Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive10

User:Bus stop
The user has been the primary figure in a months-long edit war at List of notable people who converted to Christianity and other articles mentioning Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. He has been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's conversion. He contends that Bob Dylan never converted to Christianity, despite the existence of multiple reliable sources reporting the contrary. He refuses to accept broad consensus concerning the inclusion criteria for the list, and insists that only persons who are presently Christians, and whose conversion conforms with his own strict criteria may be listed. He has made it clear through his words and actions that he will never accept any compromise measures on these matters.

Locking the article multiple times and discussing the dispute has not yielded any resolution, since the user will revert the consensus-supported edits made after the article is unlocked. The user's participation in the discussion has largely consisted of repeating the same argument that he has already posted many times to the discussion page. He has accused those who disagree with his views of being antisemites and members of a "hate group." Two MedCab mediations have been attempted, with the latest mediator ending the mediation as irresolvable through that means. The user refuses to accept formal mediation. The latest attempt at reaching compromise, in which the user chose to take no part, resulted in 9 votes for including all converts (former and current) in the list, and 4 editors who have so far explicitly or implicitly agreed not to contest the majority-supported option.

This is no longer a content dispute, but a case of disruptive editing. It is clear that no progress can be made on this article as long as the user is allowed to edit it, since he will not respect consensus, or accept any compromise offer. Nick Graves 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It most certianly is a content dispute. There certianly is no consensus in the article. Me, Bus stop, and Cleo123 have simply been outnumbered by the numerous Christian evangelists in the article, so they declared consensus. His blocks were 3RR violations, which seem to have stopped. Stop trying to tilt the scale of the dispute in your favor by calling others disruptive and asking for a block. It looks like the arbcom case isn't going to pass; there really are only two ways we can solve this dispute at this point. We can resort to dirty tricks like this one, trying to block editors as being disruptive for having a different POV as yours and taking out your enemies one at a time like many throughout history have done, or we can do the right thing, and hope arbcom reconsiders our case. Otherwise, I don't know if this dispute will end. But please, be fair.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are these the types of edits you're talking about, Nick Graves? Example of Bus stop's edit to article and talk page message. If so you may want to gather more diffs to prove your point. If not, you should probably find some diffs to back up the assertions you've made. Anynobody 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Sefringle: Your implication that there is some sort of evangelical Christian conspiracy to include Bob Dylan in the list does not stand up to scrutiny. There's little incentive for a Christian evangelist to crow over Dylan's conversion, as his current religious status is ambiguous. No editor involved in the discussion is a Christian evangelist, from what I can tell. There are at least two irreligious editors (myself included) and one of Jewish heritage (a former mediator) who support including ex-converts in the list. User T. Anthony, a Catholic, does not believe ex-converts should be listed, but agrees that the current consensus ought bo be respected for now. Bus stop decided to take no part in the latest attempt to find a compromise. Cleo chose not to continue in the last stage of the compromise effort. Your own preference in the last stage of the polling was to include ex-converts, though in a separate section of the article. Nick Graves 03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a conspiracy. Almost all of you are Christians however, not that that matters, but you have outnumbered us to declare consensus. Please read my comments more carefully in the futute. My vote was not consensus; it was simply taking the best of the two options. Now can you please respond to the rest of my comment? And can we please try to keep our comments shorter and more to the point in the future; it is kind of discouraging to read.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Christian evangelists? Yikes. I'll have to expand this comment in the future, but I take a bit of offense to that labeling, as it is a misrepresentation of me, and as far as I can see, almost all other editors involved. For example, the only clearly Christian fellows are myself and John Carter, as well as T.Anthony, who opposes inclusion, but accepts the validity of the voting results. JJay, Drumpler, Ttiotsw, zadignose, Moralis, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and Tendancer are, as far as I know, all non-Christians, and they all more or less support the inclusion of these individuals. That being said, I don't see a Christian majority in any case, so I don't see why you're trying to paint that picture. Concerning Bus stop's edits, this is not a "dirty trick"- I'm sorry, but this user has been continuously disruptive, and this discussion is going nowhere but in circles with his involvement. He is extremely uncooperative and unrealistic, and decides that only his opinion of a matter is to be taken seriously, even deciding that his interpretation of reliable sources is more weighty than the sources themselves. I'm pressed for time, so I may just add to this later. Hopefully, supportive diffs will be extremely easy to find. Have a nice night, anyway.--C.Logan 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't read my last comment asking for shorter responses, but Oh well; I'll start. Obviously this discussion is going nowhere, which is why dirty tricks are being resorted to. My point is simple. There is no consensus.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point is simply off the mark. I am not an "evangelist," nor a Christian, and I resent your lable, but not as much as I resent the never ending accusations of anti-semitism from Bus Stop.  The question of Bob Dylan aside, I would move to ban Bus Stop even if he was in perfect agreement with me on every point, because he is the perfect example of a disruptive editor.  He will never discuss, nor agree to abide by anyone else's judgment, and he can not participate in mediated discussion.  Consensus, meanwhile, has been established, by agreement among many from both sides of the issue.  Consensus doesn't mean unaninimity.  You are one of the few who reject the established consensus. zadignose 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not reject the consensus. I have simply been outvoted, and I still stand where I do. I'm sorry if I offended you with the Christian evangalist label, but my point is there was no consensus to begin with. Wikipedia is not a democracy after all; it strives to build consensus. If it were a democracy, then yes, I'd simply be out of luck, and this discussion would be over. But it is not. Though I must admit talk page edit warring is disruptive.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly my voting suggestions sounded too much like democracy. However it seemed clear a concensus was just not going to happen. We had been through two informal mediation and a month of debate. I felt like we needed a way to get people really working on some way to end the stalemate. Maybe this was a mistake and I should have been more patient. I am skeptical of that, but I'm open to the possibility. Also it's true I found the resolution disappointing because it is essentially the exact opposite of "compromise." Still I'll tolerate it because I said I would and because consensus or agreement or whatever you want to call it can change. Anyway I'm interested in what you think we should have done instead because perhaps there's something I'm not seeing. What do you think could've resulted in a true consensus? And what do you do when people are too stubborn or secure to come to any compromise?--T. Anthony 10:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I wouldn't call this a 'dirty trick'. Many individuals involved find this course of action reasonable and expected. You disagree, of course, and I understand. Cleo, I'm sure, would as well. However, you should not discount the other editors who find Bus stop's behavior extremely disruptive and grating. This individual is the one repeatedly removing my comments right now without proper details and reasoning, as well as T. Anthony's comment. And pardon the long response, but I kept it rather short- I think that what needs to be covered should be covered, and we shouldn't encourage others to constrict their comments to the point where they would be neglectful of important points. I will try to keep it trim in the future, however.--C.Logan 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care much where you move my comments. Although I think people should get my permission before removing/deleting my comments. In the one case Bus stop could've removed the part where I quoted the post he withdrew about as easily as deleting it all.--T. Anthony 09:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much whether Bob Dylan converted to Christianity or not. Sources use the word convert, so we use the word convert -- in relation to 1979. The list was titled List of notable converts to Christianity until a few days ago. But Bob Dylan is not a convert. He is not a Christian. He is a Jew. (He was born a Jew to two Jewish parents.) He has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. He has been involved religiously with Orthodox Jews. Yet they want to list him with wording next to his name that he has left Christianity. He has no place on the list. People (living people) who are not Christians should be excluded from the list. That is what the old title clearly implied. And those are the parameters that the List of notable converts to Judaism adheres to. These are its parameters, found at the beginning of that article:


 * "This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

They are proper parameters because they are elemental parameters. They are restrictive parameters. They are parameters that prevent point of view pushing. The editors at that article have been arguing that the parameters are "all those notable people who ever converted to Christianity." That is just a contrivance. Just as it is just a contrivance to change the name of the article a few days ago. There are 200 other people on that list for whom the name change is irrelevant, because they are all Christians, or were Christian at time of death. The name change is all about Bob Dylan. They will argue it is also about two other names of non Christians. But this list shouldn't be use to "showcase" anyone who ever had an interest in Christianity. It should be a compilation of those Christians who found Christian identity by way of conversion, as opposed to the only other way -- by way of birth.Bus stop 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may, I would like to re-present my evidence from the ArbCom case where it was recommended we take this to other channels:


 * I was initially made aware of the dispute when a request for help was listed at WP:EAR The issue largely revolves around an editor named Bus stop on the List of notable converts to Christianity article. Bus stop continually reverts editor contributions without discussion because of one individual: Bob Dylan. As can be seen in the diffs, the user continually makes accusations of anti-semitism. It should be noted that Bus stop has had opportunities to participate in votes to determine consensus, but has opted not to do so. If one checks the diffs, reliable sources abound of Dylan's former Christian status. However, instead of actually discussing, Bus stop repeats pretty much everything he's said in the past and makes little to no effort at communication. However, a compromise was reached by all other editors where the article would be renamed to make clear that this is a list of people who converted to Christianity and that if their status changed, it would be noted in the footnotes. No one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to portray Dylan as a Christian, but has desired to state that he was a Christian convert and believe the article should reflect that. Likewise, this user has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of an editor to both mediators and an admin. Drumpler 07:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Bus Stop has now received his fourth block related to this issue, this time for a three revert violation (actually about seven reverts) on the TALK PAGE, where he has repeatedly removed other editor's comments. How much of this kind of behavior must be tolerated? zadignose 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article several times due to edit disputes. Regardless of the content disputes at the article, in my opinion at least there is some very disruptive editing patterns at the article  and talkpage (given the recent silliness over deleted comments) as well as quite a bit of incivility at the talk page (and this has spilled over onto various involved editors' talkpages too).  I don't care one way or another about the core content issue here, but the disruptive behavior needs to stop before this page is unprotected for editing.--Isotope23 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that it might interest the individuals involved here that according to this page, Bus stop has had at best a total of 397 edits to mainspace content that was not directly involved in one of the two controversies over which he has expended over 1000 of his total 3000 edits to date on, those two controversies being over Michael Richards and Bob Dylan. While it is perhaps possible that he could in time become a good and productive editor, it is also possible that involvement in such disputes may be one of this editor's primary interests in wikipedia. He has in fact recently said on his talk page that wikipedia is ulimately based, from beginning to end, on what he calls "idealism", which from the context in which it was used seems to me to be, as he uses the term, a synonym for "opinion" or "point of view". If this is the case, and he was indicating that it is his belief that wikipedia is supposed to be made to conform to an individual point of view, then I believe that there may be sufficient cause to say that his goals in editing wikipedia are perhaps at least potentially in conflict with wikipedia's own goals of providing objective, neutral, verifiable information, and that it may be possible that the conflict in these two goals may not be reconcilable. John Carter 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although somewhat, maybe largely even, true he has received some compliments on articles about art. See Talk:Contemporary art.--T. Anthony 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great, but his participation in the Dylan issue has become disruptive, and has been so for quite a while. That's what this notice was about. Bus stop is certainly capable of making constructive edits on Wikipedia, but I think he's amply demonstrated that he will not be similarly constructive on articles concerning Dylan's conversion. Nick Graves 14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. Just trying to not to get too hostile or something like that. Anyway I've probably spent too much time on this, I think I'm getting slap-happy.--T. Anthony 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (Much of this I already posted on the arbcom page)
 * The List of notable converts to Christianity is at least the second time I have witnessed Bus Stop committing disruptive behavior. The first time was on the Michael Richards page, where he likewise continuously made edits over the objections of other editors.  His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" as a reason to revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him--in short, it seems like "use talk page" was just being used as a shield/weapon to revert other users' contributions back to his changes, which often are the very definition of original research.  We had content conflicts back then, and he continuously falsely accused me as a sockpuppet (of User:Wahkeenah, feel free to checkuser) including in edit summaries as a reason to revert my edits:, and WP:STALKed me to another page I frequently edit to revert my changes (in the process reverting a spam link) again using "use talk page" as a false reason:.


 * I participated on the List of notable converts to Christianity after noticing he got blocked twice for 3RR violations on Bob Dylan. .  His disruptive behavior seems to have gotten worse, especially now as User:Cleo123 (another disruptive editor whose m.o. is accusing others of "libel" in a very disrespectful tone) whom he befriended from the Michael Richards days) was often prodding and encouraging him, including advising him to refuse moderation and twice attacking mediators ad hominem.  His m.o. now seems to have changed from "use talk page" to "anti-semitic" as his reason for discrediting all other's input whom he disagrees with.


 * In my opinion, Bus Stop is a disruptive editor who fits all criteria in WP:DE to a tee. I do believe he edits in "good faith"--in the sense that he probably doesn't consider himself disruptive and thinks he is making positive contributions to articles--however over the past 6 months his behavior has not changed:  he continues to be unable to listen to and work with others, he continues to ignore sources (unless they support his opinions) and insist on committing original research, he does not care about how WP works and treats all articles as a blog for him to voice his own opinions (alarmingly even rhetoric-ed rules should be ignored and it's opinions that matters, and when others disagree with his opinions then basically he'll stay there to disrupt--for months if necessary, come hell or high water.  I had been thinking that with time, his conduct would become more civil and less original research/soapboxing as there had been occasions where he made positivie contributions on other pages; however consider the rarity of those occasions and the sheer disruption he caused on the Michael Richards and especially List of notable converts to Christianity: we're talking months and hours/day at least half a dozen editors having to address his edits and personal attacks  , till eventually even more editors and mediators had to be pulled in...I have to say I think this user may just be irredeemable--he will never believe in WP policies, he'll never believe that WP is for replicating what verifiable sources say and not for him to treat as his blog of his views on the world, and he's better off not editing wikipedia.  He just needs his own blog.


 * In summary, he has (and remember these are just a few sample, I can literally spend hours pulling up examples of his violations)
 * violated WP:NPA and WP:DE by disrupting the Michael Richards page for ~2 months, often using "use talk page" or falsely accusing other of being sockpuppets  as false reason for revert
 * violated WP:STALK by stalking me to revert my edits (a removal of a spam link) again using "use talk page"
 * violated WP:3RR and got blocked twice for 3RR violation on Bob Dylan
 * violated WP:DE and blocked twice for edit warring and disruption on [List of Converts to Christianity]
 * violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA by personally attacking other users
 * violated WP:NOR stated he believe WP should be about opinions (specifically, his own opinions) and rules should not be followed
 * openly stated he does not believe in WP:AGF because everyone against him must be a dedicated small group of Christians intending to knock down Judaism (it's alarming User:Sefringle choose to employ the same tactic...last time I checked I for instance am an atheist, not that it should even matter)
 * refused a proposal for mediation (see his Talk page)
 * when the Mediation Cabal finally had to be invited, and two different mediators decided his obsession with one point had no merit (each time after another week of discussion to build a rough consensus), he personally attacked the mediators  and accused them of bias and then ignored the rough consensus to continue disruption


 * This is not a content dispute, but a systematic pattern of WP policy violations by a single disruptive editor over a span of ~8 months. Yes on occasion he can contribute positively; but personally I find Bus Stop's sheer volume of disruption, personal attacks, complete flaunting of WP rules (primarily WP:NOR and WP:V as this user uses wikipedia like a WP:SOAPBOX to post long rants of his opinions without sources) outrageous.  This user should be banned from editing all Judaism-related topics if not wikipedia altogether, as he has indicated no willingness to adapt to wiki rules or build consensus with others unless other's views agree with his own. Tendancer 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty good summary. zadignose 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty long, if I don't say so myself. If someone could provide a short summary of that comment, it would be helpful.-- Sef rin gle Talk 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Short summary: Bus Stop is highly disruptive, and has violated virtually every policy and guideline on Wiki. zadignose 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The accusations check out: per WP:DE I've blocked Bus stop indefintely for persistent disruption and multiple long-term policy violations. Durova Charge! 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I've offered to unblock if Bus stop pledges to enter WP:ADOPT and avoid the article for three months. Durova Charge! 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tecmobowl
Per the discussion, and especially the mediator's closing comments, User:Tecmobowl is indefinitiely blocked. I've read his points, and I do agree with some of them, but there is no excuse at all for sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR. I will say this: If Tecmobowl agrees to join some kind of Mentorship program and agrees to a six week topic ban from baseball related articles to let the ill feelings die down, I will personally lift the block. SirFozzie 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tecmobowl has engaged in disruptive editing over a long period of time, requiring IMHO a community ban for disruption. This comports with the suggestions of the admin in his sockpuppetry case this month, and a mediator today, as is discussed below.

He has engaged in disruptive editing. Specifically, he has engaged in gross, obvious, and repeated violations of fundamental policies. Most importantly, he rejects community input: he resists moderation, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators. He is tendentious: he continues editing a group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from a number of other editors. He violates Verifiability in that he misrepresents reliable sources, such as Fangraphs. In addition, he violates other policies and guidelines such as Civility and Ownership of articles, and engages in sockpuppetry on a level that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on baseball articles.

Mediation Case. A mediation case, with 17 parties, was opened at. That page discusses some of the issues.

The mediator closed the mediation today, writing: "'It has come to my attention that Tecmo has once again been deleting more ELs.... Telling by the behavior of Tecmobowl, it is virtually impossible to create a compromise. I am going to close this mediation cabal request.  My suggestions are to either go to Community sanction noticeboard to request a baseball topic community ban on Tecmo or go to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for a binding solution, one that the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee can not give. FunPika 18:38, 27 June 2007'"

Sockpuppet; Admin Guidance to impose a Lengthy Block if there is other Disruptive Behavior. Furthermore, at  the admin wrote 2 weeks ago:  "'It is ... clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively, and any further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block.'"

3RR violations. Tecmo has been blocked 4 times this month for Wiki violations relating to this discussion.

Background. Tecmo has deleted 100s of ELs to baseball bios, without consensus, this month.  Despite 4 weeks of extensive discussion with a dozen editors prompted by Tecmo's deletions, despite a straw poll, despite an overhwelming consensus disagreeing with his view that the fangraphs EL (for example) should not be deleted, and despite lack of consensus for his deleting wholesale  ELs where no consensus for their deletion exists -- Tecmo is back deleting the ELs that are the very subject of the discussion on the baseball talk page. See

This is highly disruptive. I have requested that he stop. He has refused. Instead, he writes that "WP:EL supersedes that discussion. That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) - absolutely refuse to focus on the content of the discussion in a simple and focused matter." As to the alleged failure to focus on the content of the discussion, nothing could be further from the truth. A glance at the baseball project discussion page at the above url demonstrates that.

Tecmo, who deleted Fangraphs ELs claiming that they did not contain unique info, still refuses to recognize the consensus of their uniqueness, or the evidence of their uniqueness. Tecmo continues instead to delete such ELs. He has not agreed to restore urls that he has deleted where, upon discussion, it is found that there is no consensus for their deletion.

Indefinite Block. I believe that he should be blocked indefinitely for persistent disruption.

Admitted Intention to Ignore Wiki Rules. Tecmo's attitude is captured in his edit in which he wrote: "'I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules.'"   That illustrates his inability to work within the community, and his express problems with WP:OWN.--Epeefleche 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You and baseball bugs are the ones that started this. You won't focus on the content, you keep getting back to this petty ass stupid discussion.  You can't have a centralized focused discussion on content.  I am in fact SUPPORTING one of the links presented.  You just can't seem to get over the fact that you don't like me.  Meanwhile, I am working diligently with other editors to improve articles (see Cy Young) and am creating new articles that provide good information to the community.  JUST MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER - FANGRAPHS DOESN'T DO THAT WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE 5 STATS SITES TO CHOOSE FROM! And thanks for misrepresenting the information. //Tecmobowl 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WRONG Tecmobowl started this feud between him and me by refusing to answer fair questions that I posed to him. That turns out to have been typical of his attitude toward the wikipedia community in general. Baseball Bugs 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Slight error in my suggestion. I should have said Requests for Arbitration instead of here 2 times. Just letting you know. Fun  Pika  21:58, 27 June 2007


 * Considering that he is now under his third 3RR block and his response was a flip Eh whatever, I'm pretty much indifferent to the processes of Wikipedia... I don't see how more attempts at discussion will make any difference at all. He has made it clear in comment and action that what he desires/demands/expects is for everyone else to leave him alone so he can ignore policy and do whatever he pleases. IrishGuy talk 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support action taken against User:Tecmobowl. From a look at the diffs, block history and some of their civility issues.  I agree that they have been editting disruptively.  They don't seem to have a grasp of the five pillars of wikipedia, but if Tecmobowl undertook to enter WP:ADOPT perhaps a sanction other than a straight ban might be considered--Cailil   talk 23:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His most recent comment on his own talk page was this: "I'll be back in a week and unless a good discussion has taken place, my behavior will remain the same." His last block was nearly a week long, and it did nothing to change his attitude, and it's obvious this temporary block won't either. Baseball Bugs 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as the "adopt a user" idea is concerned, Tecmobowl has been on wikipedia for a year now, so the probability of him submitting to that program "for newbies" is not promising. Baseball Bugs 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest Block -- Today. Subsequent to my writing the above, Tecmo was just blocked today for the 5th time this month for violations of Wiki policy.  In pertinent part, the admin wrote:

"'I have blocked you for 1 week, for disruption caused by your continued edit warring with other users on baseball related articles. You have been blocked several times for 3RR violations, and today you have reverted several articles 3 times..... I can see that a lot of people have been involved in trying to convince you to stop this pattern of editing, taking up a lot of their time. Once again, please try to curb this disruptive editing in future, and find a more constructive way to deal with such issues. TigerShark 21:47, 27 June 2007'"

Tecmo's dismissive responses to that admin's admonition, and his expressions of his intent to continue his disruptive editing once his block is lifted, are accurately captured by Irishguy and Baseball Bugs above. Under the circumstances, the only appropriate course that I can see is to impose a straight ban.--Epeefleche 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not directly involved, but the way I've seen him openly harrass editors of baseball articles, blow off all administrators, and seemingly take ownership of every article he edits is frustrating to even look at. His "I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules" quote was just the last straw. I've seen him cripple hundreds of articles and destroy many more valid articles. This guy can't get slaps on the wrist anymore. He's a detriment to the entire site. I don't want him, his socks, or any of his future socks ruining articles any more. It's guys like this that remind me that I only need to stay here for my short project, and then never edit here again. It's not worth my time and energy to deal with people like this, especially if they're allowed to continue to harrass and stalk people for such an extended period of time. God knows that if you don't finally drop the ban hammer, I expect my talk page to be littered with condescending word jumbles and threats in 6 days. Please, just get this over with. SashaNein 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have been inclined to support an indefinite topic ban on all baseball-related articles, but after seeing that quote, it's obvious that this won't end any other way. All we'll get is more disruption, more grief and more sockpuppetry.  He needs to be shown the door--now.  Ban. Blueboy96 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A more expedient process would be to show a recent declaration by Tecmobowl of the intent to disrupt Wikipedia, coupled by some diffs which show the implementation of the declaration. Admins have the power to block indefinitely (and hence impose a de facto ban) based on the intention and apparent manifestation of disruption. — Kurykh  18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's gonna be hard to track down anything ... he's cleared his talk page several times. I would think that given his history of disruption, that should be considered an aggravating factor. Blueboy96 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His talk page history is intact. Blanking a talk page does not mean complete obfuscation of prior discussion. — Kurykh  19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I first saw Tecmobowl's edits in a player article on my watchlist and was stunned to see the trail of link deletions he left in his wake. Even after repeated efforts to establish that there was a consenus for retention of this links, Tecombowl persisted with his deletions. He is clearly capable of qulaity work (as discussed here with him), but these links have turned into his obsession. Warnings of potential 3RR violations from me and other editors went ignored and have resulted in blocks. Repeated pleas to respect consensus and to stop deleting links were rejected multiple times. This is not an issue of politeness; this is a situation where content was removed hundreds of times without any critical evaluation of the items deleted from the hundreds of articles he went through. Some of the items he has deleted included obituaries and other newspaper articles about the players, invaluable sources that are unavailable anywhere else. I would support any remedy that would allow Tecmobowl to continue with his positive edits and would exclude him from removing content. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to implement this solution. Given Tecmobowl's flagrant ignorance of consensus there seem to be few alternatives to an indefinite block. Alansohn 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can suggest mentoring and a short term (4-6 week) baseball topic ban as an alternative to a long term block? I am definitely not encouraged by his statements that he's going to keep on keeping on, so to speak, but hopefully he would see that his behavior has not been up to snuff. SirFozzie 19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been monitoring his talk page. How about posting that idea there, and see if he goes for it? Baseball Bugs 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes sense--can't say we didn't try. I'm personally not too optimistic, though. Blueboy96 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made the suggestion. SirFozzie 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We have already "tried" repeatedly for a month, though I recognize that some here are new to the trying game in this case. Tecmo has been blocked 5 times this month for violating Wiki policy.  Each time, only after one or more admins and/or editors "tried" -- by warning him to not engage in disruptive editing.  Each time, despite the trying, he was blocked because he ignored Wiki rules.  Without contrition.  Quite the opposite.  He received more advice from admins as to the innappropriateness of his behavior each of the 5 times that he was blocked.  They "tried."  He has also been advised independently by a series of admins and editors, both on his talk page and on the baseball talk page, to stop disruptive editing.  They "tried."  A straw poll has been "tried."  Conversation has been "tried."  Mediation has been "tried."  It led to the meditor suggesting that the matter be brought here for Tecmo to be banned, because despite the mediator trying it was clear that he would not change Tecmo's behavior.  When Tecmo was found guilty of being a sockpuppet (not the sort of behavior one "mentors" a person out of), the admin wrote:  "any further ... disruptive behavior .. should result in a lengthy block."  The admin did not say that it should result in yet another "try."  The culmination of all this trying, which if you look at the discussion on the baseball talk page, the mediation cabal page, Tecmo's page, and my talk page, is a dizzying series of conversations (which I could quite properly characterize, in more than one sense, as "trying" conversations), has been Tecmo's above-expressed intention to continue to ignore Wiki rules.  Even his expressions over the past month of adherence to any wiki rules have only been to his interpretations of WP:Bold and WP:EL -- which are clearly at odds, from his behavior, with Wikipedia.  He believes, or at least argues, that these policies in fact allow him to engage in the disruptive editing that he has engaged in.  I think we should respect all of the admins and editors who have tried so much this month, devoted their time and effort to resolving this by other means, and finally give us all a break by putting in place an indefinite ban.  The time for trying has to end sometime, so that people can be freed up to pursue helpful activities on Wikipedia, rather than spend more time on this banned-5-times-this-month sockpuppet who is "fucking done with trying to follow due process."  I agree with the sentiments of SashaNein and some others above as, "Please, just get this over with."  There has been no rush to justice here.  Quite the contrary.  We have tried for 4 weeks.  Any further trying makes a mockery of the Wiki system.  Ater 4 weeks of all the above trying, he has continued his disruptive editing and thumb-nosing.  I would submit that the time to act is now. --Epeefleche 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I initially thought he should be indefblocked right away--do not pass Go, do not collect $200. But now that I think of it more, I look on it as a booby trap--we know he's going to be disruptive, so let the guy hang himself. Blueboy96 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, I think the fact a rouge admin made the proposal should get his attention. :) Though I have a funny feeling Foz better get the banhammer ready ... Blueboy96 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read all the above, and despite my earlier conciliatory suggestion, I agree with the proposal to permanently end Tecmobowl's ability to edit wikipedia, by whatever administrative means is most appropriate. Baseball Bugs 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow ... given the long, rambling response to Foz' proposal, I don't see any further need for leniency (though I had a hunch he'd turn it down). Ban. Blueboy96 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Miss Mondegreen
The most compeling reason, for a permanent block against Tecmobowl is in fact how badly other editors react to him. I have defended Tecmobowl--if not for his actions, because another editor's actions were worse or equal, and Tecmo was getting the brunt of every punishment--which I never understood--still don't. I dislike punishing editors when I don't believe the fault lies with them, and I'm not entirely sure it does in this case. But I'm not sure what to do. It would seem that the easiest thing would be to get rid of Tecmobowl. It would certainly solve a lot of problems. But I don't think it would be getting rid of the real problem.

Tecmobowl is a difficult editor. When people snipe at him, he snipes back. He is touchy, very sensitive, and he has a particular view of the world. So when he reads WP:EL, sees an article that doesn't follow and makes an edit, and is reverted and reverted and reverted (without explanation)--and editors won't talk with him, he'll keep breaking 3RR. He has tried to get help--he's gone to WP:ANI, and MedCab, but every place he's gone, either he's been ignored, or his own bad behavior has been focused on.

Frankly, if the other editors who were interacting with Tecmo had behaved better, I don't think that there would have ever been a problem.

ELs
 * Tecmo started by going through tons of baseball articles and doing EL cleaning. Most of it was very good and very straightforward.  He was reverted wholesale by Epeefleche, and I am  pretty sure that Epeefleche didn't bother to look at the edits before reverting them.  He just saw lots of ELs being removed on lots of articles and started reverting.  His reverts included putting back in dead links and double links (even the most cursory of checks would have revealed those). Tecmo had already provided an edit summary--and Epeefleche was bahaving as though Tecmo's edits were obvious vandalism.  If he didn't see how why they were WP:EL (open wikis, not on topic, not unique), he should have asked.  Could Tecmo have behaved better?  Gone above and beyond?  Provided step by step explanations on talk pages when it was clear that Epeefleche was just going to keep reverting?  Sure.  But he did what was necessary, and it was Epeefleche, upon reverting who feel short.  In return Tecmo did the same, hitting the undo button just as Epeefleche did, acting this time as though Epeefleche's edits were obvious vandalism (though Tecmo could actually attempt to make a case for it, unlike Epeefleche, he should also have made more of an effort here).


 * Eventually he did. He explained his edits on the WikiProject Baseball page--Epeefleche ignored the explanation.  He was focused on one removal.  He could have partially reverted.  But he didn't.  So then I took an edit that Epeefleche was complaining about and explained it, and he still wouldn't stop following Tecmo and reverting him.  He wanted Tecmo to stop editing all ELs, even though he wouldn't say why he disagreed with Tecmo, except on one link.  He wanted the project to discuss the fangraph issue first, and then the rest of the links--though he wouldn't explain why the project even needed to discuss Tecmo's other edits as they differed on each biography.  I tried again, a week latter, and still he refused to discuss the issue--he thought that he had the right to demand another editor not edit because he disagreed with the edits, but that he would explain why at his leisure.  Finally, after getting a third opinion, he stopped wholesale reverting Tecmo (at least from the little I saw).

Conflict with Irishguy
 * That was one of the bigger issues, but even with small things, editors have no patience with Tecmobowl. On the Kevin Youkilis article, Tecmo reverted Irishguy at 19:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment and at 19:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at the article at 19:21. Tecmo's talk page comment clocks in at 19:23, he blanked his talk page at 19:24: "how many idiots are there in one day". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior:
 * "'Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments.'"


 * Tecmobowl commented one Irishguy's talk page at 19:32:

"'it is not advisable to post comments to a user talk page that are about an article. Many people, who do not read individual talk pages, would be left out of a potentially beneficial discussion. In the meantime, I have commented regarding the Kevin Youkilis situation on that talk page.'"


 * What was the point of this little instigation? I don't know.  Everyone is always talking about Tecmo's bad behavior, so that's the person to pick a fight with because it takes him longer than three minutes to leave a comment?  Everyone should know better.  An admin especially.  And calling Tecmo out for blanking his talk page before replying to Irishguy.  What's the point?


 * There are so many things wrong with this situation that I don't know where to begin. Tecmo is a problematic editor.  I don't think that he's as problematic as everyone else, but if he is, why is an admin starting a fire and then dousing it with gasoline?  Why is Tecmo the one who has to remind the admin that they should be talking about this on the talk page on the article, not user ones?

No wonder Tecmo went to IAR as a way of life. He wasn't able to improve the encyclopedia when he followed the rules, at least that's the way he saw it. He comments and no one responds to him except to either rise to the bait he set or to bait him. He got blocked for sockpuppeteering by an admin he'd been involved with, and then a checkuser came back negative. His edits, good and bad are clumped together and written off as coming from him. Epeefleche managaed to successfully avoid discussion, and win through reversion for almost three weeks. He was able to say "no, I don't want to talk" and keep another editor from editing. No wonder Tecmo got blocked again and again for 3RR. He believed in his edits, and no one would explain why they disagreed. Tecmo might have reacted badly, but no one should be forced to wait three weeks for an explanation. People talk about consensus and Tecmo, but that's not the way it works. Tecmo cited consensus and if someone disagrees, "I'm too busy to tell you why" isn't an adequate explanation. I believe that Tecmo really wants to improve Wikipedia. He just started running out of ways how. Tecmo may have problems--problems getting along with other people, just problems in general, but he can be handled. I don't think any of the big issues that came from this would come to pass if it weren't for simply abysmal behavior on the parts of other editors. And while Tecmo's actions may have instigated things, I'm not ok with banning one editor because of communal jackassery.

'''There are methods for dealing with problem editors. The biggest one is to NOT add fuel to the fire and that was done at almost every possible opportunity.''' It's a pity too, because from what I've seen, the people involved in this are on the whole, good editors, and they can get along if they can just learn to put their personal issues aside.

What's the solution? I don't know. I think Tecmo being adopted by an administrator who is calm, patient and really willing to invest a little time would be great. He listens, as long as he's being talked to the right way. When people are being rude or dissmissive, he's out the door. There's a lot that he could learn from being adopted, and I think it could help the situation overall. When Tecmo is right, and it's more often then people think, he has no legitimacy, and so people run roughshod over him. Adoption might really help the situation. Personally, I'd like to see the wikiproject adopted. It's not just Tecmo who avoids article talk pages and makes personal attacks. And I don't think that the general behavior that I've seen by other editors is really related. No one acted better when Tecmo was banned any other time--I don't see why it would help (in regard to general behavior) now. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:48, June 30 2007 (UTC)


 * Your summation is slightly incorrect. A second checkuser showed that El redactor was in fact Tecmobowl avoided a block and continuing disruptive behavior. You know this because you were notified on your talk page so I'm not clear on why you are claiming he didn't use socks. As for the other issue, Tecmobowl deleted an entire trivia section on Kevin Youkilis even though the tag asked that pertinent information be added back into the article. When I added back some information, he continuously deleted it. He finally deleted it saying "rv see talk page" even though there was nothing at all on the talk page. When I contacted him on his talk page, he simply blanked it with the edit summary "how many idiots are there in one day?" As he had already blanked his talk page numerous times that day I assume I am just one of many "idiots" who have the gall to disagree with his actions. IrishGuy talk 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You raise many good points, but it's misleading to say the checkuser was negative. It was revisited and it confirmed that El redactor was Tecmobowl's sockpuppet. That came as no surprise to at least three admins who are well versed in sockpuppet behavior and saw the similarities. The problem with a website like this is that it's one-dimensional. All we know about anyone is how they operate here. Tecmobowl could be a sweet guy in real life. But this, here, is all we have to go on. It occurs to me that, technically, he may be right in a number of his citations of wikipedia guidelines, in addition to flagrantly violating other wikipedia rules. There is more to wikipedia than content. There is also the issue of getting along. And since it's assumed that wikipedia editors are adults, or at least reasonably mature, the question arises as to how much "coddling" we can do for an editor. Well, maybe a good deal of it, if necessary. But the editor has to show a willingness to cooperate with everyone, not just the ones who agree with him. OK, I told Irishguy I wouldn't comment on this anymore. But the thing is, I want to work with Tecmobowl; I wanted to work with him from day one, but he wouldn't let me. He dismissed my questions with comments like "la dee da". Sorry, but when you cop that kind of attitude, you're not going to make friends. There is no inherent right to work in wikipedia, and he gives no indication that he plans to change anything. That's why I have to support an administrative sanction. Baseball Bugs 00:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Krator (above). I was involved in only one article, with only one EL. By the time I got there, virtually everyone was behaving badly and nobody was listening to anyone. The EL that I saw seemed to contain some very good information which I believe added value to the article in a way that could not otherwise be included directly without taking up too much space. Tecmobowl behaved badly at the end, but it was not without provocation and I think he should be given the opportunity to participate in the community in a cooperative way. Whether he chooses to agree to that, and subsequently honor his agreement, should be up to him. Though I fear that the damage may already be done on all sides. Now that the community is well aware of the situation, I wish Baseball Bugs could step back let the neutral community evaluate and deal with it. BBB, I sympathize, truly. But please stop pushing so hard. Once it becomes this 'personal', its time to step back. Peace. Lsi john 00:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All I ever wanted was for him to talk to me instead of slamming the door in my face and stonewalling. Baseball Bugs 01:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tecmobowl has been incredibly incivil and tendentious but notwithstanding this behaviour I think this case may need to go to arbitration. Considering Miss Mondegreen's points and FunPika's clarified suggestion (that parties should come here for a topic ban or go to Arbcom for "a more binding solution") it may be more appropriate for Arbcom to handle this.  Otherwise, I'm still of the opinion that mentorship and perhaps a topic ban is an appropriate sanction--Cailil   talk 15:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik decided
The above named arbitration case has closed. Tajik's indefinite ban is endorsed; additionally he is banned by the Arbitration Committee for one year (concurrently).

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed, see discussion on WP:AN. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:LuLu3
This user keeps making socks for more than six months, most recently, with User:Lazyannie, even while the page is protected, to claim that Lucy Ball is alive. Can we just please ban this user? Thanks.  Mi r a n da  04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This user was originally an AOL IP vandal. Back in November or October of last year is when I first remember encountering them.  The Lulu3 account is far from their first actual account, but it's been a handy central focus for tracking this vandal.  They eventually moved off of AOL IPs, and were then able to be blocked more effectively, though  they still IP shift fairly often.


 * The key thing that this vandal does is repeatedly performing a major rewrite of the Lucy Ball article to claim that Lucy is still alive. But other regular patterns from this vandal include mass blankings of the user and talk page of those opposing him, repeated claims, once confronted, that the Lucy edits were mistakes or accidents, and various general claims of innocence to appeal to the next admin they incounter's lack of knowledge of the situation.  By IP and account hopping they have been able to keeep it going where people unfamiliar with their past actions will cut them slack as a brand new user.  And then once more they "accidentally" edit the Lucy page to claim that she is still alive.  At one point I even had a fairly extensive conversation with the vandal, in which he agreed to stop vandalizing, create a new account, and just edit without vandalism.  It was not long before the promise was broken, and the Lucy vandalism resumed.


 * One thing though. I have to wonder exactly what good a community ban would be on the situation.  At this point, as soon as the vandal makes his signature edit, he/she is being blocked.  A ban would not make this happen any faster.  A ban will almost certainly not persuade the vandal to stop.  If the vandal did somehow decide to stop, create an account, and edit correctly, I would be fine with that outcome.  I just want the vandalism to stop.  - TexasAndroid 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about something here. We have protection to prevent non-accounts from editing. I 'think' we have protection to prevent 'new' accounts from editing. What about protection to prevent anyone with less than x mainspace edits from editing? It seems that something along this line would protect 'established' or 'targeted' articles from being edited by anyone other than a serious editor. And if someone 'new' really wanted to edit one of those articles, they only need to 'go forth and edit' in mainspace for a week or so (probably not something a vandal would be willing to do, simply to be caught in his first vandalism and have to start over). Peace. Lsi john 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (and yes, I know this should be on the page protection discussion, which I'll do also) Peace. Lsi john 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This kind of problem has been discussed before, and your points are on the mark. Users can set up "sleeper" accounts to get around semi-protected pages, either by simply waiting or by performing innocuous edits until the "new user" time period elapses, and then jump into their previous pattern. The question of counting edits has been raised but not pursued, for the very reason you suggest, that the vandal can simply make enough edits to get past the count. Full protection of the page will stop all of that, but permanent full protection is against wikipedia policy, a policy loophole that vandals try to exploit. Never underestimate the patience of some vandals. We've been dealing with the User:Ron liebman sockpuppet army for 6 months now, with semi-protection of various pages at various times, and as soon as they go off protection he's back at it again, like a perverse hobby of some kind. Baseball Bugs 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That type of vandal will also sometimes latch onto a particular article or subject for no apparent reason other than to cause trouble. For example, many of the "Ron Liebman" sockpuppets may in fact be copycats that are just enjoying the "game". There was an editor on the George Reeves page about a year ago that kept posting unsubstantiated conspiracy-theory stuff until he finally was either dispatched or got tired of the game after many, many weeks at it. That is, it's not really about Lucille Ball, it's about the chuckle they get from the interaction with frustrated editors. Baseball Bugs 12:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, there is no reason to "formalize" the community ban - until this person stops abusing the system they won't be welcome to edit. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in fact, I think this user is "old school banned," which is indef. blocked when reverting to the evidence that Lucy is alive part. This proposal will only formalize the situation. By the way, the user has made an additional sock, User:Renatob1977.  As a result, I don't think this user is cooperating to edit constructively on the encyclopedia.  With the last two socks, I have noticed that  was never used by the puppeteer.  Mi r a <font color="#4682b4">n <font color="#084C9E">da   19:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Latest developments are on my talk page. - TexasAndroid 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Transnistria
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Markstreet and sockpuppets, as well as William Mauco and EvilAlex are indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This applies to all namespaces, including talk and user talk pages. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered
Because the dispute being arbitrated has resolved and any restrictions on the involved editors have been lifted, this arbitration case has been closed with no further action being taken. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
He's apparently determined to consistently dismiss any communications from other editors. I see this as being fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project. Thus, I recommend an indefinite block until he changes his approach, but as he's a long-time contributor, this probably shouldn't be done lightly. I'm open to other approaches or venues (RFC?) but I'm not sure it would help- he knows exactly what the problem is, and he chooses to continue being unresponsive anyway. I've seen this general issue as an ongoing problem for probably at least a year, but apparently it's getting worse lately. See also Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I can't think of many realistic options at this point. Friday (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well an indefinite block certainly isn't a realistic option, it's somewhat akin to trying to put out a fire with kerosene. Nick 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a dispute over the user of administrator powers, not editing. The level of concerns has been drawn to his attention increasingly within the past couple of days, and already he has made some adjustments in his behavior, though there is more that needs to change. If problems persist, the only appropriate vehicle is either an admin-conduct RfC or an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wholly inappropriate at this stage; I would recommend an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest burning at the stake. But I am a bit biased. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be all for that. WjBscribe 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that an indefinite block is at all neccessary. We usually reserve such measures for people who have solely used their accounts for "trolling" or who are long-term abusers of Wikipedia policy with extensive block logs. I think that a reasonable solution to this issue would however be desyopping. From the user's own contributions and admin log  he's shown a consistent attitude of not adhering to WP:CIVIL. He has already stated that he has no intention of changing this attitude  and attempts to engage him on his talk page have resulted in the user going as far as to delete his talk page in order to remove diffs of these engagements. I think that if this were not an admin user we would have all demanded at least a block long ago.--Jersey Devil 22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh, nothing is hidden, the whole history is there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think anything has occured that needs discussion on this board... WjBscribe 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like overkill to me. Drewcifer3000 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest desysopping with the user remaining in good standing. I think a nice rest (no, not an enforced Wikibreak) away from Wikipedia is probably a good idea at this time. Nick 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These kinds of situations are really why we need a mandatory recall process for all admins. Regardless, I too suggest a voluntary wikibreak and users should just avoid (at least from the time being) responding on this user's talk page.--Jersey Devil 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think reporting another administrator at a noticeboard and suggesting an immediate indefinite block is productive at all, and is only likely to produce drama. Such an act of insensitivity would only inflame the situation, and likely drive away a contributor, rather than solve anything. Premature block requests instead of dispute resolution look like nothing more than drama-seeking, and are likely to drown out the legitimate concerns at hand. I suggest this thread be archived to prevent that outcome, and the people involved pursue a constructive line of discourse instead. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please close this thread. If dialogue with Jeffrey doesn't result in a positive outcome, then start an RfC. The suggestion of an indef block is premature. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * No community ban is required at this stage. All parties have been blocked in accordance w/ Wikipedia policies. See Outcome at ANI. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem Rex has a history of being disruptive. Here is an arbitration case involving Rex. If you look at this part of the arbitration case, you'll see that he has 6 blocks since his probation has started. He has 1 block during the this case. He continues to exhausts the Wikipedia community. Here and Here' user page|here] are two examples of that. If you look at his user page and his subpage, he clearly goes against this guideline. Action is clearly needed for this guy.

Solution Kingjeff 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Permanent block


 * Problem: Kingjeff is engaged in forum shopping here and here and canvassing, and isn't getting the response he wants. Thatcher131 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not from Rex himself. Kingjeff 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem: : IWANTHIMBLOCKED, but those bastards at ANI won't oblige. Solution: Kingjeff stops trolling. Moreschi Talk 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we just block them both and be done with it ? Nick 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trolling at all. Kingjeff 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about canvassing? How many user talk pages did you drop that invitation to this page on? Bladestorm 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. I should have just counted: 11 user talk pages you've canvassed. Bladestorm 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kingjeff has rather a history of that when he isn't getting what he wants - . WjBscribe 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're forum shopping, badly. That counts. Moreschi Talk 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff: stop canvassing, right now, or else I block you, also right now. Moreschi Talk 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If any of you haven't noticed, this is about Rex Germanus. Not me. Kingjeff 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Anybody with "This user can do no wrong, especially when it comes to editing Wikipedia." on their userpage badly needs to be blocked, IMHO. Nick 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try at wiggling out: won't work. Stop forum shopping and canvassing, please. As I think has been pointed out on ANI, your claims have little merit. Moreschi Talk 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=143769539 and still it continues. Nick 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours. Moreschi Talk 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. I love this part. I really hope he read it before removing it though. (I don't mind people removing my comments, but it'd be disheartening if someone were to refuse to learn from their mistakes) Bladestorm 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was "kurzer Prozeß". Here's what I wanted to write in the meantime: I have a much longer history with Rex than Kingjeff does, and I'm also a little surprised that this here is the fourth initiative of Kingjeff vs. Rex within a week or so, with the other two still going on, with me trying to provide some input from the top of my head. Thus I recommend to put this request here on hold or to reject the case for now. Kingjeff (and I, and others) have to learn first about the proper procedures and ways to present such a case with more patience and thorough preparation. Yet, I am convinced that someone somewhere will angrily call for a block of Rex again sooner or later, though, as Rex has made himself many enemies, and will continue to make new ones, there is few doubt. -- Matthead discuß! <font style="color:#ffff00;background:#0000cc;">   O       17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See my remarks here. Thatcher131 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have likewise a long history with Rex. This is a problem user, but not one that should be banned without going through rfar. If he continues in his present vein, he will end up with a longish block, but this is not a case of blatant abuse or one requiring instant action. His blocks will increase in length as probation continues, until or unless he learns his lesson. There is no need to short-circuit this process. dab (𒁳) 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this entire fuss could go for libel. Because That Kingjeff tries to list my name on nearly every Wiki noticeboard there is. If anyone is seriously thinking about undergoing action note that User:Matthead is the real problem user, and a history to show for it. His anti Polish and anti Dutch attitude speak for themself.Rex 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, for your information. And this I swear with my hand on my heart, I do not make or seek enemies as allegated here, they find me, and when they get in the way of wikipedia being or continueing to be reliable, then problems arise. Rex 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all happy being drawn into this by Kingjeff through a post on my user page. I feel strongly for putting some restrictions on his canvassing as proposed above. For the rest, indeed I have encountered Rex, and IMHO he is stubborn and tends to overreact on German (nationalist) issues. It is however more often the aggressive/stubborn form of his editing rather than the ideas that he is adding that lands him in problems. While Rex makes enemies this way, and is not always as constructive as possible this is hardly a reason for a permanent block. Actually proposing such a block and posting this discussion seems like a directed effort to demonise an editor by the original poster (KingJeff) of this discussion. Arnoutf 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bringing in Arnoutf is just another instance of canvassing/forum shopping/asking the other parent. On a side note, I have interacted with Rex G when we were both more or less newbie editors (solved a conflict via MSN chat) and based on that experience I agree with everything Arnoutf is saying above. (I could hardly miss this situation since I have a number of noticeboards on my watchlist). Avb 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanction Kingjeff instead
Looking at Kingjeff's block log, one has to wonder ... is it time for community sanctions on Kingjeff? Five 3RR blocks, two harassment blocks ... from my perspective as an uninvolved user, the only answer can be yes. I propose that he be given a one-month ban, and be placed on indefinite revert parole. Thoughts?Blueboy96 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My only thought on the matter is that he's already currently blocked. There's no harm in seeing how he behaves once that block expires. If he causes more problems, then we can worry about it. But there's really no need to concern ourselves with too many 'what-if's. :) Bladestorm 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just think that when you've racked up five 3RR blocks and three blocks for disruption/harassment, it's time for stronger measures. Blueboy96 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not go there for the moment.  There seems to be agreement that Rex can sometimes be a problem but that these problems don't warrant blocking at the present time.  Kingjeff should be pointed to RFC if he wants to take action against Rex. Thatcher131 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, he (Kingjeff) says he's left. Bit pointless sanctioning someone who's both blocked and quit. Nil de mortuis etc. Moreschi Talk 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties to the case are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding. All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. "Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves."

is desysopped, but is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time. As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.

This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A long story which has come to an end? I hope the parties would understand how hard that was for everyone. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say that if Fayssal thinks that the ruling means that a long story has come to an end, then he is almost certainly gravely mistaken, given ArbCom's decision not to hand out sanctions. We will only move on, as NYB would like, if people stop violating policy with impunity. (This remark is not an invitation to begin another slanging match.)Hornplease 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you can basically see the harm done by RA and Dagizza by releasing private emails on wiki with the drop in Indian FA's here [[Image:IndiaFA.JPG|100px]] There's a lack of trust now between editors.--D-Boy 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, remonstrating about what happened in the past, especially by a user who is no longer editing, is exactly the sort of comment that the arbitrators (and I agree with them) have concluded is not needed. Please desist. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree NYB. We should move on from this incident. Baka man  21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/NYScholar
The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SanchiTachi
I have deleted an unblock request posted here as a violation of WP:SOCK. If the editor wishes to appeal under these circumstances then the proper channel is to e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation. Here's their contact information. Durova Charge! 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Continued block evasion through a different IP address only weighs against the chances of any appeal succeeding. I have semiprotected this page.  Use proper channels.  Durova Charge! 22:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke
Closing debate as discussion is detering off here. If TJ Spyke would like to request an unblock and provide an explanation to the community and/or to willing administrator(s) that he could behave in according to policy, then he should do so on his talk page. The blocking admin, who placed the current indefinite block on TJ Spyke, is User:Alkivar. — M o e   ε  03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've about had it with this fellow. I blocked him a while back for 9RR. At the time I left him a big message about needing to watch his step in future. Clearly, he did not pay attention, because he's just been blocked again for edit-warring, and his block log is very lengthy, nearly all composed of 3RR blocks. He is clearly not getting it.

Therefore, I suggest that as a community we place TJ Spyke on revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he violates this, he may be blocked for any length of time up to a week. After three such blocks, the next block length may be indefinite. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. Moreschi Talk 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a lot of WP:3RR blocks. I have to agree, revert parole is the way to go here.  Just to clarify though, how long of a period of revert parole are you suggesting?--Isotope23 17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Say a year? I genuinely don't think this user is an evil person, but he has a problem with revert-warring, and thus far is not getting it. Moreschi Talk 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR to the extreme, this is OUT of control. That was says the summary of the first block on 31 August 2006 by Voice of All. This means that now it is OUT of control². A revert parole sounds appropriate. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I think this is entirely uncalled for. He's been blocked at least twice for fighting vandalism. (That's how I choose to describe an action which includes removing a deletion notice simply because "articles have souls" and spyke must not have a soul for wanting to delete them) His most recent block was not for 3RR, but for 'edit-warring', which included in an article that was being constantly vandalized over and over again, including not only unsourced content, but even removing requests for sources. I'm not saying that he hasn't made mistakes, but he's been doing the best he can, has gone from flagrant 3RRs to trying very hard not to break it (To some, that's gaming the system. But when it comes to outright unsourced info from anonymous ips, it's still understandable, even if you don't approve of it). Not a single thing even remotely suggests that he's trying to be disruptive, or edit-war with good-faith editors. Furthermore, I think it's a bit unfair to put up a CS notice on someone who's just been blocked for ten days, and won't be able to defend himself for a week. Even if you want to try something like this, it needs to wait. Let the guy defend himself. Bladestorm 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, fair enough, hadn't thought about the block. He can still post on his talk page, though, and that can be posted here. He's been blocked, what 12 times now, all of those for revert-warring, and most of those this year. The time I blocked him was for 9RR, just ridiculous. I don't actually dispute his good faith, but it's just not working at the moment. We can't really have edit-warring like this. Trying to be disruptive or not, he seemingly will not stop edit-warring. Hopefully, this will end that problem. Moreschi Talk 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not swayed by that justification of his actions, but I'd fully support leaving this open until he is unblocked or letting him respond on his talkpage and someone posting it here. As Moreschi said, I don't think anyone is arguing that TJ is trying to be malicious or disruptive necessarily (if he was we'd probably be discussing an indef block), but he is being disruptive in many cases and doesn't seem to be stopping on his own.--Isotope23 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, left a note saying either he can post on his talk, or that I'm willing to unblock him purely so that he can participate here. Moreschi Talk 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though I'd prefer to let him defend himself first, I still feel compelled to point some things out. First, the danger of the 'block log'. While although they can be valuable for keeping track of actual disruptive influences, they're also a way to propagate error. For example, Spyke has been wrongly blocked at least three times (Yes, I intend to prove that). However, those blocks were still used against him. That is, future blocks are justified by prior blocks, some of which weren't even valid to begin with. They "poison the well". Anyways, he's been blocked 12 times. An impressive number. Now then, considering everything here... Yes. 12 blocks. Three were absolutely invalid. So, 9 blocks. At least three directly cited past blocks which included invalid blocks. At least one was by someone who had already imposed an invalid block due to their not examining the article's history closely enough. There are only 6 blocks that aren't either immediately invalid, and that don't at all cite previous blocks that include invalid blocks. That is, a maximum of 6 untainted blocks. Six is still a lot. Personally, I have none. But the bulk of spyke's actual bad behaviour is behind him. I think this is worth remembering. Also, if anyone has a problem with me calling blocks 'invalid', I'd prefer they directly address those concerns. Tell me which ones were valid, so I can explain it better. Because I don't take that kind of statement lightly. If I say it was 'invalid', then I mean it was obviously invalid. (maybe not to the admin at the time, but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, absolutely and certainly invalid) I can't count the number of times I've argued with spyke. The number of edits of his that I didn't like. But what I've come to learn is that he really is a positive influence overall here. And, again, I'm prepared to defend and properly explain any claims I've made here, so please don't just dismiss any of them. Bladestorm 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The first time, I assume to be valid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (Though, it was nearly a year ago)
 * 2) The second one, I also assume to be valid. Same reason. (He was unblocked less than an hour later, but without knowing the details, I still assume it was a valid block)
 * 3) Third, ditto. Presumably valid.
 * 4) Fourth, ditto.
 * 5) Fifth, ditto. (Again, unblocked same day, but that doesn't imply it wasn't a valid block)
 * 6) Just a note. Around this time, he started getting the idea. And that's why they started getting much farther between.
 * 7) Sixth, entirely invalid. Someone created an article for a single (unreleased-at-the-time, if I remember correctly) channel of the Wii Menu. It contained no more information than was in the Wii Channels article. He tried to nominate it for deletion or redirect it. Steve HP refused to allow the redirect to the correct location. Realizing that he was in trouble of getting blocked for perceived edit-warring, spyke then tried to add a tag suggesting it be merged with the correct article. That, too, was summarily removed. But this doesn't even cover the frustrating part. Here are some of the edit summaries that he was faced with:
 * 8) There's no reason to delete this page, aside from your own sense of "justice."
 * 9) Don't you have a soul? Think of how this poor page feels being deleted!
 * 10) I'm not saying the article's being deleted, I'm saying the page is. But you're begging the question: Do you have a soul or don't you?
 * 11) So then you don't have a soul? =( I guess that's why you'd want to hurt a poor, defenseless, little page. You may not have a soul, but these pages do!
 * 12) There is a place on the internet where the souls of deleted pages go. This place is called "SomethingAwful." Can you really subject a page to that sort of torture?
 * So, um, yeah... It's very hard to assume good faith when the other person is insisting that articles have souls (even if you don't have one). And yet, this block was effectively used against him the next time someone saw his block log.
 * 1) Seventh, presumably valid. Though I have to wonder if the fact that his previous (invalid) block had just expired might've played a role in his getting reblocked. Had he not just come off a block, who knows if he would've been treated more leniently.
 * 2) Eighth, also presumably valid.
 * 3) Ninth, invalid. Not because the admin was malicious or anything, but...
 * 4) Look at his subsequent unblock, where you find out that he actually sourced the supposed BLP concern. The blocking admin simply didn't see it.
 * 5) The blocking admin used past blocks (even the invalid one) as one of the reasons for the block.
 * 6) Note that another admin realized that it was a (good faith) mistake to block him, and unblocked him.
 * 7) Tenth, invalid. Both because he was blocked for fighting vandalism, and because the blocking admin personally revoked it, calling it "too close to call".
 * 8) Incidentally, since "too close to call" doesn't really prove it was invalid, look here for my take on the subject at the time. The person he was 'edit-warring' with got mad that he couldn't add a fansite to an article. He then decided to make wp:points by constantly deleting valid links. (Anyways, you can read a better description at that link)
 * 9) Just for anybody who doesn't follow that link: User:Maxamegalon2000, User:Dancter, and User:Nandesuka were all also fighting that vandal. Spyke just got caught up in the middle of it. But there was no question that it was certainly an invalid block.
 * 10) Eleventh block, presumably valid. However, even the block summary acknowledges that his past blocks (including at least three outright invalid ones) were used against him.
 * 11) Twelfth and current block. Probably valid, mostly because I tend to try to assume good faith... A few things to note on this one, though.
 * 12) Was the same blocking admin as a previous outright invalid block.
 * 13) That previous invalid block was the result of the blocking admin failing to adequately look at the situation before blocking (incidentally, another admin easily spotted what was going on, and only blocked the actual disruptive editor). Admins, like everyone else, are only human. And mistakes happen. But that isn't spyke's fault.
 * 14) This current block includes "edit-warring" (though not 3RR) in an article that's been incredibly heavy in both vandalism and outright unsourced nonsense from anonymous IPs.
 * If I thought he was a negative influence here overall, I'd want him banned outright. I don't. I want to help him. I think not letting him revert ad nauseam is more likely to help Wikipedia, and him, than not. And, by the way - I blocked for 9RR, so if you don't mind, I think that was completely valid. Moreschi Talk 20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just assume it was valid. #'s 6, 9, and 10 are the ones I assert to be invalid, with the current one being slightly suspect.
 * My concern with imposing extreme punishments on him (beyond the current 10+ day block, which I still think is outrageous), is very much connected to my overall thesis.
 * He's been blocked repeatedly for fighting vandals. At least twice, possibly thrice (depending on your take on his current block). In fact, fighting vandals, and forcing people to source information, is one of his contributions to wikipedia. An inability to revert if someone removes a tag would be a severe limitation when it comes to articles that aren't regularly policed by admins. Bladestorm 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then, get someone else to revert. He can talk to me. If he's got a problem, he can come to me, and I'll have a look at the issue at hand. He can involve others. You can do this sort of thing. Wikipedia will not fall apart if you wait for a bit. Use the talk page. Just don't revert.


 * I'm not thinking of this in terms of punishment: I honestly think this is best for him, and for Wikipedia. He must learn to discuss and involve others, get consensus, rather than flat revert. I blocked him for 9RR - 9 reverts on one article in one day! - left him a sermon - and he's straight back to edit-warring. I don't want him blocked: I want him to become a better Wikipedian. I tried talking to him, and that hasn't worked. This just might. Moreschi Talk 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. You talked to him. And, since then, he hasn't even actually broken 3RR yet. I realize that we don't want people "gaming the system". But a moving target isn't fair either.
 * "You did nine reverts! Four is a block!" "Okay, then I'll stop at three" "Forget four! Three's enough!" (btw, did he even make it to three?)
 * Frankly, I don't even take it as irrefutable that he is currently edit-warring. The specific rationale for the block was never explained. "Edit-warring", that did not exceed 3 per day, across three articles, at least one of which he'd recently been fighting vandalism, by an admin with a past history of blocking him because he didn't realize spyke was fighting a vandal. With no further explanation given.
 * You really take that as absolute proof that he even is still breaking the rules? I had really hoped that you'd look into whether or not he's been given a raw deal. Yes. Nine is insane. It's stupid and inexcusable. But that's why he was blocked for that. He did his time. CS is for an ongoing problem.
 * Tell me, do you personally believe that the previous block by the same admin was valid? Even though he was fighting a vandal? Even though another admin had already caught the problem, and only blocked the actual vandal, even though at least two admins were doing the exact same thing spyke was to fight that vandal? Because that's a very important issue in terms of whether or not it's fair to say he's still edit-warring. Bladestorm 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, Moreschi. Maybe some form of mentorship would be appropriate as well. Blueboy96 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, know what? Since his alleged current edit-warring is supposedly a strong sign of the problem, let's just look at some of that edit-warring.
 * I'll admit, I only chose one of the three articles that were cited. Since I'm not a wrestling fan, I just chose the only article I have any experience with: The ECW article. So, I picked that article, and looked at his last five edits, which spanned a couple days.
 * Here is the first edit. He changed a link to skip the redirect. Obviously not edit-warring.
 * Here is the second edit. The article has had quite a few people constantly trying to change the 'opening theme'. They're always unsourced. Even though it was plainly a bad edit, spyke still didn't revert it, out of fear of 3RR. Instead, he added a 'fact' tag. It should have been reverted, but that's beside the point. Adding a fact tag isn't edit-warring.
 * Here is the third edit. A minor correction, including a very nice edit summary explaining it. Certainly not edit-warring. Just a friendly correction.
 * Here is the fourth edit. This, too, is merely a minor correction, with a nice edit summary explaining it. (Note to anyone who doesn't follow the links: This is NOT the same correction. That might be construed as edit-warring) In this case, clearly not edit-warring.
 * Here is the fifth and final (most recent) edit. Adding fact tags. (Incidentally, moreschi, I was wrong on your talk page, THIS was an identical edit to a previous one) This is the closest he came to edit-warring on that article. Adding a fact tag that was previously removed without the other editor providing a source. Removing fact tags from dubious claims is vandalism. In any event, adding a fact tag to a dubious claim is not edit-warring.
 * And, there we have it. Five edits across a couple days. Two were to add fact tags (not edit-warring, and at least one was in response to direct vandalism). Two were correcting minor (separate) issues (also not edit-warring). One was to fix a link to a redirect into a link to the actual article (obviously not edit-warring).
 * That is to say, the "edit-warring" that was claimed for the ECW article was non-existant. Maybe it was further back? I dunno. Since blocks are preventative, not punitive, it was only necessary to look at the edits he was doing at the time. I think going back a smidge further was more than adequate. But this raises a problem. The block summary said he was edit-warring in that article. However, he wasn't (at least, not when he was blocked. You're more than welcome to go back further if you want to, but I only bothered with the time corresponding to when he was actually blocked) If three of his former blocks were definitely bad, and the current block refers to edit-warring that never happened... Why are community sanctions necessary? Bladestorm 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sanction, as he revert wars/edit wars and 3RRs too much. He has been warned about this behavior many times, but ignores it. In my opinion, he is claiming ownership on many of the articles he reverts many times. I believe he has been warned about article controlling and ownership in the past as well. The fact he refuses to listen, is a sign a sanction must happen. If it doesn't happen, he will probably continue his warring ways. I see no other way to change his ways at this point. After many failed warnings, this is the right next step. RobJ1981 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you can say where this alleged warring, to which you refer, occurs? Perhaps diffs? Bladestorm 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not alleged, it's a fact. I don't have time to list the diffs, but here is the recent articles where he was warring: WWE One Night Stand, TNA Victory Road and Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). Look through his block history, many of the 3RR violations were warring. Why exactly did you call it alleged? Frankly he has reverted vandals, but many times it's his personal view of what he wants in the article against anyone that he doesn't agree with. Why do you seem to be against this sanction? TJ Spyke has done this behaviour for a while, been warned and told to stop. Yet he continues, and gets blocked again, warned again, and it just repeats over and over. A sanction must happen here, otherwise the cycle will just continue. TJ could promise to change, but history shows he doesn't change his ways. Many blocks and he's still at it, that's a big sign something big (a sanction) must be used to improve how he edits. RobJ1981 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd prefer if you read my reasoning before asking rhetorical questions about my reasoning. The fact that you listed the ECW article, when I just finished showing that that one didn't apply merely illustrates that you weren't actually addressing what I said. And, no, it isn't a fact unless you prove it. I say, "alleged", because the admin who imposed the current block cited an article where he wasn't edit-warring. If you don't wish to prove your statements, fine. You don't have to. I can't force anybody to do anything. But don't pretend something's a fact if you don't have a shred of evidence; especially when I've gone to great lengths to prove my side. Bladestorm 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly support this sanction. If I assume that what everything Bladestorm said is true, then 6 of those blocks are entirely legit, and in 3 others he got blocked for a legitimate reason in spite of the fact that the admins were taking tainted data into account. So in 9 instances he deserved a block, and it was for the same reason every time. That is totally unacceptable. I take his recent edit warring without going over 3RR as spitting in the face of Wikipedia policies. He isn't stupid. He understands full well that he is not supposed to revert edits made in good faith anymore if the revert is contested, and if the person refuses to talk that he is supposed to go through the dispute resolution process. Why he refuses to do so is anyone's guess, but the reason for his refusal is irrelevant. He continues to ignore the policies, and a stronger message must be sent. WP:AGF doesn't apply to him anymore. This has been explained to him on too many occasions for him to not get it. He is an adult, and he must be reprimanded like an adult who constantly harasses his coworkers would be. This behavior is absurd. The Hybrid 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, hybrid, which of these five edits are edit-warring? (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Especially, which of them were flagrant efforts to skirt 3RR? (Keeping in mind that adding 'fact' tags is the only edit that's repeated among those edits)
 * Also, what specific behaviour in general are you referring to? (But, seriously, which of those edits are proof of serious edit-warring, to the point of skipping the waiting-for-a-fourth-revert?) Bladestorm 07:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the summary for this edit. That summary can basically count as a confession to edit warring on that article. The summary of the diff that I just provided shows that he clearly thought that he was edit warring, but continued to do so up to a point that he feared he would be blocked if he continued. That is very worrisome. The Hybrid 07:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently he only did 2 reverts preceding that edit. Here they are. Of course, that isn't the only article that he warred on to get himself blocked, according to the blocking admin. The Hybrid 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the specific behavior I'm referring to is edit warring. The Hybrid 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (sorry, but can't log in here, or type for very long)
 * So... you're suggesting that, on the 8th, after several apparently legitimate edits on the eighth, the blocking admin extended back a day or so to find "edit-warring" for which to block? Yeesh, I sure as heck hope not, because that'd be crossing the line to a rather ludicrous extent.
 * You may or may not know this, but blocking is meant to prevent bad behaviour, rather than punish it. If he had supposedly been misbehaving some non-specified amount of time prior, and had been entirely behaving since, then there'd be zero justification for blocking at all, which would automatically make it a bad block.
 * What's more, the "edit-warring" you cited, even going back a day before he was blocked, was of him asking anonymous ip's for sources for dubious claims. That's not edit-warring. All unsourced material in wikipedia can be removed at any time. And, when people remove even the requests for sources, that is called vandalism. Frankly, I don't believe for a second that you'd ever put up with anyone treating you that way. You know full well that if someone were to try making a silly claim like, "The opening theme for Family Guy is now Gangsta's Paradise", without sourcing it, you'd tend to not believe them. And, if you were to assume good faith, and simply add a 'fact' tag to that, and they deleted that, then, no, re-adding that 'fact' tag would not be edit-warring. Yeesh. (~Bladestorm)72.88.47.135 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The block was preventative. There is a clear pattern of behavior with this guy, so it is logical to assume that he will continue edit warring just like he has done since he got here. Saying the block was punitive is like saying that we should never block vandals because they may suddenly have a change of heart and become a good editor.
 * Anyway, note the confession that I cited. It doesn't matter if it was vandalism or not. He thought that he was edit warring, and tried to skirt the system by not going over 3RR. The circumstances to this particular case, which is not the only one cited by the blocking admin, are irrelevant. The confession shows intent; it shows that he intended to revert until he was at risk of being blocked, and then stop. The intent shows that he has a problem, and that if we don't send him a strong message right here and now, he will continue, and eventually get himself blocked indefinitely. <font color="Turquoise">The <font color="Maroon">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If TJ Spyke hasn't gotten the point that revert warring is bad yet, then a revert parole seems to be the most appropriate course of action to make him realize that he needs to discuss changes he makes and makes sure that consensus and conventions are in line with what he's doing rather than reverting being the immediate course of action. I also suggest that after this 250-hour block is over that someone moniter that reverting more heavily than before, because somehow I don't think that the reverting will cease completely. — M o e   ε  22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another person comes in, demanding that something be done about all this bad conduct, and still not actually including any specific proof.
 * Seems like arbcom might be a better idea. Those people actually require proof. (~Bladestorm) 72.88.47.135 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that those of us coming in here demanding that something be done have been editing with this person for months, if not more than a year. That is a very powerful statement, and one that you should take note of. <font color="Turquoise">The <font color="Maroon">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Want proof. Look no furthur than TNA Victory Road where sure enough there is TJ Spyke revert warring. Please note that editors can be blocked for partial reverts as well. Just because there is another few minor edits in a revert doesn't mean it's not a revert and revert warring under your IP address can get you blocked as well, which here TJ Spyke also did.


 * TJ Spyke:
 * 65.37.60.195 (TJ Spyke's IP address): and just in case you were wondering, yes, the IP does trace back to Rochester, New York, so unless there was two editors from Rochester making the same edit to TNA Victory Road, TJ Spyke committed 3RR there, and judging from his block log, this wasn't the only place. —  M o e   ε  19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please see Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke. - hahnch e n 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So now that he has another confirmed sockpuppet for e3dit warring.. maybe now we can finally put forward the plan to put him on revert parole. — M o e   ε  19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have reset TJ Spyke's block to 250 hours, due to the confirmed sockpuppet. SirFozzie 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

 * In light of the confirmed sockpuppetry, I propose a one-month ban, and indefinite revert parole once he comes off that block. Now that he's got two confirmed socks, he's got little choice but to accept if he wants to keep editing. Blueboy96 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support the one-month ban and revert parole time. — M o e   ε  21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I support it as well. He shouldn't think he is above Wikipedia policies. Block evading by using another account is simply a sign he refuses to listen. RobJ1981 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to a sockpuppet being discovered, I believe that a six month ban and an infinite revert parole would be the best way to deal with this. <font color="Steel blue">The <font color="Maroon">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite agreeing with many of his edits, his behavior shouldn't be taken lightly. I support the one month ban and further revert parole. Despite him being a heavy contributer to the Wikiproject and making many constructive edits, he went and sockpuppeted. I've lost a of the respect I had for him. Gavyn Sykes 16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Scratch out the above proposal...
"Could you do me a huge favor? User:74.36.18.128 recently vandalized my userpage and a WHOIS says it's from Rochester, New York. Could you see if this is in relation to User:TJ Spyke? — Moe Epsilon 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Probably is. But nothing definitive. --Jpgordon 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)"

Despite the recent sockpuppet User:Lrrr IV being found out as being a TJ Spyke sockpuppet, I did a WHOIS search on the IP address that vandalized my userpage amd it came from Rochester, New York, same location as TJ Spyke, and Jpgordan as I cross-posted above, has done a CheckUser that, despite definitive evidence, says it probably was TJ Spyke. I propose a longer block than 1 month is applied to TJ Spyke. — M o e   ε  00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That won't be Spyke. Wrong editing times. - hahnch e n 01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * replies — M o e   ε  02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quack, quack. Endorse Hybrid's proposal for a six-month ban and indefinite revert parole.  "Likely" is enough to impose sanctions.  Only reason I didn't suggest a straight-out indef is because of questions about the legitimacy of one of his blocks.  I take it it's understood that if he slips up again, it's indef.  Blueboy96 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to his contributions he edits from about 8pm to 8am, so I think that IP might not be Spyke (unless he's editing it from work etc..). I think he should be blocked but as you can see from the contributions he does make fairly good edits. I think he should be blocked, but then unblocked in about a month. I then think that if he steps out of line again (3RR etc.) he is blocked indefinitely. That's what I'm currently on, if I sware of vandalise on Wikipedia again - I'm blocked indef. This is my proposal (only a proposal):


 * Spyke stays blocked until 16th August 2007.
 * Spyke gets unblocked on 16th August 2007.
 * If Spyke steps out of line after unblock regardless of what it's about (3RR, vandalsm etc..), he is then blocked indefinitely.

That's what I think. Davnel03 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one month longer added on to his current block seems a bit light. An unrepentant edit warrior with a very long history using socks to dodge a block warrants a six month time-frame, in my opinion. <font color="Steel blue">The <font color="Maroon">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One month seems light to me too, six months is more like it with that history. Odd nature 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And it goes without saying that if he doesn't accept, he's done here. Too bad Moreschi's on Wikibreak ... we could ask his view on it. Blueboy96 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, one month seems too light. His history of sock puppetry (and so on, already mentioned by others) should be enough to justify a 3 month block (or longer) in my opinion. RobJ1981 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Three months at the least, in my opinion. To think I once saw Spyke as something of a mentor. Gavyn Sykes 23:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Right, here's a third proposal:


 * Spyke stays blocked until 1st December 2007.
 * Spyke gets unblocked on 1st December 2007.
 * If Spyke steps out of line after unblock regardless of what it's about (3RR, vandalsm etc..), he is then blocked indefinitely.

What do we think to that? Looking at it now three months is too short, but 6 months is too long, so I've done 4 1/2 months. Davnel03 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. One question--if he does evade, how will we know it's him? Blueboy96 11:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with it. To find out he is evading: we need a patrol for articles that TJ regularly edits. Edit warring/revert warring on these articles of users/IP's, should be instantly checked to see if it matches with him. I would say just new users/new IP's...but who knows if he has some other sock that hasn't been caught yet. An actual list of articles to be watched could also be useful, to help catch him if he tries to evade the block again. RobJ1981 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds quite reasonable to me. Perhaps we could have a CheckUser block his IP address for that duration in order to prevent sockpuppetry. Thoughts? <font color="Steel blue">The <font color="Maroon">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That could work. Blocking his IP address is good and all, but watching the articles is still a likely idea to do. Who is to say he wont use a public computer at a library, school or wherever? That's a whole new IP to worry about. He had the Lrrr account for a while and it finally got caught. So I can guess he could be sneaky with some other account if he really wanted to. Perhaps I'm being a bit paranoid though. RobJ1981 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Watching the articles is a necessary precaution, but blocking the IP address seems like a good idea do to the aforementioned sneakiness. <font color="Steel blue">The <font color="Maroon">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  14:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support block until December 1st. He'll be unblocked in a week or so, so we may want an administrator come in and finalize the consensus and place the block. — M o e   ε  19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Spyke's just been indef blocked by Alkivar. Davnel03 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, proposal 3 looks fine with me. Durova Charge! 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that was unexpected, I guess Proposal 4 was just placed. — M o e   ε  23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alkivar's solution works for me :P <font color="Steel blue">The <font color="Maroon">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse Alkivar's solution ... somehow I had a hunch that given his history, TJ Spyke was gonna be indefblocked anyway. Blueboy96 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a major shame... He was the leading contributor to Wii and played a huge part in getting it to featured article status. I would support changing it to a multi-month block... He hasn't had one of those yet. Grand  master  ka  21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bummer. TJ Spyke was one of our leading contributors for our WWE PPV's. He's usually the back bone of our editing. Is their a way you can un-block him for our PPV's? -- Kings bibby win 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good editor or not, TJ refused to change his ways. He had what...12 blocks for 3RR? He refused to change his ways, after numerous warnings and blocks. That's more than enough to show, that it's very doubtful he will change his ways with a longer block and/or revert patrole. The indef block is very justified in my opinion. The good things he did, doesn't eliminate the blocks and warnings he has had. RobJ1981 22:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He was just doing what was right. I almost got into a edit war with him, a couple years back, but I was wrong, and so are most of the 3RR oppositions who argue against him. A 1 month block is way more than enough if your going to block him. -- Kings bibby win 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right is the most wrong thing I can think of to describe TJ anymore. He got more that a few chances to shape up and didn't, then resorted to committing petty vandalism and revert warring on his IP, is something I hardly consider minor after all he's done. Too many chances too many.  —  M o e   ε  01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus all the sock puppetry TJ has used in his time on Wikipedia. The most recent sock was been used, when he was blocked for a long period of time. Block evading by use of socks (and using other accounts to be sneaky in general) isn't acceptable behavior here. RobJ1981 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's just block him till December 1st. Fair? -- Kings bibby win 01:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not fair. Did you even read what Moe posted, or what I posted? He has been given many chances, as well as longer blocks: neither have changed his editing ways. He still reverts, still uses other accounts to be sneaky/evade blocks and so on. RobJ1981 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)'
 * Well who's to say Spyke don't make another account? -- Kings bibby win 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If he does and he continues editing, then it will get blocked for evading this block. — M o e   ε  01:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, as of now, TJ Spyke is (username) is blocked forever from editing Wikipedia? -- Kings bibby win 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, right now it is indefinite, meaning he's blocked until he's proven that he would be able to edit constructively without sockpuppets, without revert warring and without vandalism like he has done in the past. He's blocked until that block is undone and sockpuppets are not a way around that. If he was blocked forever from the site, that means he would be banned, as in he can't edit period and no administrator would be willing to do an unblock ever again. — M o e   ε  02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How will it be proven that he has changed, if he can't even edit? -- Kings bibby win 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well his change in attitude towards editing has to change, that would be a good start. — M o e   ε  02:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My question is, how will we know if he's blocked? -- Kings bibby win 02:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He can edit his talk page, that is enough. — M o e   ε  02:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bombaplena requesting unblocking
Looks like this dropped off the admin noticeboard without comment; I'll try bringing it here. User has been blocked following sockpuppetry revealed by Requests for checkuser/Case/YoSoyGuapo. Currently requesting unblocking, I'll probably let User talk:Bombaplena (and its history) speak for itself. Accounts used have included, that I can recall:



So. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See no reason to grant an unblock. As you said, the history speaks for itself. SirFozzie 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would just recommend to them they create a new account, tell them that their existing accounts will not be unblocked, and protect their user talk pages. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Elvisandhismagicpelvis
I'm not sure if this is even the right place to take this one, but here goes. If anyone can suggest a better way to handle this, I'd be keen to hear. User:Elvisandhismagicpelvis has been a member of Wikipedia for a month, during which time he has made 70 edits. Of those edits, a handful have been constructive, but the majority are blatant edit warring and trolling. You can literally count off the constructive edits on one hand. I'm not suggesting an all out ban here, as I feel this user does have the ability to make a positive contribution to WP, but this user continually disrupts wikipedia with his constant reverting. I'd like to suggest that this user be banned from performing reverts in sporting articles (except for obvious vandalism).

Most of his edits can be broken up into the following sections:

Sporting in Australia


This one is petty, and I'm ashamed to have been involved in it, but the article has been fine for years, and the change was briefly discussed on the talk page. The user wants references to "Rugby league" changed to "Rugby league football", apparently because "Australian rules football" uses the word football. (I note ironically that the user is not trying to change "Rugby union" in the same way). This user feels that every other editor's opinion is flawed by other users' bias, and this his position is the only right one, and that he is therefore justified in going against consensus.

Rugby league in France
This one is a bit harder to follow. The user claimed in this edit that the ban of Rugby league in France during the war years was part of a nazi conspiracy to promote "reactionary sports like soccer and rugby union". He cited an image on imageshack, which was a scan of a French letter. Another editor disputed the interpretation of the source, and the edit war began:.

General disruption
This user reverted a set of my edits because he had edited the same page before:. I was accused of wikistalking. The user had referenced his edit history in a talk page post (defending the value of his contributions). I looked at a couple of his edits, and found that the article had plenty of room for improvement (links in headings, attempted link to an external image, an out of date external link). Despite me politely explaining this to him, he still believes that I only edited the page to "annoy him".

General trolling:.

Mark Chovain 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like this issue is localized to a few articles, and that the user hasn't caused nearly enough havoc to merit a community ban. I'd suggest taking this to a Request for Comment rather than here -- you've already got the diffs for it, even.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  01:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool - I'll take it over there then. Mark Chovain 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman
This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Wikipedia. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban. JoshuaZ 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not object to a community ban. After Mainstream astromony posted on his user page that he was leaving directly as a result of Iantresman's harassment, Iantresman actually posted on MA's user page to argue! This seems a clear case of Immune to Clue. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you redirect your talk page to your user page, I don't think it surprising for people to edit your user page, possibly by accident.--Prosfilaes 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you see "I've left because of harassment from Foo", and you are Foo, then its fairly clear the editor isn't interested in your argumentative posts, on talk or user page. That said, this is one tiny bit of the situation, and not the defining one, merely the most recent. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence?
 * I have a pending Request for arbitration on another Administrator.
 * I note that JoshuaZ has provided no diffs supporting his accusations of bad editing against me. Which of my edits have pushed pseudoscience?
 * I am also productive editor with over 20 articles to my name (see my user page).
 * As I noted on the RfA, that User:Mainstream_astronomy
 * has just deleted an 18-month old article, CREIL, with no discussion
 * He's tagged an article on a senior respectable scientist with at least a pseudoscience tag, (under another username), with no justification, added a highly contentious unsubstantiated comment, that was subsequently removed on the ground of original research
 * He's tagged another living person with a pseudoscience tag, again with no reliable source.
 * I currently suspect that User:Mainstream_astronomy is a sockpuppet of user:76.214.223.142, both of whom are contributing to an AfD here

--Iantresman 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Evidence is the Rfar against you, this is already linked. 2) Your Rfar request against FM was not even mentioned until you brought it up, but now that you have, yes I find it further evidence you are more interested in spurious charges and harassment against those who do not turn a blind eye to your argumentative and contentious flouting of the Rfar ruling. 3) Productive is not an issue; it is even irrelevant. "Look at my articles started" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". 5) Ma's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing a community sanction of Ma, we are discussing a community sanction of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Perhaps you would tell me which of my statement below is incorrect:
 * FM accused me of breaking the RfAr with this specific edit, suggesting it was "aggressive biased editing"
 * In that edit of 13 July, I removed two tags: Category:Immanuel Velikovsky and Category:Pseudoscience
 * At the TIME of removing the tag, the Category:Immanuel Velikovsky, did not exist as a category; it was created over 2 hours later. I mentioned this in my edit summary.
 * Hence removing Category:Immanuel Velikovsky was a sensible editorial decision, since the category did not exist.
 * The Category:Pseudoscience was removed because the only mention of pseudoscience in the article relates directly to Immanuel Velikovsky, not to the subject "Catastrophism". The Skpetics Dictionary does not have an entry of "Catastrophism", let alone designate it as "pseudoscience". Which begs the question, why was the article tagged as pseudoscience? Additionally, there is no reliable source linking catastrophism with pseudoscience. (Velikovsky also covers astronomy, mythology and geology; do we tag these with the pseudoscience tag?)
 * Hence removing Category:Pseudoscience was a sensible editorial decision.
 * Consequently, this specific edit does not violate the terms of my probation, because it is not "aggressive biased editing"
 * On the contrary, adding the Category:Pseudoscience without a reliable source as justification, is a biased edit. --Iantresman 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You've just validated everything they've said about you. Like FM said, classic Iantresman. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Odd nature, but that's bull. You've obviously made up your mind in advance. Iantresman has raised valid issues, and you (and others) have avoided answering his specific direct questions. Talk about a Kangaroo court opinion! I'm sorry, but a refusal to respond to valid questions and a legitimate defense of his actions is nothing short of that. I still hold that Ian has a right to defend his actions and question charges leveled against him. To deny that right is to deny due process and make a mockery of the legal system on Wikipedia. That's just my opinion, of course. Mgmirkin 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's easy enough to do, since Wikipedia has no legal system. Wikipedia is not a court of law.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point. That's a problem, not a good thing.
 * If there is no "rule of law" here, then how can it be considered a fair and unbiased place to live, work, make edits, etc? As it were. People (especially admins or self-proclaimed "experts") can't simply go around making unfounded statements/accusations that may have direct negative consequences on other users (such as bans), then completely ignore a user's right to defend their action or ask valid pointed questions toward the end of peaceable dispute resolution.
 * This is an issue that needs addressing. This is the issue behind Ian's recent ArbCom request against FeloniousMonk {sp?}, which really should have been resolved prior to a ban (and which some have used as specious "evidence" of malfeasance; defending oneself against perceived false allegations is not evidence of malfeasance, regardless of biased popular opinion). Makes for bad policy to ban someone before they are given a chance to utilize their right to redress grievances that have possible direct impact on said sanctions, etc. My opinion. Mgmirkin 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally would have been a bit more open to hearing Ian's arguments, but when you engage in meatpuppetry rather than request an unblock to let yourself be heard, your credibility here is nil. Blueboy96 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting proposal you have there, Mgmirkin. Can you give us any examples of other websites that have successfully implemented their own court system, complete with promise of "due process"?  I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly how that would work within the context of a volunteer-managed online community.  Examples of existing systems would help.  Thanks.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Just in case there was was even the slightest shadow of a doubt, ArbCom has unanimously stated that Wikipedia is not a court of law. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman strikes me as a pseudscience POV pusher who is quick to resort to attacks, abuse of process and endless demands for evidence against anyone who dares to reminds him of the findings of Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and his resulting probation. Seems addicted to conflict and unwilling to contribute elsewhere, so considering that he's been ignoring his probation and misrepresenting its terms, a community ban not only seems warranted but inevitable. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I find Iantresman to be superficially reasonable but ultimately obdurate. He flatly refused to suggest any kind of compromise in at least one dispute, on an article where he was already subject to ArbCom sanction, and his demands rapidly became vexatious.  His technique is repeatably to pretend at sweet reason while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the fringe or pseudoscientific point of view. This refusal to bend on demands which are rejected for good reason by other editors, or to drop them, makes him a prolific source of wasted effort for editors who would much prefer to be doing something else, but he also interprets silence as assent, so argument is necessary.  I had enough of him a long time ago. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering the discussion I saw elsewhere about Iantresman using alternate accounts and trying to get help in his recent edit wars.. I can't help but to agree with the originator. SirFozzie 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hearsay is invalid rhetoric akin to "a friend of a friend of a friend said something specious about someone else, so you should believe it." It's not notable/verifiable and has no place being used as support of an argument here. Cite specific issues or conversations. Please, and thank you. Mgmirkin 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have indefinitely blocked User:Iantresman. Tom Harrison Talk 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Wikipedia and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy96 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do think Ian became less aggressive after the RFAR but that doesn't mean he has stopped causing problems, and Guy's statement is quite accurate.  It can be very seductive trying to argue with someone like Iantresman, and as a result a lot of editors end up doing it, a lot, and yet it solves nothing.   Mango juice talk 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I support the block too. ElinorD (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per my comments to RfArb, I support this block. Wikipedia should never have been allowed to become a game wherein tendentious editors drive off mainstream experts by sheer perseverance accompanied by the superficial appearance of civility (per JzG above - and continuous litigation is not civil, actually.) It has become exactly that sort of game, and I can only hope that this action takes us one small step towards solving the problem.Proabivouac 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The moment of truth came when he began kicking User:ScienceApologist when the latter was down. The community needs to do a better job of ushering these folks quickly to the door or we will end up with a form of Gresham's Law, in which the bad editors drive out the good. Raymond Arritt 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The irony. It seems that iantresman was replying to the editor, who was obviously not down then, but trying to justify why policy and his ban shouldn't apply to him,
 * And not requiring an Admin to justify their actions, and banning an editor so they can't argue for it, let alone reply, is holding down an editor in my book. That's very big of you. --83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ian, this is not not how it went. SA had already stated that he was leaving and yet you still kept getting in your digs. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I move to close. It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Wikipedia by means of harassment is by itself a bannable offense, in my opinion. Blueboy96 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose a close. Although I think that wikipedia is better without Mr. Tresman's participation and endorse Tom Harrison's block, I think for form's sake, the process should not seem hasty.  JoshuaZ opened this discussion less than 12 hours ago.  I would like these discussions to stay open for a while; we want, I think, to be careful about what kind of precedents we set.  <font color="#DF0001">Buck  ets  ofg  02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Precedents have already been set. In this particular case, I see that Admins do not have to account for their claims, Admin are not required to answer questions, Admins may give one editor "leeway", (ie. actually break policy and ignoring it), and ban another editor for complaining.--83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To Blueboy96 and Proabivouac: Like when Iantresman was driven from Wikipedia by ScienceApologist, after what seems to be a long line of (official policy) personal attacks,, and was harassed by another editor. --83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is sadly overlooked here is that while User:Iantresman is an advocate of alternative ideas, he is only demanding that people have robust arguments. User:ScienceApologist was hardly a saint, and would frequently resort to personal attacks, litigious slight-of-hand, and outright schoolyard bully tactics if he couldn't be bothered (or simply couldn't, it was sometimes hard to tell which) to engage in rational debate. I gave up editing plasma astronomy related articles about 2 years ago mainly because arguing with ScienceApologist was actually more bizarre and disheartening than arguing with a fundamentalist Creationist (which is a hilarious way to waste ten minutes, try it some time). There is a lot of sloppy thinking going on in Wikipedia, with many unable to engage in debate where separation of the debate from the debater is essential. I am sad to see the same sloppy thinking going on here. I think banning Iantresman is just more confirmation that Wikipedia is turning into yet another homogenised manifestation of mobtruth and yet another mouthpiece for the status quo. /me steps down Jon 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not overlooked; completely irrelevant. "made contributions" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". SA's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing community ban of SA, but of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)



Talk about mob rule! The indefinite suspension of Ian Tresman represents a clear example of censorship and suppression by those with a fixed world view.

The work of ScienceApologist demonstrated a fanatical, almost religious devotion to mainstream theories. Science progresses by developing new ideas and challenging existing theories. ScienceApologist was in the habit of launching vitriolic attacks on all ATM ideas, thus contravening this ideal, and it was therefore appropriate that he should move on.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as they say, and freedom of speech has always been a powerful driving force behind the world-wide-web. Ian Tresman has the right to support the work of scientists and engineers in the field of Plasma Cosmology, providing he does so in a fair and reasonable way. I am yet to see any evidence that he has been blinkered or unreasonable, although there are no lack of unsubstantiated allegations to this effect. FeloniousMonk, for example, ignored numerous requests to support his allegations of POV and Pseudoscience!

ScienceApologist's resignation was of his own choice and should not be held against Ian Tresman. There is also strong evidence that SA was involved in illegal and underhand attacks on IT. Numerus admin also clearly bear a grudge. This behaviour is unnacceptable for admin staff, who have now resorted to group bully tactics.

NB The history of science testifies that almost all new ideas are attacked on the basis that they represent a threat to a particular world view!

Soupdragon42 12:38, 17 July 2007 (GMT)


 * Since he's continued the same behavior since the last ArbCom case, albeit a bit more subtle and seems highly disinclined to change his behavior, I'd have to support the indef block. Shell babelfish 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: has been indefinitely blocked as a throwaway account created to participate in this discussion and a very likely sockpuppet of Iantresman. MastCell Talk 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * CheckUser is inconclusive, but reveals that Girls4girls was editing from an open proxy. End of ballgame, I think. Blueboy96 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I altogether dislike both Iantresman's manner, and his ideas of what constitutes science. Nonetheless he represents a minority position, and minority positions should be represented, and I am very reluctant to ban one of the very few people who are willing to maintain views such as his. Obviously, had he been willing to do so in a more temperate manner we would not be having this discussion, for most WPedians would not treat the repeated but polite expressions of even extreme views to be objectionable. Unfortunately, it is by now equally obvious that there is no way of ameliorating his manner of participation, so I do not suggest we do otherwise than proposed here, but I think it necessary to acknowledge the benefits to NPOV that did accompany the disruption. Sound science can well afford to let itself be challenged, even ignorantly, even by the biased, and certainly by the impolite. DGG (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I have been greedy. Please, adjust your watchlist a bit and enjoy greater exposure to those extreme views, with their attendent blessings and mine. Tom Harrison Talk 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse community ban. If there was any room for reasonable doubt, the checkuser results clinched it.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something here? The official checkuser result is "inconclusive", since there is no technical evidence to tie Iantresman to Girls4girls. You may well conclude on the basis of the timing and content of the two edits by Girls4girls that the preponderance of evidence points to it being a puppet of Ian. I don't see how you can consider that "beyond a reasonable doubt". --Art Carlson 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The checkuser result showed that the new account which showed up out of the blue to defend Ian was using open proxies, which they wouldn't be if they were simply a legitimate new user who showed up at an odd moment. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. Up to now I didn't even know what an open proxy is, much less that Wikipedia has a policy discouraging them. I don't share your certitude, but at least I see now where you are coming from. --Art Carlson 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Controvert community ban. Strong disagreement. I believe this is a biased decision for some of the reasons listed above. Apparently no right to due process in defending his actions. However, it appears the mob has spoken. Though I still disagree with the mob mentality. Users do have rights and admins/"experts" should be held to a higher standard when presenting evidence, due to their positions of greater authority. The fact that they refuse to respond to legitimate questions and calls for citations/clarification of statements speaks volumes about the bias they have against User:Iantresman. Kangaroo court, pure and simple. Look it up. I'm done. Mgmirkin 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mgmirkin, the Disruptive editing guideline was created because some individuals had successfully gamed the dispute resolution process to exhaust the patience of others until productive editors either abandoned certain topics or abandoned Wikipedia. It does not serve the site's interests when such tactics succeed in creating semiprivate domains for people who demonstrate consistent contempt for site policies.  This site's consensus standard is assume good faith in absence of evidence to the contrary, not due process at all costs.  Unsubstantiated accusations of bias and kangaroo court contribute nothing to this discussion.  We're assessing damage caused and the likelihood of substantial damage continuing.  This is a textbook example of disruptive editing; I'll stand behind this community ban.  Durova Charge! 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova, I can understand if you think that you have sufficient evidence to abandon the assumption of good faith for Ian. I can also understand if you judge the preponderance of evidence to indicate that the risk of damage by a speedy banishment is less than the risk of damage of waiting too long. But please don't argue against due process as a principle. A community like Wikipedia agrees on rules and procedures, and due process just means following them all the time, not just when you feel like it. If you think the rules and precedures in place are too costly, then you can try to get a consensus to change them. --Art Carlson 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against it as a principle. I'm arguing that it isn't the overriding principle.  And I have gotten a consensus to change the procedures that were previously in place: I was one of the principal coauthors of the disruptive editing guideline that applies here.  I see no consensus for the argument you propose.  Durova Charge! 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse community ban. Long overdue. WAS 4.250 11:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this process. I go away for a few days and when I come back I discover that JoshuaZ had suggested banning Iantresman, and hardly 5 hours later Tom Harrison had blocked him indefinitely. It is not clear to me whether the block was intended as tightening the reins while the decision is being made, or as a try-it-and-see de facto ban. Either way, the reasons a ban might be necessary have not been clearly formulated, nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented.

I am not saying that Ian's behavior is above reproach, but despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him. I do not wish to take a position at this time on whether Ian should ultimately be banned, but I find the following points important:
 * There is no need to implement a block until a decision has been made by the community.
 * A minimum time (e.g. 4 weeks) must be allowed to ensure full discussion and judicious consideration.
 * A ban should be supported by an obvious consensus in the community or a minimum number (e.g. three) of administrators, preferably both.
 * The final reasons for the ban should be explicitly and concisely laid out by the admins making the decision.
 * The evidence for any questions of fact upon which the decision is based should be explicitly laid out (usually as diffs).

(There may be a different or a better place for me to air these concerns, perhaps in a policy discussion or as a complaint against Tom harrison. If someone more familiar with Wikipedia processes has a suggestion, please let me know.)

--Art Carlson 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Art, if you're talking about notification and opportunity for defense I'm in agreement. I wish you had been around in March and April when this was discussed at the policy level.  As you advised me, please garner consensus if you want the standard to change.  I would not consider it canvassing if you notified me of any relevant discussion that takes place over there.  I argued rather passionately for something similar but got overruled.  Now I abide by the policy as it stands.  Durova Charge! 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom harrison's block does not necessarily mean Ian is banned; he is only banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would endorse a topic ban since that was the Arbcom ruling, in my view this should be tried before a community banning Iantresman (even in light of the possible meat/sock puppetry). Also while I'm not impressed by the attempts at wiki-lawyering here, shouldn't Arbcom enforcement be making a decision in situation since it is a breach of Arbcom probation?  They were notified of a possible conflict of interest and breach of probabtion on July 16th --<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom argument hold weight. I'd accept a limited unblock for the purposes of appeal to that venue.  Durova Charge! 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BAN, bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. This is not the same thing as saying that only the previous Ian-related matters that Arbcom has reviewed have any weight in the matter. The discussion here has weight as well, though this thread is still open for further discussion of the wisdom of a ban. If Arbcom looks over this particular discussion thread, they will certainly be looking into its thoroughness and the amount of data presented. It might not hurt if an advocate of the ban would try to sum up the thread so far. EdJohnston 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. I just re-read the whole discussion, thinking I could try to throw together a summary, even though or especially because I have not yet taken sides on the issue, but the arguments flowed through my fingers like sand. It is clear that Ian has somehow managed to make himself a number of enemies, but that of itself is not a justification for a ban. If he is as bad as these editors feel, then it should be easy to list a half-dozen violations of policy and to cite one example of each. It should be practically trivial for KillerChihuahua to demonstrate "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". Although I would welcome a summary from anyone, I think the one who is obligated to present his arguments is Tom Harrison. He laid an indefinite block on Ian 4 days ago and has neither before nor since wasted a single word to justify it. This goes beyond Ian. It is a question of how this community lives up to its ideals of civility and accountability. --Art Carlson 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the community's ideals of accountability is that editors who persistently, incorrigibily disrupt Wikipedia, in the consensus of the community, may be blocked. This principle is codified in the disruptive editing guideline. I've never dealt with Ian (except for his inappropriate jubilation over the fact that ScienceApologist had left the project), and I don't claim to be the arbiter of whether such a consensus has been reached, but the disruptive editing guideline exists for a reason. MastCell Talk 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Ian must be held accountable for his editing style. You and I must be held accountable for the arguments and tone we bring to this discussion. Tom must be held accountable for his administrative actions. --Art Carlson 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Art Carlson, Tom made the right call. We have already spent far too much time on this situation.Proabivouac 02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying he made the wrong call. I presume he spent a reasonable amount of time examining the case and brooding over the proper course of action. I think it would be helpful if he would take a few percent of the time he spent coming to a decision to tell us what his reasoning was. I think this would be good for several reasons. One of them is that being able to refer to a clear set of arguments on this case may save us time and lead to better decision on similar cases in the future. --Art Carlson 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to endorse a mere topic ban, but I can't get past the fact that he drove two users off the project. The community simply can't tolerate someone who creates a poisonous atmosphere. Blueboy96 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree about the posionous atmoshpere. The point I was making is really that the community can go ahead and topic ban Iantresman (for disruption) with the full backing of the existing Arbcom decision.  But on top of that Arbcom enforcement are supposed to be making another decision about Iantresman's probation violation--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * endorsing ban per WP:ENC. Wikipedia is "yet another mouthpiece for the status quo". Any user refusing to acknowledge that and resorting to protracted campaigning instead has no place here. I am pleasantly surprised that this "community sanction" process can in fact produce tangible results. dab (𒁳) 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Echoing the above... I'm sure I'm biased here, but Wikipedia is way too tolerant of people with a fringe/minoritarian axe to grind, time on their hands, and no interest in WP:WEIGHT or WP:ENC. It's all we can do to keep our heads above water in a sea of accounts who think an encyclopedia should give equal time to the ideas that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, cholesterol plays no role in heart disease... I could go on, but I'm depressing myself. Anyhow, my point: I would endorse a topic ban. MastCell Talk 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yes: it is amazing how many people think WP:ENC doesn't apply to them if they just keep waving their hands and changing the topic. We need to become less patient with these. We have WP:FTN now to address this problem, but we really need to learn to waste less time on each incidence. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison has refused to justify his block. I have filed a complaint against him. --Art Carlson 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The justification for the block appears to be on this page. The community seems to be making a clear expression that this user has been excessively disruptive. We can keep discussing the permanent ban while the indefinte block is in place. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This really is outright disgusting. I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here. First supposed evidence: He edited another editor's user page. Catch is, he went to that editor's talk page and was redirected. Redirecting your talk page to your user page is never a good idea (the converse is fine, of course, but never direct your talk page to your user page!), and was clearly more MainstreamAstronomy's mistake more than Ian's. Not evidence of any particularly terrible behaviour. Further evidence of atrocious behaviour: Removed category tag, "Immanuel Velikovsky". And, guess what, Ian's right. That category did not even exist when the category tag was removed. It had existed prior to that, but Chrislk02 deleted it, explained here. Also, note that the category was recreated by User:Velikovsky, with the justification, "this is a legitimate category". Further note that "Velikovsky"'s sole contributions appear to have been to badger Ian, and to redirect his identity to User:Mainstream astronomy. Point is, at least one of Velikovsky or Mainstream astronomy has some serious explaining to do, if not both. I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a single case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. Except... uh... arbcom should probably be handled by, um, arbcom? So, seriously, can anyone here provide a single diff here? Just one? I could be missing something bloody obvious; I do it all the time. No arguments about how he's "exhausted the community's patience"... No nonsense about how he's "driven away editors", without a lick of support or proper discussion. None of that at all. Does anyone here have any specific proof? I'm talking about diffs here. Do you have diffs? Specific actions? Yes or no. Bladestorm 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated if the driver shows no desire to adjust/improve their attitude. - Crockspot 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting note: By redirecting his user and talk pages to "Mainstream astronomy", User:Velikovsky is either asserting himself as being a sock/meatpuppet of "Mainstream astronomy", which would make suggesting that Mainstream astronomy is a pseudonym of ScienceApologist far less of a stretch, or... it means that Velikovsky was inappropriately pretending to be "Mainstream astronomy", in which case his recreation of a deleted category should certainly be scrutinized far more heavily than Ian removing a link to said category during the time that it didn't even exist.

Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review
The review relating to the above-named arbitration has been closed without action because User:Certified.Gangsta has not edited for several weeks. Should Certified.Gangsta return to editing, the review may be reopened. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Paranormal
The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 0.0. That case was open for three months? -Amarkov moo! 05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Miskin
This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this a 500th time!
I have been involved in a disagreement with user User:Chrisjnelson for some time. I have opened up a variety of RD's, and the guy refuses to enter into mediation. I have reported his violations of NPA and OWN and nothing was done. I have tried to be civil and nice with this person, I have tried to avoid him and he follows me. I have finally lost all patience with him. Despite my attempts to rework content on the Michael Vick article, he has recently jumped in and started edit warring with me AGAIN. I've had to have another article locked 2x because of this. I have just personally attacked him in the hopes that drives him away. Nobody here is stepping up to get this guy to behave civily. After filing WA, RFC, RFM's, i see no reason why i need to jump through any more hoops to get this guy off my back. Someone ban him and get him away from me! Is this the right place for this message? I have no idea.... but I'm so fed up with this...please just get him off my back. You can see the majority of this dispute at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat 12:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this is the wrong venue for this. And BTW there is NO excuse for breaking WP:CIVIL or No personal attacks.  Your attack on Chrisjnelson  is totally unacceptable.
 * If you could provide diffs or links to the RFCs, ANIs RFMs (the only one I can find is a mediation rejection today with a different user) it might help your case. You should try to keep cool and follow dispute resolution.  WP:CSN is not a votes for banning forum it is covered by WP's policy on disruptive editing.  User:Jddphd has advised both you & Chrisjnelson to take a break, I second that proposal - you should temporarily disengage from each other's articles of interest.
 * Other than this, if you can word your case neutrally, specifically and coolly you could try Community enforceable mediation--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 13:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would tend to agree with Cailil, and this seems a more complex issue than will be solved here. You can try asking for arbitration if indeed all other forms of dispute resolution have failed as you say, but remember they'll look at the behavior of all editors involved in the issue if they accept the case, including you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll comment on your talk page so as to not could this page. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat 08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi
A previous sanction discussion was sidelined because of the arbitration case against Conradi. Conradi basically ignored the case while it was active, and has been biterly compalining about the outcome since it ended. A few days back he was blocked 48 hours for incivility. After continued incivility on his talk page this grew to a week and a talk-page protection, and then to a month and an email block after the incivility continued via email. According to a current WP:AN report, Conradi is now up to three IP socks as he continues to lash out against various admins, with no end in sight. I think that it's time we said enough is enough, and let him know that he is no longer welcome here. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now four IPs. I would agree that he's no longer welcome, and suggest it's time for an indef. We've certainly indeffed for less!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I Support an indef block here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When a user is unwilling to accept blocks and resorts to changing IPs to avoid them, it is time to take a harder stance. I regretfully support this move. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tobias has been rather disruptive here over the past few months - I think our only option here now is an indef block. His behaviour is now becoming too much for mediocore blocks to stop. It is most unfortunate that I believe that the positives far outweigh the negatives of Tobias being removed from the project.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As per Until(1 == 2) and Ryan. It is really unfortunate. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tobias has had numerous opportunities to indicate he was going to change. He has not. SirFozzie 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While I was blocking the block evading IPs, I did engage in a brief conversation with Tobias on my talkpage where he was complaining about his original block on 24 February 2006 and he essentially rejected my comment that by sockpuppeting he is only making it worse for himself. I don't know enough about Tobias to say if his behavior outweighs the value of his contributions, but it seems clear to me he doesn't accept the validity of the ARBCOM sanctions, he doesn't intend to follow them, and he sees the enforcement of the sanctions as illegitimate.--Isotope23 talk 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This very discussion is evidence that the sock puppetry has made it worse for him. I had been for a couple of days, in my mind, lightly debating whether I should open a discussion like this.  The sock puppetry report on WP:AN was the last straw for me.  It's what made me say "Enough is enough".  Without the socks, I would likely still be thinking about it, and quite possibly would never have reached the point of launching this discussion. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He may not accept the ArbCom's decision, but the ArbCom's solutions are binding. Sockpuppetry does make his situation worse; I support an indefinite block.  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse indef ban per above arguments. Many opportunities for improvement squandered. - Crockspot 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment He's now up to eight sock IPs today alone. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi is tracking them now.  Five of those are from his breif sock-puppeting rampage a year or so ago, the rest are from today.  And predictibally, he's now attacking me for bringing this up, and for being one of the first to block him for incivility, well over a year ago. - TexasAndroid 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I blocked several of his earlier ip's and they all apepar to be in the /16 for a range block. If he becomes prolific enough with the ip hopping I might reccomend a 24 hours block or so. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant but firm support, per the block log at Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. It seems that the guy goes in spurts ... you never know when he's gonna snap.  I'm not as familiar with the case as most of the people who have commented, but a cursory reading of the events indicates that this guy is too unstable for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 19:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to block indefinitely, I'll take the responsibility of implementing it. I've worked with him in the past, tried to counsel him away from this precipice, and I've never blocked him.  If the group comes to agreement that it's appropriate, I'll implement the block and document it both on his user talk and via e-mail.  If the consensus is not to remove him from the project, I'll be available to assist in any remediation needed. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks...that'd probably be best. Isotope and I have been involved, with my part being the "corrupt" individual who extended his block to the current month, so a third party is probably appropriate. A consensus seems to exist. As a curious aside, in one of his rants that someone (John?) reverted on my talk page, he listed a definition of corruption as inappropriate activities done for personal gain. I don't know about the rest of you, but I get absolutely no personal gain from adminship, and a small amount of personal loss (headaches, time my wife and daughter think I should be spending with them, etc, etc)...so who here's getting those big paychecks that I'm missing out on?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the consensus, I could implement it as well. I'm already on his list of corrupt admins; no reason to add another name there...--Isotope23 talk 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, if anyone is interested, there is a conversation I was having with him today in regards to his block in my Archives.--Isotope23 talk 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on his list of corrupt admins (no doubt near the top), I got one of his missives too, I usually do. I've always hoped that there was some way to avoid indefinitely blocking him but the chasm between his perception of us and our perception of him at this time seems too wide to bridge. The only answer seems to be an indefinite block (with the proviso that if he undertakes to change, to understand what the issues about his approach are, and to contribute productively, it could be lifted.) Hats off to Chairboy for volunteering to implement the block and to mentor. I'm also willing to implement it if need be. so... sadly... endorse indefinite block. If this goes through someone perhaps should update the ArbCom case (log of blocks and bans) pointing to this discussion. Oh, and Akradecki... the check's in the mail, trust me. Now get back to work! ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If this is the result here I'd like to think that Tobias would be welcomed back if he resolved to work on how he deals with his fellow editors.--Isotope23 talk 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. Hence my "with the proviso that..." ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A pre-emptive note, there's every reason not to rush anything. While a consensus seems to be emerging, a WP:CS 'ban' is big medicine, and it is in the best interests of all involved to make sure that all sides have a chance to make their opinion known.  If that means waiting a few days, then that's the right thing to do. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No rush.  Though his continuing IP hopping to drop accusations and attacks around is getting old very fast.  (Latest this morning/last night was all over the User and Talk pages of his various IPs and the tracking category.) - TexasAndroid 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that this individual has presumably used 22 socks so far. I don't know if I even have that many socks. I can agree that it might be a good idea to wait a bit longer, but based on the current behavior, I can see how an indefinite block might be called for. Out of curiosity, would there be any way that this individual could, under his own identity, make a comment here in his own defence and/or to agree to terms to allow him to continue in a limited capacity? John Carter 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An indefinite block on his user account will not stop his use of sockpuppets, so it doesn't matter if it happens right now or in the near future. A decision is being made regarding whether the community shuns this once productive user or not, and that's much more important than the actual act of setting the block bit to indefinite, so rushing a conclusion doesn't serve the best interests of the project.  Tobias has invested a lot in us over the years before the recent unpleasantness, it's our duty to invest something back now in the form of allowing this discussion to reach a solid, time agnostic decision. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What contributions to Wikipedia does Tonbias make that are just so positive and indispensable, such that he is allowed to continuously stick his finger up at the rest of the community? He has proven over and over that he has no ability to work in a collaborative manner - only disruptive. He is rude, disruptive in his editing making 100s of moves while refusing to consult, he has ignored all attempts to steer him in the right direction, and has now apparently made 20 socks to get around a block. Yet still here now people are defending and excusing him. Seriously, what contributions does he make that are so important to the project? --Merbabu 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidently he has been a valuable contributor in the past. I can understand the reservations about removing the existing total block on him, particularly taking into account all the IPs he's been using. But maybe would it be possible for him to edit his user talk page, so that we could have statements we might unequivocally know are his possible responses to questions that might be posted to him, at least for a few days? John Carter 22:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not have a problem with unprotecting his talk page in general, but I suspect that such will quickly return to personal attacks and incivility, which is what he has been doing while IP hopping. Might be worth trying, as a last resort before he's banned, but I hold little hope that it'll have any useful ending. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think he should be banned, but blocked for 1 year instead. However, seeing as he's now editing as an IP-hopping editor, it looks like he may become the next Cplot, which I hope doesn't happen. He has made constructive edits. The only problem is - how do we get him back to productive editing?? It hasn't worked right now, but that's not to say it won't work in the future. Maybe his talk page should be unprotected to allow an appeal. But then again, he can always appeal to the Arbitration Committee anyway, if he feels his indefinite block is wrong. There's no right or wrong answer here, really, we'll just have to see how things pan out... --<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b> <i style="color:blue;">talk</i> 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that he's likely to come back a productive editor after the one year block? If that remedy is followed, it should be with the expectation that it will be a real solution instead of a half-hearted 'compromise'. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The conversation seems complete, there was the one comment above, but no response to a followup question as of yet. I'll close this in about half a day if there are no further developments, the consensus seems clear. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's sad. I've been working with Tobias for years now, and yes, he's done a lot of good for the encyclopedia, but his civility issues have only gotten worse. It started a long time ago when he seemed to think he was always right, and anyone who criticized him was wrong and somehow against him. This escalated over the years to having a martyr complex and being extremely passive aggressive - he never does anything wrong, it's everyone else who's wrong, and they're attacking him; but he'll never actually do anything about these perceived wrongs, he'll just mutter to himself or make a list and whine, but not do anything about it. It's sad that it's come to this, and I won't support a community block, but I won't oppose one either. I look at Tobias like I do User:Wik - An extremely valuable contributor who just ended up going crazy or something, becoming absolutely incompatible with the community. His obsession with 'transparency' and harassment of board members, past and present, and finally his IP hopping, is the final straw. He seems to have given up any pretense of wanting to work on the encyclopedia, and his entire purpose is to complain about his valid blocks. --Golbez 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Enacted. I have reset his block to indefinite, and both left the user a message on his talk page.  I've sent a copy of that message to him via e-mail as well.  When this item is archived, the link on his talk page should be updated appropriately to reflect it. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, he's just been permabanned on de.wiki too. pschemp | talk 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've listed him here. Not totally happy with the wording of the breif summary, so if anyone else wants to expand/clean it up, please do so. - TexasAndroid 14:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Followup Using yet another IP sock, Tobias responded here, including a statement where he declares his intentions to continue his disruptive editing. After another user reverted this response, I protected the page for 30 days AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Implementation was recorded on the RfAr page ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Full Judaism community topic ban for Bus stop
Bus stop makes positive contributions to the field of visual arts but engages in tendentious WP:OR on topics that relate to Judaism. After a previous CSN discussion I applied an indefinite block, also offering to restore editing privileges if Bus stop obtained formal mentorship and pledged to avoid two articles: Bob Dylan and List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Bus stop returned to editing with Fred Bauder as mentor.

On 24 July 2006 I received several petitions for intervention because Bus stop was disrupting the Who is a Jew? article. I full protected that page for a week and left messages for Bus stop and Fred Bauder. Bus stop's reaction was so negative that I opened my decision for review at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive96 and received unanimous support.

Since that time Bus stop has caused additional disruption at several Judaism-related articles and talk pages. This editor attempts to dictate content without supplying references and refuses to compromise. Another administrator has protected the "Jew" article, in part because of Bus stop's disruption.

Recent disruption:
 * Talk:Messianic_Judaism
 * Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews
 * Talk:Jew
 * Ashkenazi Jews
 * Jew
 * Self-hating Jew
 * Proselytism
 * Judaism

Fred Bauder has responded to my query offline and supports banning. I propose a full Judaism topic ban for Bus stop as an alternative to sitebanning. Bus stop would not be welcome to post to talk pages on this subject. Durova Charge! 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for absolute clarification, this also involves banning editing of the article pages? Also note recent activity on the article Atheist Jew here and further action on Messianic Judaism here.John Carter 15:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A topic ban normally applies to article space, yes. They don't always apply to talk space. This would apply there also. Durova Charge! 15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support ban based on above information with regrets that the user seems incapable of keeping himself from this topic, and hope that this problematic behavior doesn't spread to content regarding other religions as well. John Carter 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I am a bulwark against the mild forms of sophisticated antisemitism and anti-Jewish reportage that is prevalent on Wikipedia. Bus stop 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These topics are highly contentious in the best of times. I think we should have a particularly low tolerance for disruption on them, because things escalate and spiral out of control so quickly. I seriously doubt that anti-Semitism will go unchallenged on Wikipedia if Bus stop is banned from these articles, and based on the evidence presented by Durova and the failure to respond to mentorship, a topic ban sounds reasonable and appropriate. MastCell Talk 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support The original CSN that lead to the indefinite ban is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&oldid=140799738#User:Bus_Stop The editor's I'm-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong-and-conspiring-against-me + WP:OR approach to editing has not changed since the last ban when it comes to editing Judaism-related articles, and it hurts consensus-building and discourages/frustrates other editors from contributing.  To avoid ambiguity I think it should be made clear the ban extends to religion-related edits on Jewish people (including those who may/may not have converted to/from Judaism), such as Michael Richards and Bob Dylan.  There's potential for a very good editor in there somewhere, and I really hope one day he appreciates how hard other editors work to build consensus and cite sources and resolve disagreements, and realize his POV doesn't necessarily have to be the only right one...but as is evident from his "Oppose:" statement, his anti-consensus attitude still has not changed even after given a second chance, and there's no reason to believe he'll edit in a different way any time in the near future.  Tendancer 16:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Michael Richards is Jewish, and I don't believe Bus stop's, er, activities on that page related to Jew-y concerns.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True. His activities there seem to be centered on Richards' "He's a nigger" comments, indicating to me that the editor in question deals more with "ethnic" issues than religious ones. Presumably this proposed ban would be for all content relating to Jews as either an ethnic or religious group. With any luck, there will be no need to consider extending the ban to content related to other ethnic or religious groups later. John Carter 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

of genuine, recent disruption.
 * Comment - It should also be noted that his earlier refusal to abide by policy in citing any verifiable sources for his changes to content has continued unchangingly in the above discussions. John Carter 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the pointer to the previous discussion. I was particularly interested in
 * His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" as a reason to revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him.
 * this exactly describes BS's latest efforts in Messianic Judaism. I've not yet decided on whether to vote as I'm not convinced that many of the examples listed at the head of this thread are disruptive. --Peter cohen 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I looked at three or four of the diffs presented as "Recent disruption" (not in order), without perceiving any of them as particularly disruptive. This bothered me and put me off looking at the rest of the diffs, because my time is short. Can someone present a diff for the "nigger" comment referred to above and a few examples of recent, really disruptive behaviour. Thank you. --Dweller 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The diffs Durova presented, IMO, are not, when taken alone, disruptive. However the relentlessness with which he reverts and bickers in an attempt to advance his POV (namely, that "Jewish" is not an ethnicty) in a large number of articles--without backing his ideas up with sources--is perceived by many as a disruptive pattern.  And, lest anyone misunderstand, Bus stop didn't make a "nigger" comment; he (and others, including yours truly) merely squabbled for a very long time about whether to include a particular quote in the Michael Richards article.  It's probably not that relevant here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the Richards issue is not really relevant here. The editor in question, looking at his recent edits, seems to have made roughly 84 edits, counting main and talk page edits, pushing his POV that Jews do not qualify as an ethnic group over the past seven days, on a variety of pages, including others not mentioned above. Considering that these actions are as frequent as they are, as the editor has never that I can see cited a single source other than himself for his edits, and consistently impugns those who disagree with him, I believe his actions can be seen as being unacceptable. John Carter 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: In point of fact, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, I am the only one not pushing a point of view. Nor am I overly concerned with whether Judaism is an ethnicity or not. What I stand for is the full application of language to articulate whatever the issue is at hand. I am opposed to shorthand. I am opposed to terse language that obfuscates. It would be my contention that the many editors who dislike my input have a point of view to push. That point of view involves dissolving the distinction between the Jewish religion and the Christian religion. They dislike my insistence that terse terms be replaced by language used in its full capacity to articulate any given situation.


 * Here is another one for everyone's consideration. This is my most recent edit. It is to Messianic Judaism. Here it is. Check it out. Tell me if it is disruptive, or problematic in some other way: Messianic Judaism Bus stop 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For someone who claims to oppose "terse language that obfuscates", your use of the word "recent" is frankly nonsensical. And your intimation that opposing your edit on the basis of it being "too specific" and "too accurate" is also inherently prejudicial and equally nonsensical, considering the group has existed for about 200 years. It also once again sees you glorifying your own POV. Also, your edit would seem to rule out the possibility of non-religious Jews converting to Messianic Judaism, which is not supported by any sources of which I am aware. I probably could go on. John Carter 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, Bus stop. That isn't a great counterexample.  Replacing "ethnic Jews" with ""recent converts from Judaism" dramatically changes the semantics of that sentence; moreover, it fits along with your pattern (which is perceived as disruptive) of excising references to ethnic Jewishness w/o providing a source for your peculiarly worded reasoning.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is disruptive in that you ignored the discussion in the talk page where you were in a minority of one, the other four of us (consisting, I believe, of a Christian, a Messainic, a mainstream Jew and a "lapsed" Jew) all opposed such a change. Exactly how the other four of us would have a shared interest in "dissolving the distinction between the Jewish religion and the Christian religion" is something I cannot conceive.--Peter cohen 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Support for restrictions short of topic ban Bus stop's disruption seems to stem from his mistaken belief that WP is a venue in which to establish truth, rather than to report what other people have said, and also from a deeply emotional involvement in issues of Jewish identity that prevents him from editing certain articles in an NPOV manner. He tries to make sure articles reflect his ideosyncratic notions (Bob Dylan never really converted to Christianity) and private definitions of words (Jews are not an ethnic group).  Anyone who sees himself as a "bulwark" is asking for trouble in a community that works on consensus.  Nevertheless, a full-topic ban seems more restrictive than necessary to cure the disruption and he sometimes raises valid points.  I would support a ban on article editing and a limit of one post per day on talk pages.  Also, as he seems to be disruptive primarily on issues of Jewish identity specifically, I wonder whether it is possible to craft a narrower ban. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. What exactly is the rationale for banning Bus stop from talk pages as well as articles? I don't believe we normally do this, do we? -- ChrisO 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova could best answer that question, but I presume it has something to do with the fact that much of the allegedly disruptive behavior has occurred on talk pages and the perception that Bus stop often engages in unproductive, long-drawn-out disputes on said talk pages. Banning him from the articles alone would not preclude this behavior.  Personally, I would be sad to see Bus stop banned from any more articles than he already is; but alas, I fear you more experience editors are already doing all you can to positively encourage him to collaborate more fruitfully and within WP guidelines of attribution, etc.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Fat Man Who Never Came Back -- Feel free to rewrite the sentence to suit your semantics. I am not specifically opposed to the assertion of Jews being an ethnicity. But there is a time and a place for that assertion. Point of view pushing is a sophisticated thing. No intelligent writer on Wikipedia pushes a personal agenda in a forthright way. It is always by subterfuge that one begins the erosion of an impediment to one's message. In this case we are talking about the people who comprise the Messianic Judaism movement, are we not? Why must we retreat into the language of "ethnic Jews?" Isn't it equally possible to articulate a full description of all the people involved? Couldn't we say that the movement is composed of recent converts from Judaism, and also Jews who have not yet converted to Christianity, as well as Gentiles? My point is that we should be using language in its full capacity to say exactly what we want to say. Instead we are falling back on terse terms like "ethnic Jews." All that does is cast doubt on the definitional integrity of the word Jew. That is the point of view pushing. That is why they would like to see me banned. I favor opening up language; they favor shutting down language. Bus stop 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: All that this is about, all that this has ever been about, is the full articulation of situations with no holds barred on language, and the constriction of language into incomprehensible or incorrect statements. When it was the Bob Dylan issue, I never objected to any descriptions of his involvement with Christianity. Conversion is a specific term that no source exists for, and a List is a format that asserts factuality. Therefore I have always argued for the description of Dylan's Christian phase in the Bob Dylan article, and the absence of his name from the List of notable converts to Christianity article. It is the same issue. It is the same theme. All of my conflicts with a large group of editors here is that I stand opposed to the compacting of information into language and forms (Lists) that imply things that may not necessarily be true. I am in favor of using language to articulate the limitations to our understanding of some subjects. Bus stop 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The advice of many of this community has been: forget about what may or may "not necessarily be true" and stick with what can be attributed to a reliable source. Maybe if you posted a link to a source espousing the facts as you see them, then someone else could post a reference to a contradictory claim.  Then you'd have a more balanced article and less fighting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources "existed" for the use of the term "conversion"- all the reliable sources used it explicitly, and literally. You, on the other hand, persisted in the inane argument in which you chose to split hairs over terminology and attempted to argue that "his full-blown conversion" was to be read figuratively. In any case, let's not resurrect that issue if at all possible- I don't believe you want to argue for another 70-80 days or so about this whole thing.--C.Logan 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not one source existed asserting that Dylan ever converted to Christianity. The opinion of a biographer is all that supports that contention. That is an opinion. No time, place or witness to any conversion exists. That is for a good reason -- that Dylan never converted. It is the bogus claim of Christians (some) that when a Jew explores Christianity he becomes a Christian. That view can have validity in some quarters, but it doesn't warrant inclusion on a list of converts because a list implies finality of the issue, and the issue is anything but resolved. The Bob Dylan article is a fine place to go into all the details of Dylan's Christian period. But inclusion on a list of converts to Christianity is point of view pushing. Conversion is unsourced. Bus stop 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is not even a scintilla of a source that actually asserts that any conversion process ever transpired for Bob Dylan. This is another example of point of view pushing. I stand opposed to this. That is what the original ban on my editing of the List of notable converts to Christianity article was all about. (And they decided to ban me from the Bob Dylan article too, for some unexplained reason.) Yes, I am difficult for the editors of these articles to deal with. That is a healthy thing for Wikipedia. If they succeed in banning me from more articles there will be yet more unopposed point of view pushing at these and other articles. Bus stop 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is no "fact dispute," The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. The only dispute is about what language should be used. No matter what the article, no matter what the issue, I favor language that is easily understandable, that leaves no room for misunderstanding. That is why I say in the last example that the language should use more words, more commas, and spell out a description of the sorts of people found in the Messianic Judaism movement. The counter-argument is that the term "ethnic Jews" does this quite nicely. No matter whether Jews are an ethnicity or not is not the issue. The insistence on the term ethnic Jews constitutes point of view pushing. In what way does it help the reader to understand the constituents of this movement? All that we have to do is spell out descriptions of sorts of people who comprise the movement. There is a good deal of unclarity in a term such as ethnic Jews. Are they Jews? Why are we dabbling in that issue when we are ostensibly describing the constituents of the Messianic Judaism movement? That is exactly what point of view pushing is. I oppose that. I am in favor of using however much language is called for to simply and unequivocally convey information. I hate the choosing of language to advance a personal agenda. Bus stop 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite, as indicated above, having chosen language to advance your own personal agenda, that Jews should not be counted as an ethnic group, yourself? John Carter 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page issue: my reasoning for proposing a prohibition from talk pages is that this editor essentially uses them for soapboxing, which distracts attention from article-building discussions. This editor returned from a siteban and accepted a two article ban, only to initiate a very similar pattern of disruption at another article until it had to be full protected. When I posted polite cautions this editor blanked them with spurious claims of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, then embarked upon the same disruption at several other articles. That looks to me like gaming the system.

Although I'm not absolutely opposed to some one-talk-page-post-a-day solution if that's what other editors prefer, this editor's pattern of behavior leads me to suspect he or she would comply in a manner that subverts the opportunity, such as posting once a day to each of a large number of talk pages. There are better ways to spend time than check up on someone to that extent and then craft yet another topic ban. So if someone has a counterproposal that's immune to gaming I'm all ears. Durova Charge! 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That possibility of one post per day on multiple pages seems, at least to me, to have been already to an extent realized. And I assume it would really difficult to devise the system such that Bus stop can't continue to abuse the system in that way. Having said that, if the ban were only to article and article talk pages, I presume Bus stop could still contact whatever WikiProjects in wikipedia space were relevant to a given article, and make his opinions known there, as well as propose any changes s/he might wish to make. That may not actually solve the problem, unless he could be banned from mainspace and talk pages relating to Judaism, and allowed only one post per day on the relevant WikiProject pages? Could that be done? Also, I would be very gratified if we could see the user's adopter, who also happens to be one of our most respected editors, weigh in here. John Carter 18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how about a limit of one post (defined as one edit: no going back and editing his previous posts) to any Judaism-related talk page. I have to say that I understand your frustration in dealing with him though. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to set up the system so that it could limit him to only one post per day for Judaism-articles as a whole, or just one post per day to any specific individual page? I honestly don't know what the capabilities of the system are here, but wouldn't mind seeing the former possibility enacted if it were possible. John Carter 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (to John Carter) I contacted Fred Bauder with the same set of links and diffs last night and received the go-ahead from him before I opened this thread. There's already been community consensus for a full siteban on Bus stop so I view this proposal as one last ditch attempt to retain this person as an editor.  If he or she tries to circumvent a second article/topic ban I'm prepared to use the banhammer.
 * And OberDicta, please define the margins of your proposal. One post per day to any Judaism-related topic?  That gets a thumbs down from me.
 * And John Carter, that sort of thing isn't enforceable by technical means. Someone has to check up on the editor.  Durova Charge! 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not in any way doubt your word, and note that you had said as much earlier. I was just stating a belief that I would like to see whatever statement he might like to make, given his almost unmatched reputation as a fair and objective party, and my apologies if it were seen as anything else. No criticism of you or anyone else is consciously implied or expressed in that statement, but I couldn't think of any other way to say it. And, if the proposal would need the subject to be under constant oversight, then I guess I have no reservations to the subject ban. Thank you for the information. John Carter 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; I didn't read that as a criticism. Cheers,  Durova Charge! 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova&mdash; Arghhhh I seem to have trouble expressing myself today. I meant to say one post per day total for him on all of the Judaism talk pages, not one post per page.  Is that clearer? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you seriously object to the topic ban as I've proposed it? I left the door open to this editor as an act of good faith, but really it would have saved all of our time to have just imposed the full siteban and walked away.  This becomes a time management issue at some point and it's burdensome to follow up on one difficult user to the extent that your suggestion would entail.  If you're willing to put forth that effort yourself and contact me with diffs if troubles arise, I'll back your idea.  I just caution to be on the lookout for actions that subvert the spirit of the agreement.  Durova Charge! 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't seriously object to the topic ban. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and he's been given his share of second chances.  I'm on from time-to-time throughout the day as a necessary distraction at work (even though recently I seem to be doing more reading than actual editing) so I could check on his contrib logs.  He seems to have complied with his promise to stay away from Dylan-related edits, so I would anticipate he would do the same here.  I briefly interacted with him on the Dylan thing.  He doesn't seem to be editing in bad faith, he just has MPOV problems and a hard time maintaining perspective on issues and articles related to Jewish identity.  I fully agree he should not be editing articles on this topic.  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear, are you accepting my proposal that the topic ban include talk pages or making a counterproposal of a one-post-per-day limit, per talk page, with a pledge to monitor those contributions? It's not so much violation as subversion of the spirit of the thing that concerns me.  That requires fairly careful follow-up.  Durova Charge! 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't object to your proposal and I understand why an overwhelming consensus is forming for it. I had just been thinking that the limit to one post a day (which I would prefer be for the whole of the Judaism article talk pages and not just one page) would solve the disruption concerns.  If that solution is ultimately adopted, I would monitor his contributions and I'm sure other editors would as well. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Although, given the way this thread is going, it may be better to simply encourage him to more on to other topics... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. This issue cannot be understood without examining the context of Bus stop's long history of disruptive editing that led to the earlier indefinite banning. Considered alone, Bus stop's recent campaign to excise references to Jews as an ethnicity may just seem misguided and quarrelsome. However, this is just a continuation of the type of chronically tenditious editing that got him banned, and against which he has been warned repeatedly. Now, as then, Bus stop insists on editing articles so that they conform with his own view on the issue, nevermind what the reliable sources say. Now, as then, he insists on making edits that are not supported by consensus. Durova, the banning admin, was kind enough to offer Bus stop to continue editing under certain conditions. Bus stop has violated the spirit, if not the letter, of those conditions by pushing his own POV in several articles concerning Jewish identity, regardless of what consensus and reliable sources have to say on the matter. Fred Bauder was kind enough to offer to adopt Bus stop so that he could be unbanned. It is signficant that even his adopter believes a rebanning of Bus stop is now in order. That Bus stop has chosen not to heed the warnings of the banning admin further indicates that Bus stop's attitude and methods have changed little, if any, since he was banned. To prevent all of these Judaism-related articles from going any further down the long path of dispute through which the Bob Dylan and Christian convert articles went, a topic-wide ban (including on talk pages) is in order. Nick Graves 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. User:Bus stop has already wasted a number of editors' time with his behavior (his talk page is excellent documentation of that). A topic ban is definitely called for, though I expect to read of him being indefinitely blocked again in the near future, judging by his demonstrated inability to comprehend any viewpoint but his own.  Sxeptomaniac 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: There's too much Christian antisemitism on Wikipedia. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Some of you are promoters of Christian antisemitism on Wikipedia. All of you want to suppress a voice that opposes Christian antisemitism on Wikipedia. There is an infinite variety of language to express anything. But you are all obsessed with choosing the language that will promote your personal point of view, which is often antisemitic. Certainly you can have your Wikipedia. I am not an administrator. All you do is demean Wikipedia, but you all have overriding concerns, and long term concerns for the dignity of the enterprise are not being considered. Bus stop 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, are you seriously accusing the editors at this thread of religious bigotry? Durova Charge! 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're singing the same old tune. Could you elaborate as to how your current vendetta against the term "ethnic _____" is in combat with "Christian antisemitism"? It seems that you're more content with digging anywhere possible until you can find a cause for which you can "come to the rescue" with a distinct sense of self-righteousness. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's already been explained to you that many of the individuals who have opposed your recent changes concerning "ethnicity" have been Jews. If that is the case, I find it unusual that they wouldn't join your crusade if the terms you have such a problem with were actually, really "antisemitic".--C.Logan 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- We are not concerned with the identities of the editors. For all we care, they could be from Mars, and believe the universe was created by Google. It will be appreciated if you will please keep your comments confined to that which is relevant. By the way, you haven't the foggiest idea what my religious affiliation is, or if I have any religious affiliation at all. Bus stop 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Bus stop, I ask you to strikethrough your comment about Christian antisemitism. You no more know the affiliations of the other editors here than we know yours, much less what biases any of us my have.  Assume good faith is policy.  Durova Charge! 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Does User:Durova understand that there is more than one vantage point from which to view these issues? My overriding point is that language should be crafted for these articles, if these articles should be allowed to exist at all, that states what is known, and doesn't employ language to surreptitiously advance a pet cause. Does User:Durova understand that there are a multiplicity of points from which to view the contested issues in these articles, and that the resident editors should be a little less pigheaded in their insistence that there is only one set of language with which to convey information? Bus stop 00:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: These articles don't exist for the readers, primarily. They exist for the editors, primarily. The articles we are talking about exist as a filthy backwater of Wikipedia. I don't think many readers come to such articles for information. I use Wikipedia a lot. One can't help use Wikipedia. If you look something up on Google the first hit you get is the Wikipedia article in many cases. That is a good thing, and as a user of Wikipedia I appreciate it. But these articles and lists are a disgrace. If these articles were all that Wikipedia were about there would not be any Wikipedia phenomenon. These articles are anything but encyclopedic. These articles are playgrounds for obsessive-compulsives. Private visions are promoted in these articles. Oversight is unwelcome at these articles. Fresh input from people of diverse backgrounds is unwelcome. These articles are for the private enjoyment of the editors that write them. Bus stop 21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This is a grossly inappropriate effort to limit the contributions by an editor who opposes the POV of another group of editors.  Please revisit WP:DR.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you certain of that? A previous siteban discussion received consensus approval on the basis that this editor refuses to abide by WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OWN, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  The other editors have bent over backwards to be accommodating - this is a classic example of the circumstances outlined at the Disruptive editing guideline.  Dispute resolution is fruitless when one party sets himself or herself above fundamental policies and declares all opposition to be rooted in bigotry.  Durova Charge! 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom's comment is incredibly unfair, especially to Durova, who came up with a solution to allow him to edit after the community decided to siteban him. Look at his talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Support topic ban for one year, + 90 day probation - If he is still here in a year, he very likely will have matured into a good editor. If he can maintain impulse self control for a few months, all restrictions should be lifted. - Crockspot 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Impulse control. Try defining your terms. Bus stop 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: By the way, the citizens of Germany, and Poland, exercised good impulse control when the Jews were led off to the ovens of the concentration camps. Bus stop 01:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not being stuffed into an oven, or made to stand all night in the snow stripped naked. You have qualities that are worth keeping around. But you are also disruptive. My suggestion offers a way for you to learn and grow, and regain your freedom to edit any topic you wish. It's all in your own hands. But comparing this to shoah is not productive. - Crockspot 02:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: I support any action against this editor after seeing his aggressive edits at Bob Dylan and List of notable people who converted to Christianity. For these two topics I was approached for help by user C Logan so a number of people were having difficulties with him. This is a disruptive editor judging by their block log and a large number of unblock requests on their talk page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support It seems to be a question of whether we allow someone to ignore consensus or not. The answer is obvious. Moses Weintraub 10:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A not-too-bold solution: reapply the previous consensus siteban
I've indefblocked Bus stop per the previous siteban thread for actions cited at the outset of this discussion plus repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at this thread. Throw in Godwin's law. Whatever this user might add to the field of visual arts is more than counteracted by disruption to other areas. Volunteer time is finite and this editor barely deigned to accept mentorship when a member of the arbitration committee extended an unsolicited offer. This person has had more chances than anyone deserves. Time to wrap up and move on. Durova Charge! 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've full protected the editor's user space for some choice words that remain available through the history file, and I've made the editor aware that any future appeals of the ban can be made via e-mail to another sysop or an arbitration clerk. Durova Charge! 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sad to say, but this seems about the only solution possible now. Someone who responds to a final chance with the kind of diatribes seen above is not here to write and encyclopedia.  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you made the right call. "Choice words" is an understatement. - Crockspot 03:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully support this reinstatement of the indefinite siteban, as Bus stop did not abide by the conditions of the unbanning (that is, he was not receptive to mentorship by his adopter). Nick Graves 04:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the ban as it stands, and would like to offer my meaningless apologies to Durova for the comments that have been removed from the now-banned user's talk page. Considering how Durova went out of his way to create the situation wherein the editor in question was allowed to be reinstated after the previous discussion, he deserves much better treatment than he has received, and has my thanks for the efforts he has made to be more than symphatethic to date. John Carter 16:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, John, but just for clarity I'm a she. ;) Durova Charge! 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I assumed the name was taken out of respect for the person, and made the apparently stupid mistake that it was a male editor showing respect for the female. I beg your pardon in this matter. After running around with the sundry weird critters of Barsoom, I kinda forgot how things work on this planet. John Carter 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Russian_names--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not Russian though, just happen to respect a lady who was. Durova Charge! 13:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the reinstated ban. I've come to know Bus stop exclusively through several frivolous unblock requests related to blocks for disruptive editing about whether or not Bob Dylan converted to Judaism, or something. Quite a waste of time, all this. And now it seems the disruption continues. Sandstein 09:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: It happened a little sooner than I expected, but it's pretty much what I predicted.  His tendency to accuse editors of antisemitism, then claim that he didn't when confronted with it, was getting old fast. Sxeptomaniac 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Pfagerburg is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Kebron is banned from Wikipedia for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)