This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, AndyTheGrump/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks. Received, understood, and will take into consideration... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I never looked at you User Page before. Very colourful and funny! Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) I keep my eye out for interesting quotes etc - and there is a theme or two running through it. Your page is a bit of a giggle too. Needs at least one picture of a small furry animal though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Haha. Well maybe this one might be suitable. although not very cuddly! You have some great quotes. But maybe you also need one from this genius. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes - 'small and furry' doesn't always mean cuddly - here's another I'd not want around the house: .
And yes - a good source for quotes. Hum, Google beckons. (BTW, the IP is still at it - doh!) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Haha. Perhaps the best. I see that, thanks to Ellen, we seem to now have a 60 hour breathing space - apart from any more very rapid ip jumps. But let's not forget to put the article back in shape - not sure who should do that bit of housework. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup - as you've guessed, a new IP has appeared. Simplest to just revert on sight, I think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Now that quote is just true genius! Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
.. "..refusing to lie during Ramadan" My word, this country needs a few more politicians like George! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
And presumably we can take it as an admission that he lies the rest of the year? Yes, Galloway is one of British politics' more colourful characters. I expect he'll liven up the Commons a bit. Presumably he's going to have to sit with the opposition, who won't be exactly pleased to see him back... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Awarded with thanks for your delightful comment at the Village Pump last week about a more appropriate name for the American gridiron game. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) - not my joke originally, saw it on a forum somewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
...and checking further, it seems to be a very old joke - Wiktionary traces it back to a 1909 letter to the New York Times. [1] Sadly (and probably incorrectly), Hand-egg is simply a redirect to a Swiss village. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Spot on! :) "There is no manufacturing plant in Rossi's office... and no sign at all of any uncontrolled Morons or other radiation leaks. Only a lot of science fiction books and an empty shipping crate." I think the funniest part is at the end, where they add a note explaining that it is an April Fools joke, for the benefit of their readers. What does this tell you about what pesn thinks of the intelligence of their readers? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello AndyTheGrump/Archives/2012. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 11:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"Stupid games"
Mr Grump, I feel that "reality or fact" reads better than "fact or reality", it's not for a "stupid game". Therefore, I don't see myself in violation of the TOS. If you can please explain further, I will be glad to recant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KD5TMU (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I find it hard to believe that someone just wandered into the Truth article, and made exactly the same change that has been made by countless IPs, often with the express intention of playing stupid games. Still, if you think it is an improvement in style, we can discuss this on the article talk page - though I'd point out that the source we cite also says "the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality" - note the order. And I'd also point out that the edit summary for your change certainly implies that you made the edit for game purposes: "If you want to complain about changing the order of two words, put those words in quotes so that changing them will cause a misquote. Otherwise, it doesn't fundamentally change the nature or meaning of the article, and shouldn't be complained about." [2]AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I apologise. I'm not sure what game you're talking about, I just saw that the edit had been made, and the reverts said things like "game over". I felt that changing the order from the source DID improve the style, and also, it kept it from being a direct quote, which in my opinion, would need to be in quotes. I'm also not hugely familiar with wikipedia style guides, link placement, etc, so I'm not sure why this is a huge deal. I'm sorry.
FYI: It was Mayflower Pilgrim not Mayflower Passenger. That is a title in my opinion. Just wanted to explain. I mispoke on the page. Mugginsx (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Brain-computer interface
Hi -- can I suggest that my experience is that in cases like this the most effective response is to refuse to engage? If the edits were to the article itself that wouldn't be possible, but I don't see why messing around with the talk page can't just be ignored. We can always clean it up once the editor gets bored and goes away. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah - you are probably right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You can see a further retraction here from the writer:http://www.mikehughes.tv/content/golden-california-persian-perspectiveCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
The reason it is important is because wiki should have factual information and not rumors that you think should be on there. It is the job of all editors to maintain the integrity of Wiki which is what I assume you want Herbaldoctorz (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Just-so stories
...a vague collection of observations, clustered around a just-so story....
Interesting observation. The same could be said about the evolution of the theory of evolution. John Crawfurd held polygenist views and his just-so story goes, "...separate creations by God in specific regional zones, with separate origins for languages, and possibly as different species[72>David N. Livingstone, Adam's Ancestors: race, religion, and the politics of human origins, 2008, p. 113; Google Books]. His story gets some support, albeit without just-so-help-me-God, in the EDGE Conversation on rethinking out-of-Africa].
Alfred Russel Wallace thought some mechanism acted to control evolution, and his just-so-story goes, "The action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident; and in like manner no unbalanced deficiency in the animal kingdom can ever reach any conspicuous magnitude, because it would make itself felt at the very first step, by rendering existence difficult and extinction almost sure soon to follow[58>Wallace, Alfred. On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type]. He got away with that, it being the Steam Age and all, but when he rejected the philosophy of Mechanism and began to explore that of Spiritualism, he was relegated to the lunatic-fringe, possibly because his interlocutors would not take the trouble to disambiguate Spiritualism. He remarks:
I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of great men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong[95>Wallace, Alfred. Notes on the Growth of Opinion as to Obscure Psychical Phenomena During the Last Fifty Years].
Wallace has lost caste considerably, not only by his adhesion to Spiritualism, but by the fact of his having deliberately and against the whole voice of the committee of his section of the British Association, brought about a discussion of on Spiritualism at one of its sectional meetings. That he is said to have done so in an underhanded manner, and I well remember the indignation it gave rise to in the B.A. Council[104>Slotten pp. 357–58].
No one knows to this day what self-correcting mechanism controls and directs evolution of viruses, but immunologists dare not stray into spiritualism, nor whisper Gaia.--Pawyilee (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
"...immunologists dare not stray into spiritualism, nor whisper Gaia". True enough. Neither spiritualism nor Gaia have been useful in the study of the subject - for the same reason that aerodynamicists dare not (or at least don't) stray into the historiography of medieval French poetry when designing aircraft. Off-topic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It wasn't a historiographer of medieval French poetry, but historiographer of the English language, immunologist researcher and essayist Lewis Thomas who strayed; only he wasn't done in by a grump but a cancer caused by rare and fast-acting virus. Nor did he whisper Gaia, but likened the biosphere to a single cell, albeit without credit to Wallace's spirt.
As for aerodynamicists, they could profitably investigate the historiography of the Vimanas and the Mercury Vortex Engine. I suggest it might profit you to check the spiritualism disambiguation page, as well as what latter-day apologists for Wallace had to say. And, of course, to read some of Thomas's essays. Goodnight! --Pawyilee (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Reverting unsourced editions on the article of Ayurveda
I just saw that my editions were removed as they were not sourced. It may be right act according to guidelines. I agree to that and I respect that. But I due to that, I have lost interest in further editing it. I felt like telling you so I am writing it. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That is how Wikipedia works. If you edit something, and you don't provide a source, another editor can remove it. If you aren't prepared to provide sources, you shouldn't edit articles. Particularly ones that make claims about 'medicine', or 'health'. Such articles can't be based on the unsourced opinions of contributors, if Wikipedia is to retain any credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I liked your answer. It is logical and balanced. :)Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
This block is grossly inappropriate, as any consideration of the context makes clear. We have had multiple SPAs removing reliably-sourced negative content from an article on a 'multi-level-marketing' company of dubious repute which promotes vastly-overpriced fruit juices for 'health and wellness' despite a complete lack of evidence for any meaningful benefits, and several editors, including myself, have made consistent efforts to ensure the article complies with policy. If this is considered to be 'edit-warring' according to Wikipedia policy, then frankly we may as well hand content over to the hucksters, woo-merchants, and snake-oil salesmen. I shall of course be asking for an explanation of this precipitous and questionable block from Tiptoety, and a clarification as to whether this block (which came without prior warning) is considered by him/her to be within policy, and if so, whether other contributors also consider it so. If it is, policy clearly needs revision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Par the discussion below. General consensus seems to be that a block was not warranted in this case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to note, Andy - you've been blocked before for edit warring. At the point where that happens, it's presumed that you know it's a policy and don't need to be told "oh hey, we have a policy prohibiting edit warring" every time it happens in the future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If I had been edit warring, what you say might be relevant. I wasn't, so it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I will add that blocks are supposed to be preventative, and I am certain that an admonishment would have served as a sufficient deterrence in this case, especially as this 'edit-warring' was questionable and probably inadvertent. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Inadvertent? Non-existent... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
My sympathies. Your last three edits on this article were at 17:18, 19 April 2012, 17:41, 11 April 2012 and 22:17, 1 March 2012. I see no semblance of edit-warring and am equally perplexed as to this decision. You appear to have been lumped together with the other miscreants in a most unfortunate manner. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
←Hi all. Let me take a second to explain what I saw and why I took the action I did. If it is judged that I acted in error, I trust my fellow administrators to act in a manner that will correct it. What I saw was a long term edit war taking place on the above mentioned page. As I began to examine the page history more closely, it appeared that there were a few key players who were continually reverting one another. Dealing with slow moving edit wars is hard, because, as is stated above there is no "great urgency." Unfortunately, because of this, disruption of this caliber goes 1) unreported and 2) left to continue. While I agree that there was no clear breach of 3RR, Wikipedia:Edit warring states clearly : "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." It does not mention the amount of edits, or how often they are made. I'll note the following reverts made by AndyTheGrump (talk·contribs): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Instead of continuing to revert, why not report them? As for a warning, AndyTheGrump has been blocked for edit warring before. I'm not going to insult his intelligence in pretending he does not know the rules regarding continually reverting. Tiptoetytalk 17:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If you consider those diffs as legitimate evidence to justify a block for edit-warring, I have to question your understanding of Wikipedia policy, and your fitness as an administrator. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks in an unblock request? That's always a great tactic. tedder (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Questioning whether someone has the necessary understanding of Wikipedia policy to be qualified to act as an admin isn't a personal attack: or if it is, Wikipedia has bigger problems than edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Eh, lets not go down this road. (perceived) Personal attacks followed by comments or accusations regarding them them tend to result in those neat spirals towards the floor that never end well. Besides that, i question that "having been blocked before" or "knowing the rules" really counts as a fair warning when overstepping the bounds for some rule. I don't see any malice in the linked edits, and it is quite possible (for example) to accidentally overstep 3RR; a simple "be carefull there" talkpage nudge should have been more then sufficient to deal with this case, as far as i'm concerned. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Which rule is it that I'm supposed to have 'overstepped the bounds of'? Given that the only person making multiple reverts since my last attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page (11th April [8]), were another editors (see revision history of MonaVie: [9]), I cannot see how any rule was broken at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
My comments was more a general purpose then situation specific. My point was that if you intend to block an editor for edit warring a day after their last edit, it should be a common courtesy to at least give the person a warning before doing so. Especially considering that i don't exactly see a heated edit war in the first place. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Tiptoety, do you believe that if Andy had reported this at AN/EW or AN/I, it would have resulted in an immediate block for all involved? Your decision to jump immediately to blocking seems to be far from the usual Wikipedia practice. Making multiple reverts over a course of several months can be a warning sign, but it is not an open-and-shut case for edit warring.
This is a standard problem in all articles related medicine, particularly the 'fringier' topics. We get it at thiomersal controversy, we get it at psoriasis, we get it at Johanna Budwig, and I'm not at all surprised that we get it on an article about an MLM-sold health drink. New, single-purpose editors show up and insert either laudatory anecdotes and low-quality primary sources with 'positive' outcomes, or attempt to erase negative comments and sources regarding dubious alternative therapies. There is a relatively small pool of experienced editors who are familiar with WP:RSMED who tend to revert these inappropriate edits, generally offering reasonable explanations. In my experience, those editors can and will seek administrative assistance when necessary, but usually the level of disruption/persistence by the SPAs needs to be higher than this to attact administrator attention and intervention. If five reverts in three months now rises to the level of immediately-blockable edit warring, then we might as well close up shop on our medical articles, because no experienced editor will want to risk a snap block like this one. Here are the five reverts you're citing as justification for the assertion of edit warring:
19 April - restored a critical comment about the product's nutritional value
11 April - undid a whitewash that deleted well-referenced mention of the company CEO's legal troubles related to a previous health drink
1 March - removed an unsourced description of a critic as a 'competitor'
27 February - removed the same unsourced description (this is the only revert which Andy repeated, and the only time Andy reverted twice within a seven-day period)
7 February - removed the addition of what amounted to an advertising blurb for a new product.
In the same period of time, Andy has posted five times to the article talk page, relating to the edits that he has made. Where is the fire that your block is putting out, Tiptoety? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
And, just out of curiosity, what brought the 'fire' to your attention in the first place? There seems to be precious little smoke... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that those edits are not worthy of a block - I'd have made all of those edits myself. Whilst Tiptoety is right to point out that WP:EW doesn't mention any specific number of reverts, or a time in which they are made, I've never seen a group of edits such as Andy's being described as warring. There appear to be three admins who agree it wasn't a good block, but I assume that we all feel too involved to unblock ourselves. Can someone else take a look? SmartSE (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yet another example of a 3RR block which was purely punitive. To think that any admin could cull through and editors history find reverts that they have made in the last six months to one article and pull the block trigger without discussing the situation with the editor in question or other admins - well all I can say is that the effect of this would be extremely chilling on the community indeed. The fact that this hasn't hit ANI or AN is extraordinary and it would be nice if the block was reversed before it does. MarnetteD | Talk 19:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I see the block has now been reversed - thank you Excirial. In response to MarnetteD's comment, I shall certainly be raising this issue at ANI, as soon as I have gathered my thoughts - and the required evidence - to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Andy, please excuse the intrusion. That's all a bit shocking, and disappointing. Simple questions - is the 3RR rule a sacrosanct one? or should an admin (always) also consider (a) who the parties are, (b) what the subject matter is, or (c) other things? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Rather off-topic, I'd say, given that WP:3RR doesn't even come into the equation, unless it has recently been revised to three reverts in a year (not that I've actually made three reverts of the same material anyway) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope that you don't think that I was saying that this situation shouldn't be reported. It certainly should. As I said the line of reasoning used for this block means that we might as well all pack up, move on and leave WikiP to the vandals and POV pushers. You will now have to spend time to deal with this rather than edit articles but if we can prevent this sort of thing in the future it will be time well spent. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Then I suppose, "edit waring" is a little more vague and open to interpretation. In which case all relevant factors should be take account of first? I do wish that blocking of genuine and long established editors would be used as a very last resort, afer all other methods have failed (or even one other method!) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I've unblocked both User:Rhode Island Red and User:Ed.Valdez - we seem to agree here that Andy's block was more punishing than preventative and I think the same applies to these two as well. Ed.Valdez's edits looks problematic, but not worthy of a block, so I'll leave them a note. SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
So...what strategy do we intend to use to make sure that these four editors don't spend the next four months slowly reverting each other over and over, as they spent the last four months? Andy & company - what can I say to you that will convince you to use noticeboards and other dispute resolution processes to deal with an editor you believe is acting inappropriately, rather than simply letting things go on as they have been? Clearly just reverting what you perceive as spin/whitewashing/etc isn't working at this point, and really never did - which is the whole reason why we have policies like WP:EW. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no interest in getting this discussion sidetracked by discussions over what strategy Wikipedia contributors in general should be using in such cases - I suggest you raise the issue at a more appropriate place. Meanwhile, I was self-evidently inappropriately blocked, and consider the circumstances sufficiently questionable as to have raised the matter here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What are legitimate grounds for a precipitate block for edit warring? I would of course welcome comments from others there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First and foremost i would very much like to suggest that the entire above issue could be seen as a mistake, or a bad call without intended malice if possible. That would be (in my humble opinion) vastly preferable over the usual "negative ANI spiral" these issues spark with its requests for recall, de-adminship, blocks and who knows what else - those rarely produce anything usefull but a whole lot of text, enmity and general unpleasantness. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of it, but if you do please consider if the end result is worth the hassle.
More to the point to the question above - the medical article's and slow edit wars. In any case it would be vastly preferable if the noticeboards or resolution processes were used as they are more binding then reverting back and forth. It is much easier to deal with these issues if there is some form of consensus that an editor is going over the line with these type of article's. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Andy, I'm not speaking in generalities. I'm asking what we can do, in this case to get the article stabilized and stop the reverting. What do you need to hear, or need done, to help you utilize Wikipedia's standard processes to deal with this matter? What can we do, collectively, to handle this matter in a way that's more solid than the piecemeal approach you guys have been taking, which has rendered the article remarkably unstable? You're all unblocked now, and the immediate edit warring is stopped, but it will almost certainly re-start if the underlying disputes on the article aren't resolved in some constructive way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to address the issues regarding that particular article, I suggest you do it on the relevant talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Well for starters I'm watching the article and have left Ed.Valdez my thoughts. If any editor is in the wrong it is them and any editor would likely have reverted them. I've warned them that if their blatant conflicted editing continues (including copying of a press release) then I will indef block them as a promotional only account. If socks appear then semi-protection and SPI can take care of it. SmartSE (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
←Sorry I was delayed in responding. I see the users have been unblocked, which is fine, like I said before I trust my fellow admins to act appropriately, and correct my mistakes if I make them. It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize. As I said before, I called it as I saw it. It was even mentioned above that the two other users were editing disruptively, so I do not think I was that far off the mark. Tiptoetytalk 01:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Er no, it wasn't "mentioned above that the two other users were editing disruptively" - however, I suggest you respond at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it was not made clear who you were referring to in your unblock request then, to me " We have had multiple SPAs removing reliably-sourced negative content from an article on a 'multi-level-marketing' company of dubious repute which promotes vastly-overpriced fruit juices for 'health and wellness' despite a complete lack of evidence for any meaningful benefits" sounds like you are calling the other editors disruptive. Also, I have no interest in participating in the AN/I discussion. I've taken responsibility for my actions and apologized (as it seems I have acted in error). I have no interest in furthering the drama an AN/I. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk 01:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You have no interest in participating in an ANI discussion regarding a block that almost everyone else seems to consider entirely unjustified? Fine. That is your choice - but I can only take it as further grounds for questioning your suitability as an administrator. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Think it's time to try an AfD on this again, now that the creationist list can be cited as precedent? 86.** IP (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that 'precedent' is particularly relevant here: what I see as more significant is the continuing inability of contributors to arrive at any stable criteria for inclusion actually based on external sources, rather than our own synthesis, though I can't imagine another AfD would be met with much enthusiasm. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The other issue is that they'll say whatever will benefit them at the time. Complain about the quotations? They'll claim there's almost, or that there is consensus to remove them, then shout down any attempt to remove them the moment the thread challenging that article closes. They're experts in bullshitting, the technical sense].Plus, William M. Connelley always responds by making personal attacks and ridiculous false allegations about me, which he refuses to substantiate or refactor, and which the others vigourously defend his right to make, and I can't imagine anyone else not part of the echo chamber is treated much better. 86.** IP (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I've a vague recollection of seeing that somewhere (my recall tends to be vague...), but I couldn't think of how to do it at the time. Wikipedia badly needs a dimwit-friendly interface ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Andy, you have made so many positive contributions to this project, but I don't think this edit was appropriate. I don't want to see you self-destruct; we're already losing too many great editors. I have too much respect for you to rush in and revert your edit, but I humbly request that you strike it. It's just adding more fuel to the fire. Ishdarian 08:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
expungement
I briefly did a tiny bit of homework on expungement of blocks. After reading this, I am not encouraged that the path would be easy. I don't have the energy at the moment, but I hope the subject is revisited, with your case as Exhibit 1.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If they can't expunge blocks as 'rewriting history', how about an option to add a 'block marked as inappropriate by general consensus' entry to the log? Frankly though, I think that the limited information that block logs offer make them more or less useless. While I'd not dispute every block on me (I can be overly-grumpy at times, and tend to vent when I am), my first block (after only editing Wikipedia for a few weeks) was for a misjudged 'legal threat' after being called "pro-terrorist" by someone blocked as a clueless POV-pusher shortly afterwards. And if memory serves correctly (it may well not - I have a memory like a whatsit - you know, shakey thing, with holes, what's it called...), my only block for 'edit warring' actually involved a talk page, rather than article content. And then there is the block that was cancelled shortly afterwards by the admin who did it in the first place, on the basis that technically I was wrong, but per IAR I was actually doing the right thing anyway. I doubt that my block log is particularly unusual in this regard either. As a record of events, it is a crude tool, and shouldn't be used as 'evidence' at all without further investigation - though evidently some admins think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't look into that block, but I did see one block marked as "cool-down". One isn't supposed to issue WP:COOLDOWN blocks, so that one might not be valid. I see it also mention "civility" so it may not be clear-cut, but if there are some unwarranted blocks, that may lead to more, as it is plausible that, in a close call, an admin may glance at a long block log and think either "this user has a long history, so this is probably one more", or, "with such a long history, one more isn't going to matter". I'm also troubled that explanatory comments lead to a perception of a long block log. If someone simply glances at your block log, they will see 11 entries, quite a long list. However, one pair is a block, followed ten minutes later by a reconsideration and what appears to be agreement that the original was in error. The latest pair constitute two entries, and should be zero, or maybe one. I'm worried about the visual impact of the length. I confess I'm not a major participant in the drama boards, so I don't know whether most admins read the block log carefully, or whether some will glance at it and scan for relevant words ("aha, edit warring, has happened before"). I know we should review in detail, but we are human, and it may be too easy to get a quick impression from the length, and reinforce it with selected reading.
On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the desire not to rewrite history. However, I think we could eat our cake and have it, too. What if each block were entered into a permanent record, plus a summary block log, which is what would show on what is currently called the block log. That summary would exclude a block such as the one in June of 2011, when the admin had second thoughts. It would not show the latest one at all(if we create the proper mechanism for removal.) The November 2011 block would be a single line, instead of three lines. You wouldn't have a clean block log, but it wouldn't look quite as long as it does now. We could have a way to see the full detail, something that would be accessible, but hard enough to do that one would look at it only in a more detailed investigation. I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak, but I think there is some potential.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe you should make a formal proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll add it to my to-do list - needs some work on the details, so maybe the village pump idea lab is the way to start--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity: your ANI thread
Hey, Andy, I noticed your ANI thread about User:Arimand; I'm following something few threads above that came out of a 3O I gave. I would've thought that's a thing that could be reported to AIV as a vandalism-only account, is there a particular reason that you took it to ANI instead? I'm not on the up-and-up of what ANI is really for, I suppose, so I was just wondering. Thanks! Writ Keeper⚇♔ 14:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd not call his edits 'vandalism' exactly: but more to the point, his user page was basically a declaration to troll. It seemed the quickest way to get prompt attention on the user himself, rather than his edits. I suspect that he is a sockpuppet of a banned user too, and maybe someone will recognise him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, cool. I figured the "actions indicate a vandalism-only account" would apply, even though he hasn't actually vandalized yet; it's clearly not an account for contributing constructively. That makes a lot of sense, though; thanks again! Writ Keeper⚇♔ 14:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The very first time this brand new award has been awarded !
It's intended for great editors who are a little bit grumpy at a particular unusual moment. But the Cosmic significance of the moment, the timing, the !co-incidence I haven't seen anything as great as this in the history of the wik. AndyTheGrump richly deserving the grumpy award ! I do hope this helps to cheer you up AndyTheGrump ! Penyulap ☏ 13:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
What a prestigious, and extremely rare, award. I was sadly reminded on the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch: "Our main weapon is Surprise! haha!, ok..., our two main weapons are Surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Wikipedia! haha ..." etc etc. And of course that quaint old English nursery rhyme "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!" (but not if you can quickly drown him first). Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stay around, Grump
Hi Andy.
Hey, you never know, sometime in the future,
If you've really hung up your cudgels for good, I hope someone else will take them up against the bullshit of what you call the "hucksters, woo-merchants, and snake-oil salesmen". Maybe you'll reconsider. Many here, I'm sure, appreciate your work and your passion. Happy grumping wherever you go. Writegeist (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I sure can't blame you. I do the same every so often when my brain boils over. If you do actually manage to get away I'll envy you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
.
