Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09


 * User:Drolz09/Quotations
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drolz09
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive585

I am continuing to have problems with User:Drolz09, and he does not seem to be able to leave me alone. I would like to request either a temporary or permanent (doesn't matter to me) ban on our interaction in either mainspace, user space, project space, or all of the above. I feel that Drolz is involving himself in discussions that have nothing to do with him in order to harass me, and I find his comments to be disruptive. I have no interest in being baited to sink down to this low level of behavior and I would like to remain focused on encyclopedic work. Therefore, I would ask that this ban be imposed to prevent any further problems. Basically, this means that we must ignore each other. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to address this through RFC, but I guess this works.


 * It's pretty simple. Viriditas posted on User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge, which I had on watch because I have posted there. I read his post and disagreed.


 * At this point, Viriditas decided it would be okay to move my post to another section.


 * I move it back and ask him to stop, and he begins an edit war, repeatedly moving my post to new sections    each time adding new threats, like "wikihounding."


 * While doing this, he makes increasingly dismissive and threatening posts on my talkpage


 * And finally he comes here to get my banned. Also note the hostile and pedantic tone of his original post on AQFT's page.  Drolz 09  06:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I attempted to contact two senior editors for advice, but couldn't get in touch with them.


 * In my view, Viriditas needs to be admonished to treat new editors with more respect, and reminded that he does not have authority over what they post. Certainly not on another user's talk page.  Drolz 09  06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would be nice if the both of you just voluntarily agreed to avoid each other in all capacities. If one of you does do something outrageously out of policy, someone else will catch it, so there's no need to report each other.  A nice, voluntary agreement to simply avoid each other would greatly reduce drama and prevent us from having a long tl;dr discussion where dozens of editors take up their pitchforks and torches and take sides in an otherwise pointless battle over who is more wrong.  -- Jayron  32  07:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and that's all I've asked for from the very beginning. Drolz refuses to leave me alone (read the MfD) and he has recently been hounding me on talk pages that have nothing to do with him.  I would therefore request that the community enforce an interaction ban between us if Drolz cannot agree to it.  I feel like I'm being harassed and baited, and I want it to stop.  I have zero interest in responding to anything Drolz says or does, as I am totally convinced he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to tear it down.  Nothing is going to change my view on this situation, so I'm asking for enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm hounding you on talk pages now? What other one? And as I've said, I have posted on AQFT's page before, and your comment was about a discussion which I have been a big part of. I am in no way wikihounding you.  Drolz 09  07:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment had nothing to do with you whatsoever, not even in its original context, and I feel you are incapable of honesty in any form, so there is no purpose in us having any interaction with each other. Please continue to edit Wikipedia, but stop interacting with me.  It's very simple.  Do you agree? Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you avoid posting about things that I have an interest in, you won't see or hear from me. Secondly, your original post was highly related to discussion of the CRU incident, so it's untrue that it wasn't related to me.  Drolz 09  07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear to me that you are overwhelmingly in the wrong here--I am not going to apologize for posting or for objecting when you moved my post without my permission.  Drolz 09  07:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary ban
Let me be perfectly clear: I, Viriditas, agree to ignore Drolz09 on Wikipedia, and to avoid all interaction. Do you, Drolz09, agree to do the same? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean, in consequence of your misbehavior and attempt to get me unjustly banned, do I renounce my right to post in certain areas of wikipedia? No, sorry. I think this ANI needs to go through and you need to be reprimanded.  Drolz 09  07:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my proposal was clear enough and does not require any elucidation. Therefore, I ask the community to enforce a ban between us. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not gonna enforce an entirely absurd "ban" like this. You two could y'know try to act like grown-ups and resolve this between yourselves without the Grade-A "look-at-me" shitfit here on ANI. How's that for a novel suggestion? Crafty (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally inappropriate comment. This entire page, and others like it, are set up to give help and structure to editors who are trying to resolve differences in opinion.  If you're not here to help, it would be better if you kept those sort of comments for your own personal Talk page.  --HighKing (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary it's the enabling double-speak offered by well meaning types like yourself that's so often inappropriate. Crafty (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what is "absurd" about wanting harassment to stop? There's enough evidence in the above linked MfD that shows Drolz refuses to leave me alone.  I have no interest in interacting with the user and there is really nothing to resolve.  I'm simply asking for the community to enforce a ban between the two of us, such that I will not respond to Drolz and he will not respond to me.  That's it.  As you can see from the above, I have already volunteered to do this, and Drolz has not. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I can't because you refuse to have anything explained to you. You hear only what you want to hear. The same goes for him. The community can't make people behave in a mature, constructive way. That's down to you two. Crafty (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I have been harassed by this user in both main and user space, and I have asked for the harassment to stop.  You claim this is "absurd".  How is this absurd?  And the community most certainly can make people behave, and as part of this community, I am volunteering to ignore the user towards this end.  All I am asking is that the user reciprocates in turn.  How is my overture towards insuring the peace "absurd", and how could you possibly say this is "down to you two", when it is clear that we cannot get along?  No offense, but I'm questioning your judgment here.  There's already a history between us, and it needs to be resolved.  Since Drolz isn't willing to accept my proposal, I'm asking the community to enforce it for the greater good.  This is not "absurd" in any way.  It is required. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Viriditas has spoken: "It is required."  Drolz 09  08:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is as lame as a three-legged donkey. Just find something else to do. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the RfC on Viriditas that Drolz09 he has started here (yet to be certified), he writes "Viritidas [sic] admonished to be less demeaning to new editors and respect their right to edit." Could  explain in what sense he is a "new editor" in view of the fact that his first edit with this username was in February 2008? Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My account was created a while ago but I only started seriously editing last week. I have probably ~15 edits before then, and no talk page discussion that I recall. A lot of Viriditas's dialogue to me centered around how I am a new editor and need to watch myself, do what I'm told, etc. He says something similar to AQFT in the OP here, and is constantly posting things like "this editor only registered two weeks ago" when people say things he apparently objects to.  Drolz 09  08:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to avoid even thinking of Drolz09, but I would like to correct the erroneous claims made above. For the record, what Drolz09 is referring to is the use of the spa tag on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which has been overrun with SPA and sockpuppets, or as Drolz likes to refer to them, "new accounts".  Drolz is one of several accounts which have not edited in a year or more, but suddenly showed up on the talk page in the last few weeks to edit on a daily basis. Several have been voting in a hotly contested requested move discussion, and while I'm not sure of the exact count at this time, many have been blocked.  At one point, it got so bad that the talk page had to be SP, which as far as I understand it, is a very rare event. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked in on one of the discussions, where Viriditas states that he stopped being able to assume Drolz' good faith. I've respected Viriditas' editing in the past, but it looked a lot to me like a heated misunderstanding. Viriditas said that the article wasn't about Climategate; Drolz used this to say that, well then there should be a separate article on Climategate. This strikes me as a fairly routine disagreement. Drolz is a new editor, so it's easy to distrust; however, I'm not seeing the evidence that he's being unreasonable, or clear evidence that he's a sock (surely there will be socks and legitimately new accounts that show up when this kind of thing arises). Honestly it looks to me like two pretty articulate editors who didn't need to go down this road. Is there an option to dial it down? My recommendation to Drolz would definitely be, as someone who assumes his good faith: pursuing dispute resolution as a new user is probably just not a good idea, even if you have been treated unreasonably. You don't have to concede any point, but please do consider approaching this as if there are no other options besides editors on both sides working together. This is a good short cut, in my experience. Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a misunderstanding. The user has repeatedly made personal attacks on the CRU incident talk page, purposefully distorted my comments and took them out of their original context to use them as a proposal for his own ideas, dishonestly claiming that he agreed with "my proposal" - a proposal I never made, and the user continues to argue that basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to articles.  Then, there is the MfD linked above in the header, and if you still assume good faith after reading that tortured discussion, then I don't know what to say. I simply have no wish to interact with this user. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through pretty carefully. My view is that he doesn't assume your good faith and that you don't assume his, and I think you're both mistaken.  I could be wrong, of course.  But even then I'm pretty sure editors here would need something more specific in order to impose a specific sanction. Mackan79 (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How many diffs of personal attacks, wikihounding, deliberate distortions and false statements do you want? From what I can tell from his edit history, it was created as an attack account from the very beginning. Have you even looked at his contribs?  Start at the beginning in December. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence of wikihounding seems to be primarily him collecting some quotes of you talking down to him. I saw that when one editor looked at this, he accused Drolz' of personal attacks because he thought the statements were Drolz' own.  It looks to me like you've been quite critical, and like I said, the major disagreement in which you lost faith strikes me as a routine disagreement where he was accusing you of inconsistency, not misrepresenting your comments.  I understand being annoyed that he took your comment to support something you didn't support, but that's basic argumentation as it's often carried out.  With all due respect, I don't believe for a second that he was acting in bad faith by saying you admitted there was no article on "Climategate."  I do believe you saw his comments in that way.  I could be missing other aspects as well, but seriously, I've looked, and it doesn't seem I'm the only one who is coming up short here.  As to his early edits, I'm not sure what you mean.  I saw him take issue with one editor for bolding their !vote, so if he's a returning user he's a pretty clever one.  I think it's not quite what you see.  Just one view. Mackan79 (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong on this, and I've collected the diffs. I'll post them below, but it will take me about an hour to format them.  Here's a few to start with, all from one day of frantic editing:
 * Deletion of talk page edits by Apis O-tang
 * Accuses editors of cabalism
 * Distorts argument made by ChrisO and accuses him of being a "pro-science Wikipedia editor-zealot" who "will stop at nothing to conceal".
 * Reveals a bit too much info about his real purpose on the CRU page, claiming that "climateaudit is routinely DDoSed".
 * Links ChrisO to "nuts on every side of every debate" and "eco-terrorist nuts on the other side", accusing him of trying to "make everyone skeptical of global warming guilty by association."
 * Accuses ChrisO of refusing"to fork the hack and controversy because you need to draw attention away from the latter"
 * Tony Sidaway politely warns Drolz to stop making "accusations of bad faith against other editors", but Drolz ignores him and continues to do it, distorting comments by Chris0 again, and accusing him of "openly admitted to believing that the "real story" is the hack." User then makes another attack, accusing all the active editors of being part of the cabal: "It is transparently obvious to everyone that the dominant wikipedia editors are essentially a public relations firm for organizations that are the mouth pieces of climate activists. There's no reason to pretend otherwise."


 * There are so many of these attacks directed against myself and other editors that it will take time to compile them all. Mackan79, may I suggest that you have not properly reviewed the evidence?  This sample represents less than 1% of the attacks and assumptions of bad faith made by Drolz09 against polite and civil editors working to improve Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't need to compile the diffs of every disagreeable action. In fact, that would be counterproductive.  Pick a handful of the most egregious diffs and post them.  (You should have done so in your original post.)  As for requesting a mutual ban, simply enforce it on yourself.  Stop talking to Drolz.  If he approaches your talk page, remove any comments without commenting.  If he follows you to some place else, ignore him five times, and if he refuses to take the clue, come back here, post the five diffs, and ask him to be blocked for wikihounding. Jehochman Talk 10:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do, but I invite anyone to review his contributions. They are chock full of attacks and deceitful distortions of comments made by other editors, and the attacks and assumptions of bad faith have not stopped. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm checking over the diffs you cited immediately above...They look interesting. Jehochman Talk 10:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's only the beginning. He went on like that for days on end, and the attacks and bad faith assumptions haven't stopped.  What upset me the most was when he pulled quotes that I made from an entirely different discussion and pasted them together to form a proposal to fork the article, claiming that I had originally made the proposal.  Since I had been on record opposing the fork for days on end, this was not only deceitful, but transparently intellectually dishonest.  Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More diffs and previous complaint a week after the above. Only a small sample: User_talk:Drolz09. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I think any wikihounding is of secondary importance, and that you've been excessively patient with this user, Viriditas. I see misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, assumptions of bad faith, at least one personal attack, and disruptive editing by Drolz09. Those diffs also embody content policy violations, such as WP:NPOV and WP:FORK. Drolz09 is a single purpose account that essentially started editing in volume a week ago. Tony Sideway and 2over0 both provided warnings, but they seem to have had no effect whatsoever on Drolz09's behavior. Therefore, the result of this review is to indef block. Do not unblock without a consensus to do so. Jehochman Talk 10:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. When I review the comments at the beginning of this thread it seems to me that many commentators didn't look into this issue to deeply, and it isn't in the best interests of this project to quickly dismiss these types of claims.  At least it's great to see that with a little persistence, somebody will put in the necessary legwork, reach the right conclusion, and take action.  Nice one J!  --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very surprised by this. Indef blocking a user who has been editing for a couple of months, for a very mild "battleground" attitude, without any request or consensus?  Definitely not what I was expecting.  Honestly this seems bizarre. Mackan79 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your facts are mistaken. The editor registered first edited six months ago, but made only 11 edits prior to December 8. All editing since then has focused on a single, contentious topic, and has been entirely anti-collaborative.  Their behavior has not been "very mild".  Maybe you were looking at the contribution history of somebody else.  The account received several warnings, including a block warning from admin User:2over0.] Under these circumstances, when the account continues being used exclusively for disruption, they get indef blocked. Jehochman Talk 11:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the user registered at 12:52, 18 February 2008. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that Drolz09 was the same user whom I'd recently warned approached about his repeated accusations of bad faith and conspiracy to subvert policy. In view of that, Drolz09's recent interactions look more problematic than I at first thought. While an indefinite block may seem rather extreme, Drolz09's pattern of abusive interactions with other editors has been well established. While the subject of global warming has been notorious for interpersonal squabbles, user conduct related to the article "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" has been reasonable, with Drolz09 and one or two others being notable outliers. I support the indefinite block and, should he ever be unblocked in future, I propose that a topic ban on global warming, broadly construed, be considered as a substitute. --TS 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting review for indefinite block of Drolz09
I am somewhat dumbfounded by the above block. From what I can see Jehochman shows some very mildly combative behavior from User:Drolz09 over a few days, facing at least the same from other editors, and what he describes as two warnings both from two days ago. Based on this, with no request to do so that I can see, with some disagreement and no support, Jehochman has indefinitely blocked this user. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Mackan79 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As of this moment, there appear to be three uninvolved users supporting the indefinite block, and only you opposing. Mild?  I don't think that word means what you think it means.  Jehochman Talk 11:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the last 20 minutes? You just indef blocked an editor for a week of editing, who had never previously been blocked, based on a couple of "warnings" from two days ago, and no indication of what problem had continued.  In the comment you link it was ChrisO who brought up the murder analogy, and the response is absolutely "mild" for a block of any sort, let alone one that's indefinite!  What on earth. Mackan79 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mackan, the account was used to attack multiple editors for eight days. How could this be described as "mildly combative"?  I've actually never seen anything like it before.  Eight days of straight attacks. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, you can't possibly support an indef block of this editor. Mackan79 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support it, but I can't justify it, so I've asked Jehochman to shorten it to a week. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think it's still nuts, but I'll leave that to others for the evening.... Mackan79 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An indefinite block for someone who is a relatively new user, and who has no block history seems a disproportionate response. I have looked at some of his edits to article talk pages, and they seem reasonable comments to make.  I think we have to accept that when people feel they are under attack, they tend to bite back.  Biting back is against Wikipedia policy, yes he was warned about this, and should have been banned.  I think a 1 to 6 month ban would have been more appropriate.  Some of the other combatants would also have benefited from short bans.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * @Viridas - well, we haven't seen eight days of diffs posted here. It does look as though a block would be appropriate, judging by the diffs posted by Jehochman above, but for someone who has in effect only been editing a week, an indef seems rather harsh to me. It may be the user is incorrigible but the usual practice is to block a few times for a short period to give the user some chance at least to modify his behaviour. Certainly I think an indef only on the diffs presented by Jehochman above is excessive. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very curious to see the standard under which this editor of eight days should be blocked, and not the other participants in the discussion. If the linked edit here is offensive, how about the previous edit by ChrisO?  There is nothing remotely more or less appropriate about one than the other (or for that matter remotely blockable about either).  This editor needs some positive advice, for goodness sake, not to be blocked. Mackan79 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's received quite a bit of positive advice, with no change in behavior. I even encouraged him to compose a version of the disputed article in his user space so that we could work on it.  He refused to do so, claiming that we needed to iron out policy first. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If ChrisO or any other editors has behaved badly, start a new section with diffs. I or somebody else can evalate the evidence and place any needed sanction. We should deal with this conflict thoroughly. Jehochman Talk 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning"

- WP:BLOCK


 * I looked through the user's entire contribution history. There is no need to post every diff from that history here when you can just click the link above and peruse it youself.  I've highlighted a selection of diffs presented by Viriditas.  When an account has done nothing but act disruptively, it gets blocked indefinitely.  Second chances are for editors who show signs of making useful contributions. Moreover, this account was registered 22 months ago, waited 16 months, then made just 11 edits over six months, and then jumped into a highly contentious article, making numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against other editors.   I think it is a mistake to assume that this is a new user. Circumstances suggest about 50/50 chance of new user versus sock puppet, and I think I'm being generous in that assessment. Jehochman Talk 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, I think you're right, and I support your block. Unfortunately, the arguments made by Toddy1 and Gatoclass defend the status quo in regards to blocking, which is best to follow in case the user is truly willing to reform.  In other words, Drolz09 should be given a chance, and that's his right.  It might be best to shorten the block to let's say, a week.  I would have responded earlier, but I've been getting nothing but edit conflicts. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Status quo allows indefinite blocking of disruption-only accounts. They are not treated the same way as productive contributors who make mistakes. Jehochman Talk 12:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it could be argued that the user has made some constructive edits, therefore it is not a disruption-only account. I only say this because after reviewing the edit history, I can see that the user has made some some good contributions, but very few so far, considering his short length of time here. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye. I think I wrote the relevant bit of policy quite some time ago.  The key phrase is "primarily used for disruption".  To avoid gaming of the rules, a relatively small amount of productive (typically WikiGnome) type edits may be discounted.  This user's edits appear to be 95% battle, and 5% productive.  I think on balance they qualify as a disruption-only account. Jehochman Talk 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a reasonable interpretation, and I support it. But, given that the user is so new, the percentages are skewed against them.  When I first started editing here, I made a series of good edits, and some very bad ones.  I would not want to be judged on my first month here, even though 95% of them were good. In fact, I was accused of being a vandal when I first started, not because my edits were poor - they were actually very good and are still in the articles today, years later.  No, it was because I was editing through an anonymous proxy, and that IP was simultaneously being used by a real vandal, without my knowledge.  Luckily, someone believed me (User:Pir I think it was) and I registered an account. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give them a second chance. I too started out on the wrong foot at Wikipedia.  However, they need to show by words, and then by actions, that they are amenable to feedback.  Let's not let them off the hook too quickly.  I promise to unblock them well within the one week you suggest if they take the necessary steps. Jehochman Talk 12:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, that doesn't make any sense. Do you really not see how a new editor could get pulled into a dispute?  To say he waited 16 months begs the question of whether this is a returning account; it's hardly evidence.  How can you know after 8 days and no real attempt at discussion that someone is beyond all reason?  I'll say one thing: I could hardly think of a better way to create highly motivated enemies of the project. Mackan79 (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Should this editor be unblocked, I hope that the unblocking admin will consider a topic ban. An editor interested in good faith participation would find plenty of opportunity to contribute on one of the many subjects in which he does not have a record of abusive interaction. --TS 11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that a topic ban would certainly be needed, given the abusive conduct in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the block. Droltz09 did not work toward concensus on the talk page, and approached the article in a combative manner with a clear POV.  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Did not work toward consensus... in eight days of editing and without ever having been blocked. You have to be kidding.  I doubt I have time, but if there is any serious sanction left on an 8 day user who has engaged in absolutely no gross disruption -- or anything close to it -- the case should be taken to ArbCom on their behalf.  No reasonable person would waste their own time. Mackan79 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think an indefinite block is merited. A short block is enough, and follow-up if necessary. I myself created my own account a couple of years ago, and never really edited much until a few months ago, so the whole "He is a sock" argument (just because he has an account he never used much until now) is a bit ridiculous. Many people who initially register but never use their accounts much may wind up feeling passionate about a subject and start to actively edit because a topic piques their interest. As newer editors, they tend to get involved in edit wars, incivility, etc. because they don't understand the rules of Wikipedia yet. That doesn't mean that the account was created only for disruption. I would support a shortening of the ban. Moogwrench (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the indef block is way out of line. There is a learning curve on Wikipedia.  People start out editing what interests them offwiki, which generally means something that they have opinions about.  It takes time to learn how to do it properly.  Suggest reducing to 24 hours from initial block.  Article talk page warnings are well and good, but it sometimes takes a small lesson to head off bigger problems.  Indef block and throw away the key is becoming the rule around here, and it is very unfortunate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The block is per established policy. Who's throwing away the key?  I've even suggested unblock conditions.  If the editor is serious about wanting to collaborate, they will accept them, or make a counter offer. Jehochman Talk 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, per established policy, if you grant your conclusion that Drolz is a single purpose account, which I don't see the evidence of. Editing what you are interested in, when you start, does not equal single purpose attac.  If he is not a SPA, it is not per established policy.  If you want a counteroffer, or an acceptance, again I suggest unblocking with him only being allowed to edit here outside his userspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If Drolz is not a single purpose account, he should be happy to edit some articles outside global warming, where everybody agrees his editing has been problematic. How about an unblock on condition that he avoid GW articles for one month, and also avoid conflict with Viriditas. Drolz09 is also on notice about WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE; further violations of those policies may result in blocking without additional warnings. Jehochman Talk 14:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt says that he can't see any evidence that Drolz09 is an SPA. How does he interpret the 191 edits to the talk page of the CRU article which represent the bulk of his contributions to wikipedia (apart from the MfD page, his talk page and here)? Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because everyne starts somewhere in editing Wikipedia. Everyone started with one article.  Some people branch out from there on their second edit.  Some take longer.  There is no actual prohibition against editing only one article.  The problem arises in using Wikipedia only for disruption, or only for vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of possible unblocking conditions
If Drolz09 agrees to change their style, they might be unblocked. Up to now, I have seen no indication whatsoever of any willingness to change, but there is still hope. If they post a proper unblock request, their block might be lifted or shortened. Things I'd look favorably on: (1) agreement not to pester Viriditas further; (2) agreement to follow all relevant policies, including WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE; (3) agreement to leave the global warming dispute venue, at least temporarily, until they gain experience as an editor. Somebody intending to be a productive contributor would agree to these things. Somebody who's here to battle about a single issue will not agree. Jehochman Talk 12:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to state for the record, and with all due respect, that I consider this block to have been completely out of process, baseless, and frankly an abuse of the tools. The editor had never been blocked, was not given any chance to respond, and was blocked indefinitely on the thought that he may be a sockpuppet.  There was no effort to seek consensus, despite the fact that Crafty and I had questioned the report (though I think it was filed in good faith).  This editor should not have been blocked at all here.  I hope at the least that you'll show more care in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The potential of socking was noticed, but was not the reason for the block. The user did have a chance to respond; he did so several times on this thread, and the poor quality of those responses influenced my decision.  They continue to have a chance to respond on their talk page and anything they say can be quoted or linked here. I've already cited WP:BLOCK which specifically authorizes indef blocks for accounts used primarily for disruption (as this one was).  Jehochman Talk 12:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've notified Drolz09 of your unblock proposal. His response is not very encouraging. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor had a full chance to reply at the beginning of this thread, and continued a combative stance against an editor with whom he had a disagreement. Really, having that attitude and arguement in front of dozens of admins was just shooting themself in the foot - and not in a Plaxico way either. Even when the other editor extended an olive branch (I'll AGF), the response was effectively "no, screw you". Well, that shows a lack of desire to resolve the situation. As such, action needed to be taken. Personally, I might have made it 3 days or so for someone with such a light history (agreeably most of it being combative). Maybe they need a mentor, although something tells me they'd refuse. Keep a close eye on their return ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He responded to Viriditas' request that they not address each other; there was no proposal to block, let alone ban, for him to respond to. It will be astonishing to me if a user who is put in this situation retains any respect for the project (and I say that as someone who does respect the project), but that is rather our doing at this point much more than theirs. Mackan79 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Do you call this a valid, noncombative response to the request: Let me be perfectly clear: I, Viriditas, agree to ignore Drolz09 on Wikipedia, and to avoid all interaction. Do you, Drolz09, agree to do the same? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, in consequence of your misbehavior and attempt to get me unjustly banned, do I renounce my right to post in certain areas of wikipedia? No, sorry. I think this ANI needs to go through and you need to be reprimanded. Drolz09 07:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) I AGF that Viriditas was willing to go through with this, and hours of drama - and a block - would have been saved. Where are we now? Was it worth it? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indenting is getting strange here, but yes that's one reason I suggested that he not try to pursue dispute resolution as a new user. He and Viriditas have been accusing each other of bad faith for several days.  Viriditas is a long term editor, very competent, with a good deal of legitimate support around here.  Could this editor stand to learn a little?  I should hope, but I'm certainly not going to judge someone who has been around for such a short time.  Frankly that he hasn't said something to thoroughly justify a ban at this point is probably the strongest evidence that he isn't actually a new user... but then that's kind of like saying if she sinks she's innocent, isn't it? Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) The combination of elements is a bit odd. A sleeper account activated about 20 months ago, suddenly becomes active on a Global Warming article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. With hardly any editing experience, the account starts collecting a laundry list on his user page, then, when an MfD is started, moves it to a subpage User:Drolz09/Quotations and then, without help, starts an RfC. It's very hard to believe these are the actions of a newbie editor. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. That's why I maintain that I support the indef but can't justify it. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FTR, he moved it to a subpage, because I recommended he move it to a subpage. I was attempting dispute resolution (but failed). I even noted that I wasn't sure he knew what a user subpage was, which is why I was letting him know.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, we do have a lot of pages that teach a new editor about Wikipedia concepts, and certainly new editors look at what is going on around them and try to adopt what other editors do. You say sleeper account like the guy purposely started the account 2 years ago so he could be disruptive on this particular article. Many people who initially register but never use their accounts much may wind up feeling passionate about a subject and start to actively edit because a topic piques their interest. I really don't see how you can automatically assume that he is anything other than what he says, a newer editor who made some mistakes, and whose punishment is a tad excessive for one so new. Moogwrench (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking from my own experience. Many editors don't even know about WP:ANI when they first start here, let alone all the jargon of wikipedia. GW unfortunately does attract a lot of sockpuppets, although obviously that needn't be the case here. Sleeper accounts are often set up by puppetmasters, but again that needn't be the case here. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, can you say that your comments here and here, immediately before the one that Jehochman links, do not reflect exactly the WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE approaches that you are putting on this editor? Mackan79 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we avoid tangents? If you'd like to discuss ChrisO, please start a new thread. Jehochman Talk 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hardly a tangent to ask how ChrisO can possibly accuse this editor of promoting a battleground with a straight face, or how others can support him in this charge, when it is transparently obvious that as a new user he was doing exactly what long term editors were doing on that page. Please consider what you are actually advocating as a process here for this site.  The point is not that ChrisO should have been banned. Mackan79 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "He did wrong so I can do wrong" isn't a defense. If experienced editors have been setting a poor example, the new editor should say so, and indicate that he will stop following their bad example. Jehochman Talk 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be serious, Jehochman. If experienced editors are setting a "poor example", no rational project can make it a new editor's obligation to see the problem and set it straight, or else be banned while the experienced editors go on doing the same.  That becomes not a "poor example," but the mark of a patently corrupt organization.  Other than to defend this block I can't think that anyone would even propose it.  Mackan79 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Drolz09

 * copied by TS

1. All of the diffs which were relied on to establish my pattern of behavior were from 12/8.

2. The two warnings I received were on 12/14.

3. There is no evidence that I continued any questionable behavior after that date.

4. This ANI started with Viriditas moving my talkpage posts without my permission. Prior to this point I had not engaged in any uncivil behavior with him probably since around 12/8, and as you can see from the diffs I provided, I was civil even when he was moving my posts.

5. Some of the evidence against me is way out of context
 * The Apis deletion was an accident when I didn't understand edit conflicts
 * The ChrisO diff about what the article was about was a direct quote of ChrisO, not taken at all out of context
 * The battleground behavior is something I was never admonished for and I was really just mirroring the behavior of other editors in a highly contentious article

6. The reason I have so few "productive" edits is because I was told (By viritidas) not to edit without consensus. Consensus never came, which is why all my posts were talkpage, for the most part.

7. ChrisO and TS are involved parties and not neutral witnesses, if this wasn't clear. Drolz 09  12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

More diffs in response to the above

 * 22:23, 16 December 2009 - Attacks ChrisO again: "The one who is engaging in "pure unsourced speculation" here is you, ChrisO." Note this is quite different than Chris' statement, which specifically addressed Drolz's "opinion" as unsourced speculation, not his person.
 * 02:42, 15 December 2009 - Attacks Viriditas: "You are absolutely immune to reason." This was after being warned about personal attacks earlier in the thread.
 * 02:34, 15 December 2009 - ChrisO asks Drolz, "So what would you add and what sources would you use?" Drolz responds "I am not going to go looking for sources until we establish some reasonable bright line rules about what can be allowed in."  He has been repeatedly informed about the policy and guidelines for sourcing for a week, but refuses to abide by them.
 * 05:15, 14 December 2009 - "The overriding problem here is that the "cabal" editors refuse to admit bias. I freely admit that I am an AGW skeptic, and acknowledge that I have a POV. You guys refuse to admit that you have a POV, and because of this you see whatever you believe as being NPOV. I know that the balance in this article does not lie with what I personally believe to be the case. Things would run a lot more smoothly if people would just admit to being people and not data recorders or something."
 * 00:54, 14 December 2009: "Why is this happening?" It is happening because a group of four or five editors has taken possession of this article and relentlessly driven it towards a very specific bias. This group of editors has used every trick and tool at their disposal (including full protection) to mau-mau an article that ought to be about a controversy into a press release on why that controversy actually isn't one. And at the same time, these editors play the consummate victim, always the one on the wrong end of some awful POV pusher. What could you possibly expect but for the people you have gone to such lengths to exclude and vilify to escalate their own rhetoric in response?"
 * 23:53, 13 December 2009 - "This is exactly the problem with cabalist activity. You are all pushing the same spurious arguments, but you use your numbers to make it look like there are a lot of reasonable arguments, and 'consensus' against other editors who are trying to bring balance to this article. There is no way that a reasonable outside observer would not determine that there is POV collusion between TS, Guerttarda, Viriditas, etc...What's worse, is that you have arranged for an article about a developing story to be locked, which is facially absurd, and certainly not a means of improving The Project."
 * 05:04, 10 December 2009 - Attacks Guettarda: "Once again you reveal a complete failure to understand this article. This is not an article on whether AGW is real (and even in that case, skepticism does not rise to wikipedia's definition of a fringe or pseudoscience). This is an article describing a public debate, which has been aggressively edited to erase one side of that debate, while giving extreme weight to ancillary issues (the hack, death threats) that serve only to draw attention away from the fact that there is any debate at all. The notion that you are protected by WP:AGF is outrageous.
 * 04:24, 10 December 2009 - Attacks Guettarda after she politely and gently explained how to read the policy : "I read the whole article and as I said, nothing in it recommends against the inclusion of this piece. I think it's about time that instead of just spamming the talk page with WP:BLP WP:NPOV etc., you and your friends start explaining what part of these policies are actually violated by the quotes et al. you don't want included in this article."
 * 02:14, 10 December 2009 - "As it stands now, about five extremely committed people have complete control over the article, and aren't afraid to threaten anyone who disagrees with blocking." This statement was made right after User:Gigs politely asked Drolz: "Please try to assume good faith. While I agree with your sentiment, these sorts of accusations aren't helping build any real consensus".  Note the fallback on ABF right after the request.
 * 00:04, 9 December - "Wikipedia editors: immune to context."

Viriditas, come on! You're just making him look prescient for the comments he put in his user space, all made by you about him. Or how about ChrisO's comments that I linked just above, and he hasn't addressed? This is a travesty, moving closer to ArbCom by the second. Mackan79 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, almost none of these diffs are about me, and they directly contradict his claims. Please read closer.  In his unblock request summarized above, Drolz claims that 1) All of the diffs which were relied on to establish his pattern of behavior were from 12/8. and 2) There is no evidence that he continued any questionable behavior after that date.  I have clearly demonstrated that this is false, and if it weren't for the last edit conflict, there would be twice as many diffs above.  I'm in the process of adding them now. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost none, Viriditas? He says you are part of a conspiracy to POV that article.  Therefore, every diff in which he complains about a conspiracy or cabal refers to you.  As for ChrisO, I find the diffs comparing the circumstances of the hacking to reaction to the murder of the abortion performer shocking, if not entirely surprising, given the fact we're talking ChrisO here.  I think the question really becomes, did Drolz have a reasonable basis to conclude that a small group of editors were controlling the POV of the article.  Doesn't have to be true, just has to be he had a reasonable basis.  If so, he had a perfect right to continue to seek redress here at AN/I, even in the face of the er, "olive branch".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose WP:CIV and WP:NPA are no longer relevant then. Are you honestly going to tell me that attacking editors and assuming bad faith is acceptable?  What reasonable basis did Drolz have to make any of his attacks?  There is none. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really hesitate to call "You are absolutely immune to reason" a personal attack. Sounds like being flogged with a wet strip of toilet paper.  As for your final question, why don't we unblock Drolz (with a prohibition against editing any page except this outside his userspace) and let him say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Telling someone they are immune to reason is not a personal attack?  That's an interesting take on what is a clearly defined personal attack.  And for the record, many of the diffs do not refer to me or any discussions that I was involved in with Drolz.  He may have dragged my name into it, but that doesn't mean I was involved.  You seem to be openly defending incivility and personal attacks, the two things that prevent this site from actually functioning.  Why? Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. I am calling for fairness for a new user per WP:BITE.  And really, the only difference between his comment about you and yours about mine are that he didn't know that if you throw the word "seem" into the comment, you can say virtually anything.  Presumably this will serve to educate him.  I could say with equal validity that you seem to be engaged in conduct designed to discourage new users at a time when our editor count is falling (if you believe the WSJ).  Why?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the user refusing the unblock conditions? Why did the user refuse to heed warnings on his own talk page, and why did he reject peace overtures from Viriditas at the top of this thread?  Jehochman Talk 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would characterize Viriditas's comments as a "peace overture". It's kind of a backhanded admission, even though Viriditas maintains that he's not an opponent of Drolz, that there was an adversarial relationship there.  Let's see how he reacts to my proposal, which in a couple of ways is tougher than yours, Jehochman.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd
This is yet another example of bait and block: goad an inexperienced editor (usually, one with an opposing POV) into making newbie mistakes, then mischaracterize their actions on AN/I and get an admin to block based on reputation alone. It should be overturned immediately. ATren (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that Drolz09 was goaded or baited into his repeated accusations of conspiracy to subvert the neutral point of view policy. As well as my request and 2/0's warning, he must also have read repeated calls by me on the article talk page asking users with conduct complaints to follow the dispute resolution policy, and reminders that doing so is not optional. --TS 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The attack on his User page was silliness, and unbecoming of a long term editor like Viriditas. The quotes being collected were unattributed, they could have been about anyone, and there was no commentary, yet Viriditas made a huge deal out of it, escalating the conflict even more.
 * I'd also like to add that Viriditas recently tried to bait another skeptic-leaning global warming editor on his talk: "You are dishonest, and prone to making false statements. Your stated purpose here is not to improve articles, but to engage in battles with your opponents. You are, by your own admission, a SPA designed solely to push a single, fringe POV, which goes against the NPOV policy and shows that you have no understanding of it. ". This diatribe was completely unprovoked and is an indication that Viriditas may not be able to deal properly with editors that have opposing viewpoints on the issue of GW. ATren (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are three diffs that directly and conclusively contradict ATren's claim about me:   Those three links compliment and invite Cla68 to contribute and to participate, and encourage him to do so at his greatest capacity.  I even recommended him as a mentor.  For the record, Cla68's viewpoint is completely at odds with my own, but he understands NPOV.  It would be nice if ATren would stop making stuff up.  I not only encourage editors with different viewpoints to work with me, I enjoy it. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ATren, stop making stuff... er, um, I mean, providing embarrassing diffs! Does "he understands NPOV" mean that he has been cowed into not responding when he is reverted? Moogwrench (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're discussing Drolz09's block at this point. Viriditas has not been blocked, and a good proportion of Drolz09's conduct problems are unrelated to Viriditas.  So I don't think we can consider VIriditas' conduct in mitigation of the block on Drol09. --TS 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes we can. A newbie is far more likely to be played by those who have their own POV and are letting it show.  Provocation is not a full excuse but we are entitled to consider it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable angle to pursue, and I encourage you to do so. You will find no evidence for it, however. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Block too harsh
I disagree with almost everything Drolz09 says, and I find this editor's approach to interaction to be inappropriate and tiresome; however, I do not believe an indefinite block is justifiable. This should have been handled with the usual 24-hr block, with escalating block lengths in the event of continued disruption. WP:RFC/U is another venue where Drolz09's behavior could've been discussed first. I recommend that the block be reduced to time served, and I remind admins that blocks are not supposed to be a tool of punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is wrong to ask volunteers to spend many hours of their time dealing with disruptive, single-purpose accounts of short tenure. This particular account may very well be a sock puppet of a previously sanctioned user.  This particular account has done nothing except make disruptive edits.  They do not deserve to consume so much volunteer resources. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, disruptive editors of long standing (see the abortion murder comments mentioned above, which have nothing to do with improving the project) are vested, and nothing is done to them. You shall have one rule, for the stranger and for the native of the land.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) - While I agree that the editor has been disruptive, there is no proof of sock puppetry. A right-out-of-the-gate indefinite block is usually reserved for blatant vandals, people who make death threats or proven socks. This editor has strong views (which I do not agree with), but that is not unusual on Wikipedia. A 24-hour block, while frustrating for the recipient, gives them enough time to reflect and perhaps learn from their mistakes. An indef block is guaranteed to enrage the recipient to such a point that they are not able to calm down and defend themselves appropriately. If an "opponent" of Drolz09 (such as myself) can bring himself to this editor's defense, surely it is worth reconsidering the block length? -- Scjessey (talk)
 * I agree with that as well. To say that Drolz may be a sockpupput is to attempt to influence feelings about him without bothering about little things like evidence.  Jehochman, if you don't have enough to hand to a checkuser, please leave the suggestion out.  It kinda suggests that you're thinking what you have is not sufficient, and so you need to be suggestive that there's more there.  It violates the spirit, and possibly the letter of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, reasonable people can wonder, as myself, Jehochman, Mathsci and others have questioned, whether Drolz09 resembles a "sleeper account" and if the user is only a newbie who is here to help build articles, or a SPA intent on causing problems. Where's the learning curve?  He came here with a vision and a purpose. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sock insinuations need to be dropped, unless anyone wants to open an SPI. However, I agree that a block was likely needed here, but disagree with the length. There are a number of long term editors opposed to this, and perhaps we can convince them to mentor him. If problems persist, we can always indef block later.  AniMate   14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I contacted the checkusers by email for an opinion. Jehochman Talk 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor's behavior is pure battle and personal attacks. They can be unblocked as soon as they agree to stop the objectionable behavior. I do not want to have a revolving door situation where we are back at this board, or another, as soon as the editor is unblocked. Why haven't they accepted the simple unblock conditions I proposed? Jehochman Talk 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because your indef block made them angry. It is hard to be apologetic and reasonable when you get slapped with such a strong punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They'd be equally angry with 24 hours, and then they'd just sit it out, and come back to get 48 hours, and so on. It is better to draw a line in the early, and turn the editor away from disruption.  When the editor agrees to suitable unblock conditions, they will be unblocked. It would be helpful if you could convince them to negotiate conditions.  I am not interested in any sort of apologies.  They just need to agree on terms. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable approach. The door is left open, all he has to do is agree to be reasonable. --TS
 * It seems like a case of "shoot first, and then offer to extract the projectile if they agree to play nice" to me. Indef blocks do not make people feel like negotiating. It's like giving the whole class an "F" and then telling them if they work hard enough, some of them might be able to achieve an "A" by the end of the semester. I always start my college students with an "A". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is worth pointing out that indefinite block is just indetirminate length block, not a permanent ban. If someone's behaviour is such as we would not want it repeated and it is the only behaviour they have shown, I see no reason we shouldn't put a block of indeterminate length on them until they accept, overtly, to operate within accepted rules. Considering how often we all bitch about persistant disruptive accounts only getting short blocks and not getting indeffed, we should maybe stop leaping down the admin's throats everytime one of them has the guts to put on the flak jacket and wade into the shitstorm that follows. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (ECx2)
 * When a new user(or a user who is unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works) is disruptive, an indefinite block is sometimes a tool that will work. If a user is banned for a certain amount of time then they will just wait until that time is through and go back to editing in the same manner that they received the block in the first place. But if a user is forced to look at the reasons for the block and produce a good reason to be unblocked, they will learn more about the project and (hopefully) become a contributing editor. Being blocked indefinitely does not mean you are permanently banned. DD2K (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are deeper issues which it would be impolitic to explore deeply at this point and in this location, but I'll outline them. There is a quite prominent whispering campaign among some editors who, on talk pages and user talk pages, allege conspiracy to subvert the neutral point of view ("cabal").  The correct response to this is to direct people who believe they have legitimate conduct complaints to follow the dispute resolution policy, which is what I and some others have done.  One can say that perhaps this relatively inexperienced editor has been misled by our relative lenience towards these whisperers and their long-running personal attacks. But what can one do but continue to encourage these people to gather evidence and present their complaints in an appropriate forum.


 * The result of this issue is not just felt by one editor who is currently blocked, but by several editors who, over quite a long period, have endured personal attacks and the souring of talk page discussions. For those people, tomorrow will be yet another day in which editing on an important topic is complicated by persistent attacks and slurs on their good faith. --TS 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is over-reaction against a new editor. Essentially, I agree with Scjessey--this sets an example of what might look like experienced editors imposing harsher than usual penalties on a newcomer The over-reaction  is not primarily Viriditas's fault, who came here asking for much milder and perfectly appropriate sanction--an interaction ban. the new editor either out of intransigence or inexperience refused this. The appropriate course was probably to get consensus fro such a ban and issue a short block if it was actually ignored. that would be enough to show that what he was doing was unacceptable. If it continued afterwards, then that's the time to step up, in the usual way. I cannot support an indefinite block in this case. A block no admin is willing to remove is a ban, but I am willing to remove this one. As I understand it, I have the right to do so, and consensus here would be needed to restore it.    DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering the user appears to believe he should have never been blocked, you would at this point be vindicating that view point, that his behaviour had been appropriate and that Jechohman should be de-sysopped and he is owed some apology. However, you have the tools and the community's trust, on your head be it (Essentially, unblock based on events, not on a principle). As a note, a ban may require consensus, but this was a block. If no admin is willing to remove a block, then it remains a block. A person avoiding a block with a constructive account is usually allowed to go on their merry way, ban evasion is not. Also, if no admin is willing to unblock someone, then one would assume the person is probably better off blocked. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG, we are not proposing a community ban,. Wehwalt, Scjessey, and I have put forward unblocking conditions at User talk:Drolz09. We are merely waiting for the user to agree. A speedy unblock would undermine this process and increase the risk that the user will repeat the same errors, down the familiar path of escalating blocks, leading to a site ban. That is the path we all seek to avoid. By saying, "Stop, you must not continue this behavior," there is a chance to avoid that bad outcome. In any case, there is a consensus on this thread for at least a 24 hour block. There is time for the discussion to reach it's natural conclusion before unblocking the user. Indefinite does not mean infinite in this case. I wish the block menu included distinct options for "indefinite - conditional" and "indefinite - infinite". Much confusion could be avoided. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perspective
I don't think I have ever seen such a lack of perspective on Wikipedia as is evident in the above discussion. User:Drolz09 has effectively been editing for 8 days, and seems to have little experience with Wikipedia. Here Guettarda explains to the editor that !votes are usually bolded, when the user criticizes another editor for doing this. A few prior edits by the account were productive, uncontroversial, and completely unrelated to climate change. It is apparent that the user became active in September to reinstate an edit to Glenn Beck (TV program) after his IP edit had been reverted. This is completely consistent with a good faith account.

Viriditas started this discussion by asking that an interaction ban be imposed between him and this user. He accused the editor of bad faith, said he could not see anything the editor did in good faith, and therefore said he did not think they should interact. Several editors suggested that the whole thing was ridiculous, and that the editors should find a way to avoid the problem. At this point Jehochman enters, and without consulting with anyone, any proposal to do so, or any prior blocks or sanctions against the user, he indefinitely blocks them on the theory that the user has promoted a battleground environment. It is now being demanded that for any unblock he should have to come to some agreement to behave better in the future.

I can not believe that this is how Wikipedia treats a new editor. It is beyond indefensible, it goes beyond any rational debate about how to deal with new users. It is a total abuse of this editor, not to mention of Wikipedia. And yet several of the involved editors, including Jehochman, do not seem even capable of discussing their reasoning or reevaluating what has happened. It is hard to know what to say to this, except that in some way some additional perspective here is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A nice, neutral perspective! I agree as much as anyone that new users can go through a lot of BS, but I can't remotely stretch that this time. In case it was missed above, the admin in question is trying to actually end the matter. I'm not sure about this "several editors suggested... was ridiculous" matter at the start, since plenty did think it was a civility issue, too. Indef block? Probably no so great. It'd being corrected, just as all indef blocks are encouraged to be farther discussed. Just don't forget about the incivility. New to Wikipedia or not doesn't excuse that. Perhaps discussion above on block dropping might be more productive for now? Take this to RfC or WQA if you have a problem. Read recent threads in the past few archive folders involving lots of other admins having at each other's throats and spot some of those actions, and see what a better definition of "abuse of power" is. Actually, there's an ArbCom case closing that's a really major case of abuse of power. 1 block of indef with zero intent of being done in bad faith, and being reduced or removed now... isn't abuse. Abuse by a lot of users just in general is far, far more hideous. Sorry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I reduced it to a week, since that seems to be the rough consensus on this thread. The user has been blocked exactly zero seconds longer than the final result, so no harm done.  Indef means undetermined; upon discussion, it was determined. We've got some sanctions pending as people seem pretty concerned that a week off isn't going to cure this problem. Jehochman Talk 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortening block, proposing sanctions
Per consensus here, I agree to shorten the block to one week. If Drolz09 accepts the unblock conditions proposed on User talk:Drolz09, or counters with acceptable terms, they could be unblocked sooner. If there is no agreement, then I request the following restrictions be placed in effect when the block expires: I hope we can get a consensus for these conditions. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz09 is topic banned from Global warming articles and related pages for a period of three months.
 * Drolz09 is restricted from using Wikipedia as a battle ground, making personal attacks or making baseless accusations. If there are violations, any uninvolved administrator may block without further warnings.
 * Comment I would support a reduction to a 24hr block (getting closer to time served all the time) should the editor accept these restrictions. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the user Drolz is a major voice of opposition on the climate page in question (striving to neutralize the article), as well his comments do not seem out of place to me. It seems the the admin Jehochman is basically holding out to castrate Drolz voice indefinitely on the issue he is passionate about and letting a group of editors who attach ownership to have their way. I'm in favor of a desysop of Jehochman for his abuse of power.--172.162.204.143 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My quack-o-meter is going through the roof! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, god forbid the involved admin is trying to take responsibility for a little of the mess and starting to propose an informal solution without blocks. On an "abuse of power" scale, given there was a history of incivility in some regards, this ranks somewhere between baby harp seal and baby kitten on a scale of 1 to 10... as in about a -2 of abuse. Read the other recent threads on this stuff and report back here after that.  ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Add-on note-- I don't particularly support the original indef block (just "some" block), but I laughed at this idea. Just entirely laughed given how uncivil other discussions have been as of late and that Jehochman's action was 1000x more likely to have been in good faith than any of the other stuff around. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Finally, an answer for a question at this diff, which was a pretty-freaking-simple solution. How is it that, without exception, the persons who refuse to agree to voluntary AGF distancing from user editors are the ones that always get sanctions? Same thing has happened to me here a lot recently, since apparently both editors walking away for the day with fully functional accounts seems to be too much to handle. Thank you for trying to simplify this. Easy way out? Unblock on "time served" upon agreement to above. I would add a point of no direct communication between the users. Limit topic ban to 1 month assuming good behavior elsewhere, to limit notion of "picking sides", but ban can be extended at any time. Heavy warning to the opposite warring party for generic incivility in some respects and mention of anything incidents in the future being blocks at any admin's discression. Desysop? That's for ArbCom. ANI is not a magic factory where pixies can toss dust about and grant wishes of people just because they think they have consensus at that moment. Read some of the pathetic discussions here lately-- it's entirely out of hand. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sakes
Jehochman, just unblock and call it time served, before I do it for you. I looked at the guy's talk page this morning, saw some serious baiting, and am really surprised to see this unresolved by now. 24 hours is a better place to start, however many hours it's been plus drama should be more than ample to make his errors clear to him. I'm sure you meant well, but you overdid it a tad, and you need to leave this to others. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hours of discussions have gone into building a consensus about what to do. Please don't toss all that by the wayside and substitute your own judgment.  Your opinion is welcomed and valued, but the ultimatum is not appropriate. Jehochman Talk 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion above doesn't look like a consensus-oriented effort. The "ultimatum" is nothing personal, I'm just an uninvolved admin willing to unblock. Generally better if you do it IMO, but YMMV. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A few people have restated their opinions and made this a lengthy thread. Nevertheless, a number of uninvolved admins and editors have commented, and most support some sort of block.  The consensus appears to be one week, unless the editor agree to unblocking conditions.  Please don't substitute your personal view for that of those who've already commented. Jehochman Talk 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of personal views in the discussion above. Mine is of equal weight. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think that Drolz is more trouble than he may bring to the project. There's a lot of sniping, a lot of outright personal attacks at the CRU email page, but in Drolz's case its continual.  And the thing is that behaviour like that poisons the entire atmosphere.  When you're pissed off from that kind of stuff, you're more likely to snap back.  More to the point, the fact that his constant stream of PAs and assumptions of bad are tolerated has set the tone for a lot of other new editors (which, of course, have been flocking to the page).  I don't care whether he's blocked or not, but I think that a topic ban is crucial.  Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I unblocked him. If he doesn't take the day's lessons to heart, he'll be blocked again. 'Nuff said. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate unblock. Woogee (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, inappropriate unblock. For what it's worth, I thought a week was more inappropriate than indef. Brilliantine (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not encouraging.. Nor is his response to the unblock. Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Appropriate, both the unblock and the reaction by Drolz09.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect that since SB Johnny has chosen to substitute his judgement for that of the other discussion participants, he will also be watching this editor closely, and will take full responsibility for any further disruption from this editor &mdash and is prepared to apologize to editors affected? Bad unblock, bad snap decision in lieu of discussion.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be so dramatic. Our rules give discretion to the admin willing to unblock.  This was discussed to death, and I read it as no consensus either way.  Frankly, given the draconian sanctions which are getting to be routinely handed out on this page these last few weeks to editors who don't have friends, I'm glad that we're seeing an admin or two willing to step up to the plate and call 'em like he sees 'em.   --Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the unblock as well, and I am totally uninvolved. Newbie biting is an issue, and yes, he's a newbie. I registered in May 2006, but didn't even have a talk page until May 2007. (I had 109 edits when I created the page. 38 minutes later, I had my very first comment.) I won't address some of the larger issues, but he was jumped on fairly early by someone who obviously has a substantially differing perception of the issue.  Horologium  (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked to escalate to RfAr? (request now withdrawn)

 * Comment Drolz09 has made a number of highly disruptive comments on the CRU talk page since his account became active. The are still many problems with his account, not least the laundry list User:Drolz09/Quotations and his current user page. (How in the current MfD does he know as a newly arrived user about User:Raul654 who stopped participating in GW articles some time ago and how does he know about Raul654's subpages?) I am certain that User:SB_Johnny did not unblock him so that he could immediately continue his disruption in the recent needless RfAr of User:Mackan79. Some kind of block was in order because of Drolz09's disruptive behaviour when his account suddenly became active a week ago after being dormant for two years. Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz09 has pointed out that suggested he mention the subpages of Raul654 and GoRight in the MdF on Drolz09's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfAr has now been withdrawn by Mackan79 . Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)