimes an abrupt unblock becomes the means to address the harm caused by an abrupt block. An abrupt unblock doesn't become necessary where a block has gained the actual required consensus...so it's a bit of a non-issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've read that 5 times and I still don't get it. Rd232 talk 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I had some bad news today. I came home and stared at the wall for a couple of hours feeling like shit. Then I picked up the laptop and stumbled into this, and have spent the last couple of hours chuckling and laughing out loud at his insight and wit. Some people have trouble with irony, so don't get what's going on here. There is no consensus. Unblock him. Anthony (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Anthony. I hope you feel more cheerful soon. Yes, there is value in the way humor boosts morale and reduces stress. Lacking a consensus for the block, how about reducing it to time served and remind the blockee not to carry a good thing too far. Jehochman Talk 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 :) Anthony (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So, I just read through the above discussion - and my first thought is that That's a good 30 minutes of my life that I'm never getting back. If Fat Man agrees not to troll anymore, he should be unblocked with all speed. But not until then. And trouts for the lot of you for carrying on like this. There may be some sort of encyclopedia that needs work, if memory serves... UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for or against this block. Newyorkbrad's question needs answering: in this situation do we default to block or unblock? Defaulting to block smells a bit off to me. Anthony (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I could go either way. The manner of the block is off-putting, but the conduct probably justified the block. I note also that TFM has not edited since being blocked - I'm hesitant to unblock until we have a request, all things being equal. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, Ultraexactzz, but TFM has promised not to troll twice already in the past (see Kingpin's diffs somewhere in here), and has never made good on his promises. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't so much interested in more discussion about the merits of the block. It's pretty clear there's no consensus on that. The question that began this thread was what do we default to when there is no clear consensus? Anthony (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The default position is the one existing immediately before the matter was raised; TFMWNCB being not blocked in this instance. Blocking is a function exercised by an admin on behalf of the community, by means either of a directly expressed consensus or that by which the community entrusted them with the tools. As Brad pondered, once it is evident that no consensus exists for the new status then the old one must be resumed. Oh, and whilst I am pontificating - to Wehwalt: It is the other way round - the admin defers to the community. Every. Single. Time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It seems pretty clear that the answer to Newyorkbrad's question is that we default to unblock, because our default position is that "anybody can edit"; if we default the other way, surely we're modifying that tagline (and the rest of our attitude/positioning) to something other than that. It's similar, i reckon, to the default in an AfD being "keep", because with the lack of consensus the opinion of notability outweighs that of non-notability; here, with no consensus the ability to edit outweighs the other. Cheers, LindsayHi 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In the NFL, when an official rules a play a certain way (i.e. an incomplete pass), the head coaches have the option to challenge the play if they deem it incorrect. The official goes in for a instant replay review, and there has to be indisputable evidence that the call should be reversed. Just a thought, though I doubt Wikipedia is for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The ones who are so keen on unblocking Fat/BErD should be compelled to assume responsibility for constantly monitoring its activities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I volunteer :) Anthony (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Dontcha think that's a bit petty, Bugs? We all monitor; even if he is unblocked, as i think he ought to be, with his record, and assuming and giving benefit of doubt, it won't be long till he trolls again, and is blocked *with* process. Then we'll spend a minute or two picking up the pieces, and moving on. Meantime, i'll help, Anthony. Cheers, LindsayHi
I should clarify that instead of "ones" I should have said "admins". Is it petty? Well, he's got two indef'd socks. How petty is that?Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, Bugs; i posted, noticed the time, realised that i was late for an appointment, and left. I also apologise twofold, for perhaps not being clear, and for probably misinterpreting you. I read your post as a sort of sour grapes thing ~ "Well, go ahead and unblock, but i'm not helping" ~ which i'm sure was not your intent. All i meant was that while i agree taht socks and trolling are not petty, because of the circumstances of the block, the large gentleman should be unblocked (according to default, as i see it), until he unambiguously trolls or socks; then Pow! Cheers, LindsayHi 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I recommend taking a look at his recent comments on his talkpage.[15] Seems pretty unambiguous to me, that he is not taking things seriously. --Elonka 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am glad you can all agree that any appearances of trolling or "bad behaviour" shall be a blockable offense. Beware what you ask for. There are more than a couple editors in this thread who could be blocked for trolling, and I don't just mean Pedro. If you allow no tolerance for others' personality quirks, then you should expect none for your own. Personally, I find it highly distasteful to see admins using blocks to force editors to agree with the admin's interpretation of policy, when that interpretation is disputed. Again, beware what you ask for, because if that's the culture you promote, someday, someone will do it to you. (I, for instance, often notice editors repeating misinformation on ANI. I find such behaviour substantially contrary to civil discourse, and I think it should be subject to sanctions.) Finally, let me remind you all that after TFM was unblocked the last time (by me), his edits have been watched (by me), and he has behaved within the constraints of the unblock as far as I have observed. So TFM should not be blocked anew for old behaviour. The recent edit that people seem upset about happened while I was away, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it was the result of a wrong edit by User:TeleComNasSprVen, and TFM refactored prior to the block, so if that's the basis for the block, then it's a pretty thin reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, but editors get banned when there is a community view that they are a net detriment to the project. Sometimes a trivial incident might cause the community to re-examine the situation, and determine that a previous decision to give an editor another chance was simply wrong. Any given discussion always has an element of randomness. We have to be careful not to keep having the same discussion over and over until by random chance the editor is booted out, but it isn't illegitimate per se to revisit a prior decision when it wasn't clear cut. Rd232 talk 12:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Part of the problem is that behavior and reputation is cumulative. If every incident was taken in pure isolation, its likely that no one would think that any one of the hundreds of disruptive events done by TFM would be, of its own accord, grounds for blocking. In situations where we must judge a user on the totality of his contributions, positive and negative, there is going to be a difference of opinion as to how much is "enough". There is no bright line limit of the number of trollish, disruptive events are required before a user is blocked, and there is no bright line of the ratio of positive contributions to disruptions that the community believes "forgives" a person of their problems. Instead, there are going to be differing opinions, which is fine. Reasonable people may analyze the same situation and reach differing conclusions. That's why, in cases like this (see my comments below) where a user is being blocked for a pattern of small behaviors rather than a single, grossly disruptive event like vandalism or edit warring or abject racist screed or something like that, the discussion must be allowed to run its natural course before a decision is reached. Since this is one where reasonable people may possibly disagree, it is appropriate to see if enough do before proceeding, rather than shooting from the hip and seeing after the fact what people thought of it. --Jayron32 15:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • At the time of the last block a month ago, I repeatedly encouraged people to start a discussion to review TFM's behaviour then and decide what was appropriate. People chose not to do that. Now that rehabilitation is in process, it seems rather counter-productive to now review TFM's past behavior, as if nothing had changed. But that's fine; precedent is now firmly established for future reviews of difficult editors. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
          • This suggests that the Fat Man troll of yore is the same as the Fat Man troll of just yesterday. It's not like he's drawn some line in the sand and put his nonsense behind him, it continues. Maybe you see rehabilitation, but I don't have any patience for a troll like this; it's not like he needs to learn anything, he needs to make a simple and straightforward decision to stop being an arse, which he clearly hasn't. Enough already. Rd232 talk 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Oh hey, Gimmetoo; didn't see you there. I note you only warned me and not Baseball Bugs as well. Must be swell to be able to cherry-pick targets like that. HalfShadow 21:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
            • BB's edits there ([16] [17] [18] [19] [20]) don't seem to me to be disruptive, but if you think they are, you might want to rethink your own edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
            • And yet you look right past this while at the same time giving me hell for the post he's replying to. Nice one. How's that bucket holding up? HalfShadow 00:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that in general, in situations where a very recent block is being discussed, or a new block is being proposed, the result of anything less than clear support for the block (whether that be no-consensus or consensus in opposition) the user in question should be unblocked. However, this singular situation is muddied by the fact that some admins have jumped the gun on the block. There may have developed a consensus to block, indeed given the general trend of the situation BEFORE the gun was jumped, it looked to be heading that way. However, once the discussion process was short-circuited, it generated instant sympathy for the blocked user and resulted in a muddying of the waters. Now, it may have arisen, had the discussion been let run for a day or so, that consensus would have led him to not be blocked, or it may have not. But the action of short-circuiting the discussion has led to a muddying of the waters regarding the block. It is unclear which objections are to a) blocking TFM at all b) blocking TFM before the discussion was done c) General anti-admin sentiment. In the future, regardless of how this turns out, this should be a lesson to let the community discussion take its course. If no iminent harm is currently coming to article text (such as edit warring or vandalism), block and ban discussions can afford the proper time for users to deliberate. This did not happen in this case, and we now have megabytes of bullshit because of that. --Jayron32 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Breakdown of opinions[edit]

Based just on the comments made in the introduction and "Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef" section, here a quick summary of each editors opinion (based on quick skimming by me, please please re-check and update (template at User:Kingpin13/TFM)), some users who commented here are not included, as their opinion was not made clear, or they were apparently neutral:

Extended content
Please note this may not be 100% accurate, instead of relying on it, please read through the discussion yourself. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk)

This is mainly because of the claims that there is a very clear case of no consensus, which I don't believe there is necessarily. Of course, strength of arguments should also be considered. Personally I feel the arguments presented for blocking are stronger, but since I myself support a block, I may be bias. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be possible to feel that the arguments favoring a block are stronger than those against one without personally supporting that conclusion (and vice versa of course). If reaching a conclusion makes you biased then the only unbiased people are the ones who don't know which side has the better arguments - and they're not much help either. 87.254.87.2 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, while y'all are talking, someone might want to check out