Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive5

Community ban on User:SndrAndrss
Ban enacted. Navou banter  / contribs  00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Original post copied from ANI:


 * Okay, the backstory of this case will not be easy to explain, but I will make a try. is a problematic user in many ways, but he also makes some useful contributions, which makes this case a little more difficult than other similar ones. To cite my first report to ANI from late last year, "[SndrAndrss] has a history of not wanting to answer messages left as the user's talk page (or he is just not understanding that messages there are directed to him), even though this has been pointed out to him on several occations (see his talk page)."


 * This has lead to several conflicts, mainly on a wide variety of templates where he has added parameters or changed the looks of the template without any consensus whatsoever, or has made incomprehensible edits (such as changing svg images to png, or removing borders around flags). After trying to initiate a discussion with him (either on the talk page of the template or on his user page), nothing happens, and a week later or so, he makes the same edit over again. A few examples of this behaviour:


 * As noted in my first incident report, I blocked him 48 hours for disruption on 6 December last year, and everyone that reviewed it agreed that it was justified. I had of course hoped that the short block would be a wake-up call for SndrAndrss to start communicating, but was I wrong. Only five days later, User:Morwen blocked him for a week for the same disrupting behaviour, and reported it on ANI. Of course, a longer block didn't help either.


 * And as soon as he returned from the block, he had the same behaviour as before, and I blocked him for another week on 19 December. This time something actually happened. He promised to start communicating, and I assumed good faith, and unblocked him. Of course nothing happened. He made som half-hearted attempts at communicating at various talk pages, but never answered any replies he got.


 * I wasn't very active in January, so I didn't keep an eye on him during that time, but when I returned, there were no signs of improvement. He was as disrupting as before, combining a few good edits with the undiscussed template edits or page moves. So, I blocked him for two weeks on 18 February this year. This time, it was discovered that he created new accounts to evade the block. In the middle of all this, he asked to be unblocked, a request that was of course declined.


 * Since the first of his sockpuppet accounts were blocked, he started editing anonymously which was confirmed in a request for checkuser. All discovered accounts and IPs were blocked, but new ones keep showing up. They can be quite easily detected though, either as a variation on the form SndrAndrss##, or as IPs in the 88.88.xxx.xxx range. They are found by checking the waterholes, he almost exclusively edits articles related to football, the Olympics, skiing and rally. Sockpuppets and IPs include:






 * His latest two week block has been restarted twice now as he has kept trying to evade it. I've run out of options now because I am not in the mood to play this game forever. Communication with SndrAndrss has failed, blocking him has failed, and I sincerely doubt that an RFC or RFAR will do any good since he would probably not discuss or read anything there. What to do next? Since I've not seen a single user that thinks I've gone on too hard, more like the opposite, I find it unthinkable to just let him go and revert whatever he does that is not good. And indefblocking him would just lead to more sockpuppet accounts and a just as hard time finding and blocking them.

End copy original post

Three editors expressed support for a community ban and I was adviced to post here. I reluctantly request a community ban on him, as SndrAndrss has a few good traits, but it seems impossible to make him change all bad habits he has. If you oppose this, please give an option on how to solve the problem with him. – Elisson • T • C • 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:BAN: Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on the Community noticeboard as part of the review process. That is, block him and report here. Consensus for ban is already established on ANI. Max S em 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a reexamination of that language because it appears to have been revised without appropriate support or discussion. The consensus at WP:DE was to discuss before banning.  Two recently banned editors have raised that issue at WP:RFAR because it effectively prevented them from making a defense.  Durova Charge! 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, the block log looks substantial. Have any dispute resolution options been tried?  Durova Charge! 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not just follow dispute resolution?  I'm not hearing many community members speak out on this one.... 71.112.7.212 08:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * SndrAndrss won't/can't communicate with other users. Check his talk page for proof of this. Thus all forms of dispute resolution will end up in nothing. – Elisson • T • C • 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur that meaningful communication doesn't really happen. Some form of dispute resolution has been tried however, because I attempted to mediate this case for MedCab, which didn't really go anywhere. Addhoc 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support in light of the MedCab attempt: DR has been attempted. Refusal to participate should not constute a license for continued disruption.  Durova Charge! 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support ban per my original ANI post. Sandstein 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support ban per above. Addhoc 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * support I think I recall some other case with a person who had a dysfunction that made him unable to comprehend what he was doing here, I wonder if SndrAndrss has a similar dysfunction. In such a case, I wonder if some sort of authority is to be contacted. → Aza Toth 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I really doubt that would be appropriate. Unless the decision is clear and uncontroversial (I once contacted the police regarding a suicide note) the editor's possible problems are out of our ball park, and it seems counterproductive to venture that sort of speculation.  We're only an encyclopedia.  Durova Charge! 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AzaToth, you might be referring to the user Sheynhertz-Unbayg? Following severe communication problems, he was blocked in the end and now has a WikiProject dedicating to cleaning up after him. I whole-heartedly agree with Durova. Punkmorten 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Refusal to engage in discussion. Refusal to participate in DR. Repeated sockpuppet abuse. Repeated failure to learn from bans. He may make some good edits, but that cannot be use to excuse the disruptive behaviour. Vassyana 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Good edits not near worth the trouble. IronDuke  20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, particularly difficult to cooperate with. Not only has he has failed to discuss, but instead of this he has made disruptive page moves. The fact that another user appeared on 15 March doesn't exactly help. Punkmorten 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears we have unanimous consensus for a community ban by a reasonable number of editors commenting over the course of several days. I've gone ahead and enacted the ban. Sandstein 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Smallbones is banned indefinitely from editing articles that relate to Robert Prechter, including talk pages. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated community ban language at WP:BAN

 * Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Banning policy.

Community Ban on Verdict
Banned Navou banter  / contribs  00:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

was initially blocked by. He was created at least 70 abusive sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Verdict). User continues to abusively upload and use fair-use images in violation of WP:FU. User continues to make disputed edits to a number of Wikipedia articles such as Dave Bautista, Brock Lesnar, Franklin Lashley, etc. User requested a block review on unblock-en-l and the unblock was declined at that time. User has requested numerous unblocks using the unblock template, all of which have been declined. User has expressed a desire that I die, and has promised to continue creating abusive sockpuppets for the next 4 years. Please see Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. User often falsely claims to be a different person (see also User:Greatkhali). Blocked by a number of different administrators (partial list available on User talk:Haron181).

I would like to move for an official community ban. I believe this is effectively already in place given the unblock-en-l decline, the numerous blocks by independent admins, and the numerous unblock request declines, but I'd prefer this be made official. --Yamla 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This user is now attempting to impersonate other users.  and  both in reference to the productive editor, .  --Yamla 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Support Reading the Checkuser results and various bits and pieces available about Verdict's activities.. this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Under no circumstances should he be allowed back. SirFozzie 18:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I support a community ban, because the user expressed a wish that Yamla die. I really have no sympathy for that sort of action.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Wilful violation of copyright policy places the entire project in legal jeopardy, plus the user is clearly a low-life and no loss at  all.  Guy (Help!) 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. That sock category alone is quite enough. Sandstein 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Agree the sockpuppetry exceeds all good faith interpretation.  Although I'm no lawyer, common sense tells me to guard the site's potential liability conservatively and a formal ban could be one way to accomplish that.  This isn't advice to anyone else (since I'm not qualified to venture legal advice or opinions), just a candid description of my own thoughts here.  Clearly this editor refuses to conform to site standards.  Durova Charge! 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban - per non-stop sockpuppetry. This user has clearly no intention of playing by the rules: ergo, we can't let them play at all. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - He's still making sockpuppets. PTO 12:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban - per non-stop sockpuppetry, copyvios and continuously making bad edits in general and becoming difficult when they are reverted. Not to mention his wish that Yamla die, his abuse of the unblock template, and his persistent lies that he is another person when discovered under another sock. Clearly has no intention of being a good contributor here on Wikipedia. B mg 9 1 6  Speak to Me 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - this disruption has gotta stop. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm getting a bit fed up with all the trouble caused by him, most of all the death threat he made. The guy also likes to make copyvio uploads, which is pretty much a problem now that's he's at Commons as well. --  oakster    TALK   17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold up, a death threat? Community consensus isn't needed to indef block for a death threat.  Please post the relevant diff.  Durova Charge! 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe here it is mentioned that the threat came over e-mail, not on-wiki. Bitnine 22:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. An obvious case in which community banning is appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse and close - Based on the information provided, as well as community consensus. I will not only endorse this ban, but close this as resolved. Death threats as well as disurption at this level is not tolorable. I recommend reporting this user to his/her internet service provider as well. --w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And how will this stop verdict from just making another sock? Just Heditor review 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It won't. However, it WILL make it easier to deal with the consequences of his sockpuppetry (immediate indefs for all socks, immediate rollback for all content added, etc.). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request discussion to ban Metros from Cumberland, Maryland Project
Not sure what this is, I'm not seeing this going anywhere. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC) <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.

from Cumberland, Maryland He just keeps vandalizing the discussion page and the main article. He's not even really involved with the project on this page...he's just hording the discussion page using his sock puppets and pester the people who are really working on it. I tried to take a vote on this topic on the discussion page of cumberland, maryland but he keeps deleting it. I don't see what he has to fear if he's innocent. I say let people vote if they think he's being an unfair pest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.199.187 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
 * To anyone reviewing this situation, see this edit for what's going on here. Metros232 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the history my user discussion page where he vandelized our discussion and didn't allow me to even have a accurate record of my discussion... this is exactly the crooked behavior that is typical of him... place assign a different admin to watch this page who is honest. thank you (talk)


 * I took a look at the history, and apparently it is you who has been violating policy, including WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and possibly even WP:NPA. May I suggest that you tone down your posts instead of propagating an "us vs. them" mentality that frankly hurts you more than it helps. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No previous userblocks on Metros232, no evidence of dispute resolution attempts.  Even if this were a problem editor a topic ban would be very premature.  Durova Charge! 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to oppose, because there was nothing to support anyway. Obviously, the IP was trolling. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is funny. Accusation of vandalism for edits he doesn't agree with, complaining about all the bad behavior he's done himself, with a random accusation of sockpuppetry thrown in. Looks like the standard symptoms of someone who is wrong but thinks everyone else is wrong instead. -Amarkov moo! 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but...I've blocked the IP address for 72 hours because the user went and made the same exact disruptive edits to Talk:Cumberland, Maryland again despite the final warnings and this discussion. Metros232 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Certified.Gangsta
In the course of researching an RFC on I came across far more bad behavior than I expected. At this point I'm thinking there is no need to waste any more time and we can go straight to a community ban. Please review the RFC case I linked to above. --Ideogram 07:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see this thread on AN/I. --Ideogram 07:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this may be premature at this time. I can appreciate the scope of CG's revert warring, but the RfC is still very new.  Give the process a little time to work.  If many outside users make statements saying that CG has exhausted their patience, it will make the case for a community ban that much stronger.  However, we should leave the discussion here open at the same time, as this will draw attention to the RfC and encourage people to give their viewpoint.  I'm sorry if this seems like an approach with no teeth, I just prefer to work within process when possible.  Harsher steps can still be taken in a week.--Danaman5 08:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

BhaiSaab and His_excellency
<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.

It appears there were no objections to the motion to close. User: (talk • contribs) ban is reset 1 year, User: (talk • contribs) ban is reset 6 months. The banning administrators are asked to log actions executed at applicable locations to include the list of community bans and and applicable ArbCom enforcement logs. v/r <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * moved from WP:AN/I
 * moved from WP:AN/I
 * moved from WP:AN/I

They've been evading their bans again using their IP range. See User:72.88.162.57 and the associated links. I think we might as well community ban them, since they clearly are just going to do whatever they like to promote their agenda. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Point of order: The original Arbcom ban on His excellency appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is not violating any current ban, unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A phrase containing the words "door" and "don't let" comes to mind immediately. - Merzbow 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who have had enough with both, I support the ban. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly endorse a community ban on these guys (see Requests for checkuser/Case/BhaiSaab, Requests for checkuser/Case/MinaretDk). Rama's arrow  14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What do those results have to do with BhaiSaab? 72.88.159.80 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen can't figure out which one it is so he figures he might as well ax both. Typical. 72.88.159.80 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Rama's arrow  16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You read English perfectly well. What's so confusing?
 * What? Rama's arrow  16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am assuming good faith naïvely but having known "both" of the editors being discussed here and having known their editing/communicating patterns and having reviewed how this anon has addressed themself to others I would estimate that he is User:His excellency and not User:BhaiSaab. I never saw User:BhaiSaab express himself with the same level of incivility that HE does so unless it is one person who's rather adept at playing Doctor Jekyl and Mister Hyde I see two separate individuals at play here. This anon strikes me more as HE than BhaiSaab. 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know HE, but I did know BhaiSaab, and his edits were characterised by edit warring, canvassing, arguing and obsessing over other people's Jewishness, but NEVER incivility. I'll give him that much. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have far less experience with BhaiSaab; I don't recall him being as bad as H.E., and offhand it seems a lot of the issues with BhaiSaab had to do with his interaction with Hkelkar; the two got along like matter and anti-matter. If BhaiSaab is indeed conclusively puppeting, then sure, deep-6 him, but otherwise, perhaps another chance is in order. - Merzbow 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for community bans used to go on WP:ANI but now go on the Community noticeboard per policy. The idea of the change is that bans are not a matter for admins specifically but for as broad a section of the community as possible. Please move this proposal there. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I never met BhaiSaab, but I do know His_excellency. He's probably the worst personal attacker ever allowed to edit Wikipedia, and has attacked nearly every ethnic and religious group on earth at one point or another. I say allowed because he's already been indefinitely banned twice by Tom Harrison and Jeffrey O. Gustafson, then blocked for a year by Tawker, but each time was unblocked by Bishonen or by someone she'd asked to unblock him. Then Bishonen helped him in his arbitration case. For this, some arbitrators wanted to "commend" her. His_excellency was supposed to be banned for a year, but some arbitrators said this was too long, so made it only four months. He got another two months for making more attacks on Jews during the case. Since his ban, he's returned with a bunch of sock puppets to attack Hindus as "cow-worshipers" and "dung-eaters," and now I guess to stalk people and harass them. I wonder if the people who helped him stay around are still proud of what they did. His_excellency should definitely be banned indefinitely.HEWatch 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We're an encyclopedia, not an insane asylum. These fools have caused substantial disruption to decent, hard-working editors, which is quite frankly, intolerable. Why should someone wanting to learn/teach have to tolerate personal, vitriolic abuse? We have no obligation to anyone not interested in building an encyclopedia - they should be shown the door w/o the slightest hesitation. Rama's arrow  19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Timothy, why don't you come out from behind the sockpuppet you are utilizing so that others can fully appreciate the context in which you are making such commentary? It is highly evident this is you given the virtually identical rhetoric you've used before relative to HE. While never excusing HE's incivility and attacks I will say that he seemed fairly even keeled about denigrating ethnic groups including Muslims who he tends to support in his editing. Although I could be entirely wrong about it, I've had the impression that his main objective was to get a riser out of people much as trolls tend to do. Not so much that he genuinely felt what he was saying but for the sake of the drama it caused. Regardless of his motives such behavior is disruptive and my exculpatory explanation is not made to discount that. If this IP is indeed HE then his continued disruption is inexcusable. My only thought is that he is acting out in the way that he is given a rather unwelcoming environment for Muslims there currently exists to a large degree on Wikipedia. There are a group of editors who are doing their best to utilize Wikipedia as a soapbox to turn Islamic articles into indictments against Islam in a very SOAPBOXing manner which is equally unacceptable. I'm not sure what benefit community banning HE is going to achieve... if he's going to want to continue to be disruptive as he appears to be doing with IPs then how's a community ban going to alleviate such nonsense? I would argue that the editing manner of the group of editors who HE appears to be "fighting" against should be looked at equally and possible preventative measures enacted to reduce or outright negate such equally disruptive soapboxery.  19:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this "reason for being" (User:HEWatch) bothers me. A lot. This is not what we are here for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked HEWatch indefinitely and stricken through his comment. Creating a separate account specifically to attack another user is absolutely not what we are here for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the reason for the use of the separate account is simply that Timothy registered an account in his real name, and was therefore left vulnerable to His excellency's attacks on him showing up in Google searches. His excellency chose a username, and therefore has some kind of protection that Timothy doesn't have. Timothy has also never engaged in the kind of really vile attacks that His excellency engaged in. This should not be seen as a normal case of sockpuppetry. Unlike His excellency, he hasnt't created socks for ban-evasion purposes: he hasn't been banned. Nor has he created socks for multiple reverts or votes. Whether we agree with his posts or not, we should at least sympathize with his wish not to edit from an account that is linked to his real name, and that will make him more visible to Google. Also, since HE is banned, everything he posts should be removed on sight, and in particular, posts that attack another user by his real name should be instantly removed. Musical Linguist 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Except the original Arbcom ban on His excellency appears to have expired on 3 March 2007, which negates the "HE is banned" premise. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A singularly unhelpful comment if I ever saw one, Timothy (if that's really you). The process worked, the process is working, the community as a whole handled this correctly in the end. - Merzbow 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitary section break 1
That is a remarkably instructive example of what is called unaccaptable, intolerable, and inexcusable and what is in fact accepted, tolerated, and excused. His excellency is under an arbcom ban. At the very least his ban should be restarted. If it is, this will be the third time. Since we can now not reasonably believe His excellency will stop his well-established pattern of racial and religious abuse, and will not respect the arbcom remedy, I support indefinitely banning him. Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Point of order: The original Arbcom ban on His excellency appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is not violating any current ban, unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since these two guys edit regularly anyway, the indefinite ban will at least spare the community the trouble of resetting the block every time. Beit Or 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Timothy can reincarnate as User:Bishonenwatch next time. I don't know BhaiSaab, but I'm pretty familiar with HE's writing style and those IP edits in question don't sound anything like HE to me. They're mainly reverts—HE didn't use to do that. The English is poorer and the general approach simpler and less intellectual than HE's. And I note the spelling "Muhammed" — I'm pretty sure HE used to spell it "Muhammad". Bishonen | talk 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Endorse a ban on these two users, BhaiSaab especially since he is a stalker. Baka man  00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This thread is confusing to an editor who doesn't know the history (namely me). Would someone explain the background on situation with some diffs? So far I don't see much more than a couple of checkuser results and most of the commentary builds upon previous conversations that haven't been linked from this discussion. Durova Charge! 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There was an arbitration for "Hkelkar" (BhaiSaab's nemesis) and "His excellency", I do not have the link off the top of my head. Baka man  01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It was RfArb/HKelkar. HKelkar has also taken to creating throwaway accounts, apparently. For background, I urge everone to read through the RfArb, as it details the reason that India- related politics and culture pages are, quite simply, possibly the worst group of offenders on WP against NPOV and ATT. Some editors were banned, some were not even considered by Arbcom and continue to be editors in 'good standing'. Hornplease 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, what exactly is the need for this discussion? If two editors are already banned on their main accounts then no new consensus is needed to ban the sockpuppets.  We don't issue indef blocks on IP addresses, let alone IP ranges, so the usual solution is whack-a-mole on new registered accounts and soft rangeblocks of brief duration on the IP ranges.  We just keep at it until the disruptors get tired and go elsewhere.  Several editors I know and respect have contributed to this thread, which makes me suspect there's some valid point I don't understand yet.  Am I missing something?  Durova Charge! 02:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The two editors are under ArbCom bans, but not community bans. I think that is the issue. With the former, they can just wait out the bans and will automatically return (assuming they acquire no more resets); with the latter, they have are banned until the community decides to let them back in. Given the length of the ArbCom bans and their eagerness to keep resetting them, at this point this would be mostly symbolic, but a symbolic stand against this sort of nonsense is nonetheless important. - Merzbow 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Point of order: The original Arbcom ban on His excellency appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is not violating any current ban, unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse community ban on both editors per the above discussion. To the best of my knowledge, no editor has actually waited out a yearlong ArbCom ban (they all seem to keep resetting it), yet I suppose it would be peace of mind for some diligent editors to know that these particular people would need to petition to have their editing privileges restored. Durova Charge! 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to neutral. Further discussion leads me to conclude there's more here than meets the eye and none of it has been explained to my satisfaction.  Durova Charge! 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can think of a few, among them and .  Not an endorsement of any kind, just a correction. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let them come and defend themselves against accusations. Sa.vakilian(t-c) --13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If they're blocked, and constantly resetting an ArbCom ban by creating sockpuppets, then there is no defense. They've shown that they're not going to abide by their penalties, and therefore, they're gone. SirFozzie 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the factual correction. At the moment I don't think there's much chance of them sitting out the ArbCom ban successfully, yet we might as well relieve the hardworking editors who've stayed on top of this matter of that worry.  It doesn't look like either of these people have learned from the ArbCom decision.  Durova Charge! 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * His excellency's Arbcom ban appears to have expired on 3 March 2007. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have just reverted comments from an abusive sockpuppet of. If this sockpuppeteer wants to comment here, as he is probably entitled to do, this must happen through the parent account. If the parent account is currently blocked but not banned, the user should request an unblock solely for the purposes of commenting here. --Yamla 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the ArbCom ruling was final, thus when this discussion was begun, there was no obligation to allow His excellency to comment. His excellency got his chance to do so before ArbCom - this discussion is purely for the community to judge. Plus, both HE and BhaiSaab, as per this discussion, have been perma-banned. Rama's arrow  22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * His excellency's ban was just for six months, but if he keeps using socks he will make it de facto indefinite. I blocked another,, yesterday. Tom Harrison Talk 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Yamla I'd prefer that His excellency posted comments to the account's own user talk page. It's already linked from the top of this thread.  Durova Charge! 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know these two users are different people. I do not agree with User:Rama's Arrow's indefinite blocking of User:BhaiSaab. I think that WP:COI very much applies here as User:Rama's Arrow certainly tangled with BhaiSaab prior to his decision to impose this community ban. This unfairness shows itself when User:Hkelkar had his block reset five times while User:BhaiSaab had his reset three times. Why is User:BhaiSaab being made to pay for the disruption of another editor? There was never conclusive checkuser proof that they were one and the same and given my experience with the two I am confident they are not the same people. Even User:Tom harrison agrees that they are not the same person.  21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm confused again. I had thought this thread was about reinforcing two ArbCom bans with indefinite community bans.  Now, from what I'm hearing, that explanation presumes an unstated sockpuppetry charge that CheckUser ruled was uncertain.  Well that's a very different matter.  Is that the whole story?  If it is, then show me a good circumstantial case from a sockpuppet investigation and back it up with complete logic and diffs.  I'll strikethrough my endorsement unless I get a solid explanation of what the community is being asked to determine and substantial evidence to back it up.  WP:AGF suggests I should strikethrough my opinion now, but I'll wait a bit for clarification.  I hope it comes soon.  Durova Charge! 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I'm a little confused as well. Perhaps this entire discussion needs refactored. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss the two users separately. I think there is clear consensus for an H.E. community ban - even discounting the CheckUser results some of his sockpuppets are clearly identifiable just by language, and display the same sort of incivility he was banned for. As for BhaiSaab, who I agree is a different person, I am open to giving him another chance if he waits out his ArbCom ban without socking (but only if); but my opinion on him carries less weight because I'm not as familiar with him (although our one shared editing experience turned out reasonably positive). - Merzbow 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think each contributer deserves their own position on this topic. The way it looks now, it seems that we are banning them collectively, when we should focus on each of their own. If both of them are disrupting on the same side, then we could easily ban the both of them as meatpuppetry. If it's an edit conflict gone wrong, then let's look at how much each person has disrupted. It seems that H.E. is off the brink of a ban based on his recent activity, but I'm not sure about BhaiSaab. Overall, if these two editors are giving unrelated contributers a hard time one way or another, then that is what a Community ban is for. --<font color="#cc0000">w <font color="#00cc00">L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can offer no opinion or information on BhaiSaab, but His excellency edited on 13:40, 18 March 2007 as User:Elevatordown. His user page, User:His excellency, links to his other puppet accounts. Requests for arbitration/His excellency is the arb case. To me it is straightforward: a banned editor uses sockpuppets to evade the ban, and continues his well-established pattern of attacks. The ban gets reset; he does it again until it becomes clear that he will not respect the arbcom remedy, and he gets an indefinite ban. Tom Harrison Talk 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not "evading a ban" if the ban has already expired. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am most offended at Netscott's comments - why assume that I acted in a biased manner? I don't think I have never interacted with BhaiSaab or His excellency, certainly not about anything that the RfAr was about. At the same time, he is basically saying that BhaiSaab should not be blocked becoz he had 3 ban resets in comparison to Hkelkar's 5. Should we allow him an opportunity to disrupt WP 2 more times? Do we wait until his sock makes a comment insulting someone's parents (as suggested that BS's comments are not as offensive as HS)? Is that vitriolic enough? Who is measuring exactly how offensive BS's violations are? BhaiSaab has been socking thru accounts as well as IPs. Multiple violations of an ArbCom ruling, compounded with the reasons behind the ArbCom ban and this discussion were grounds enough at the point I indef'd both HS and BhaiSaab. Rama's arrow  22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rama's Arrow, would it be fair to say that you've had a close relationship with User:Bakasuprman? Given this statement you made on his behalf it would be fair to say yes. Now it is a known fact that both User:BhaiSaab and User:Bakasuprman were in constant conflict, as this page so cleverly illustrates. So given that this is the case it is perfectly logical to see a conflict of interest on your part in blocking User:BhaiSaab per your apparent friendship with User:Bakasuprman. User:BhaiSaab should have his indefinite block lifted and his ArbCom ban reinstated with his serving out the rest of it prior to his return. 05:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I had stopped sparring with BhaiSaab by September, my nemesis in arbcom was not BhaiSaab at all, it was a couple other trolls. Infact I'm certain Rama's arrow supported the ban on Hkelkar and has subsequently banned hkelkar again. Rama's support was hardly unique, infact apart from an enthusiastic troll and a subsequently banned user, nobody seemed to disagree with Rama. If Rama's Arrow has a close relationship with me, then the same could be said about, and Bhaisaab. Baka  man  22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More evidence of a conflict of interest: You were contacted no less than six times by User:Hkelkar seeking assistance on matters he was editing on. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Here is more evidence of your conflict of interest. You must be aware that prior to his involvement with Hkelkar, BhaiSaab was generally more productive and contributory. It is nonsense that he is being made to pay for HE's latest disruption and indefinitely blocked when he wasn't the cause of it. As to your arguments that I have a conflict of interest you are wrong. I've not blocked or unblocked anyone. 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mhm, he got blocked 3-4 times when I was his primary foe, I doubt that's indicative of any productiveness. Infact, its hard to see a page where BhaiSaab wasnt in direct conflict with people (who in his view) are kaffirs. Baka man  22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rama's Arrow, you blocked BhaiSaab you had to have interacted with him. This is wrong to be lumping these two users together here. Very wrong. I'm not excusing BhaiSaab's disruptive behavior (most of which stemmed from conflict he had with Indian editor User:Hkelkar) but to suddenly be calling for his head at this point over disruption caused by another editor is wrong. Most eveyone who has interacted with the two see that it is evident they are not the same person. I would better understand this call for BhaiSaab's community bannishment if we were talking about a final act of disruption on his part... but this is not the case. 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody that I can see is saying they are the same person. Maybe it is based on a misunderstanding, but your insistance on countering a charge nobody is making seems a bit odd. As I said, I know too little about BhaiSaab to have an opinion about him, but he has nothing to do with the case for banning His excellency. Tom Harrison Talk 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the first line in this thread by Blntguyen : "they've been evading their bans again using their IP range." as though what has brought this call for HE's and BS's community banning was coordinated (or the work of one person). It is not right that they're being lumped together as one given the disruption is coming for one angle (in this instance). 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's Blnguyen's description of what each had been doing, not a claim that they are one person. Rama's arrow clearly recognizes that. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no IP sockpuppets listed for BhaiSaab, so what's the basis for comparison? Is the category incomplete?  Durova Charge! 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's the IP info on His Excellency: Durova Charge! 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 71.172.136.156: ??
 * 72.80.40.154: New York City
 * 72.88.139.24: Paterson, New Jersey:

User:BhaiSaab requesting a temporary unblock
User:BhaiSaab is requesting a temporary unblock so that he might comment here. Given the details of this case he should be afforded the possibility to comment here (and only here) towards his defense. Would someone kindly temporarly (and limitedly) unblock him so that he may do so? Thanks. 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I support a temporary and short unblock for the reason given above. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BhaiSaab was banned for one year under an ArbCom decision in December 2006, and so he is not eligible to be unblocked, even irrespective of any subsequent extensions or community ban. See Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar. Any request for a change in this status would have to be approved by the Arbitration Committee, and I think is quite unlikely to happen. Newyorkbrad 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohh I've not read the above thread well enough. Well, in this case, he can comment at his talkpage and paste the comments here. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as a banned (rather than merely blocked) user, he shouldn't have a talkpage, but if he confines his comments there very narrowly, I won't take any action on that. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BhaiSaab's commentary
With the utilization of an inclusion BhaiSaab will be able to comment below. 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, so your bans were reset due to supposed sockpuppetry and then later two of those turned out to be verified as User:His excellency by checkuser while User:Hkelkar had his ban reset five times? Something is very wrong about this idea of a community ban against you. 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it odd that it took so long to get Rumpel banned, even from my uninvolved vantage point it was obviously Hkelkar; I think editing and language similarity is in the end the most accurate way to identify socks, CheckUser should only be used to confirm a connection, not to rule it out. Anyways, I'll re-iterate my support for giving BhaiSaab another chance. - Merzbow 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not about Hkelkar; it's about BhaiSaab and H.E. Hkelkar's sockpuppetry is no excuse for BhaiSaab's behavior. BhaiSaab may have set up fewer socks to evade the ArbComm ban than Hkelkar, but he also edit warred extensively using IPs. An indefinite ban is the only possible solution here. Beit Or 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Beit Or, where is the proof of this? Check user is showing that User:His excellency has been the editor involved in all of this. 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "They edit from the same general area, and (at a minimum) are in communication off-wiki, which sometimes makes it hard to tell. There is also a real possibility that they are the same editor." Beit Or 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The IP range Jayjg refers to covers one of the heaviest population centers in the world - New York, Newark, New Jersey. They edit from the same general area and so do thousands of other editors here on Wikipedia particularly as this range literally covers millions of IPs. Jayjg hasn't made a case for them being the same person but is making a relatively casual statement based upon them editing from this several million+ IP range. There is no solid case here. Also you neglected to add, "Actually, User:MinaretDk is User:His excellency (also banned). " to your quote there. Everyone who's edited in areas that these two have covered can tell you that they are not the same individual. 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Netscott, if you wish to reassert that geographic argument, please respond to my relevant questions and analysis. I see no IPs for one of these accounts so I don't even understand its basis.  Durova Charge! 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This block by User:Blnguyen (although he mistakenly labeled it a MinaretDK) should be illustrative. The IP was effectively saying that he was BhaiSaab on Blnguyen's talk page. This latest round of HE disruption was conducted using IPs in this verizon east range (again millions of subscribers). 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. But why do you think they're both from greater New York?  Durova Charge! 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Per this note the address: pool-72-88-172-144.nwrknj.east.verizon.net. nwrknj = Newark, New Jersey. 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting one's ducks in a row
Very little is clear after days of threaded discussion on this request, but I've reached one definitive conclusion. When presenting a complex request to the community it's important to be well prepared. Write up a good summary and support it with diffs, links, and examples. Guide the reader through the necessary logical steps. Communicate enough information to bring an uninformed reader up to speed and demonstrate why the situation requires action. Durova Charge! 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And when repeatedly thumping on the phrase "evading a ban", at some point check whether the ban had already expired, negating the premise. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:His excellency's ban was reset on 10 February 2007 for 6 months. 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a "reset" was not logged at the Arbcom decision. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to close. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is still the matter that User:BhaiSaab has been indefinitely blocked unfairly (and without consensus I might add). 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked Jayjg if he could comment here regarding the matter. - Merzbow 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As per this discussion, I've reset BhaiSaab's ban to 1 year. Rama's arrow  03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Rama's Arrow's response, if someone wants to archive this discussion at this point, fine with me. 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The recent bans have not been logged at Requests for arbitration/His excellency and I would politely request the blocking admins list the recent extensions to the page per the ArbCom decision. Vassyana 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review
The reviewing of the RfAr for Waldorf education has concluded. The Arbitration Committee has banned User:Pete K from editing Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and related pages or their talk pages.

This notice is given by an informal helper on the behalf of the Arbitration Committee. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru and Wikipedia-related articles
<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.

Without evidence, and a clearly formatted request, this request appears unclear and premature. Recommend editors attempt dispute resolution. Options here are last resort type.<font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  09:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on WP:ANI and wanted to raise the possibility of a short-term enforced article probation for this user here from Wikipedia and Essjay related articles. Especially on the Essjay article, since the AfD closure, there has been no problems, issues, or artificial drama from any sources... except User:QuackGuru. - Denny 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why haven't regular ol' userblocks been tried? Durova Charge! 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could we see some DIFF's regarding this behavior, aside from the AN/I link. What is it that is being asked of the community?  Additionally, what WP:DR steps have been attempted? Thanks, <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to gather it up but there is no one diff that or ten that shows this, just the littered mess that is the Essjay controversy talk page/archives are the best indicator. See also the comments on today's ANI mess. how many times do we let someone tweak the community's nipples like this to be impolite? They're all very silly but it's very on-going and tiring. If more is needed I'll have to gather it tomorrow unless others can first. That ANI link has links all the previous (now 5) incident reports. What I am asking for is admin-enforced probation from the Essjay article and wikipedia-related articles for a week or three to see if helps. - Denny 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What policies are being violated there? A quick summary with some evidence may be helpful.  Have we explored other options, RFC, WP:DR.  I think this proposed community action needs clarity.  It seems, at the moment, unclear.  <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Part of the problem I see with this proposal is that it would create an exploitable precedent of imposing community bans before blocks and dispute resolution are tried. That's not something I'm likely to support in any scenario and it's especially problematic in relation to a public Wikipedia scandal. One reasonable interpretation of community action at this juncture would be that it would amount to an attempt at cover up. See WP:DE. If this editor collects several blocks and dispute resolution fails, come back and I may support a nomination. Let's treat this exactly like any other problem user. Durova Charge! 05:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This is the wrong place, I think, to bring your concerns. I would also note, unless you're prepared to provide diffs and clear examples of improper behaviour, you're going to have an uphill battle getting blocks/bans imposed on a user. This user has not received a single block. If the user has been warned about their behaviour and dispute resolution has been tried, then it might be time for an RfC. Regardless, with no clear diffs or clear examples of improper behaviour, no bans, no damning RfC, no ArbCom sanctions and so forth, it is simply far premature to discuss community bans. Vassyana 08:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Anthony cfc
Good evening, my fellow Wikipedians. After careful reflection, I've decided I would like to "start a fresh", in a way. Although I've never vandalised, and I'm most certainly not a "bad user", I've acted quite "power hungry" over my one-year career. In short, I've applied for several positions out of my reach.

My NHS G.P. (that's a doctor, for you non-Brits :) has spoken with me, and I've been prescribed a course of anti-depressants. Around Saturday, these took effect, and I've got a positive new outlook in life - and Wikipedia.

I would therefore like the community to suggest methods I could employ to "start a fresh"; my particular focus is on DR work, as well as XfD. However, I believe there are still those out there who are bitter over my past actions. If they can find it in their heart to forgive me, I shall be eternally grateful.

In the meanwhile, I ask the community to rather than forget what I have done, to remain impartial and mindful of my new actions, and judge me on the present, rather than dwindle on the deep, dark past.

With the greatest anticipation, anthony cfc  [ talk] 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Meds do wonders don't they? :) Things get forgotten (most of time) and will be dwindle away once you start expressing this positive attitude elsewhere (in your article writing and your dispute resolution with others in particular). — Moe  01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My recommendation would be to steer well clear of xFD and do some Wikignoming. Special:Random is good - keep going till you see something interesting that wants work, it rarely takes more than a few clicks. Oh, and if it's Dosulepin, don't try doing tricky detail things after taking the meds :-)  Guy (Help!) 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a standing offer to people who get sanctioned at arbitration that I'll give them the Barnstar of Resilience if they create a new article that makes the Did you know? section at Wikipedia's main page. Check out User:Durova/Did you know? for tips on how to get there.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 13:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input guys! To Durova - I've not even came close to being in front of the ArbCom! anthony cfc  [ talk] 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but since I offer the barnstar to people who misstep that badly I can certainly offer it to you. Best wishes.  Durova Charge! 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiGnoming isn't a bad idea actually. I think you have a lot to contribute and I've seen you contribute very positively in areas I've been involved with, and you have a good attitude to this. I think Essjay's little graphic is always a good policy to follow when in doubt. Orderinchaos78 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding El C and closure of Essjay AFD
So, how many times are high-profile debates going to be early closed out of nowhere? often creating turmoil in the process, as they are usually closed against consensus? This is getting really old. The DRV is a massive "overturn" pile-on. User talk:El C is not budging, so the opinions of dozens of Wikipedians is being swept aside at the whim of some admin. I care very little about Wikipedia and it's even bothering me. He's inviting dispute resolution; I for one am sick of seeing this happen over and over and over again, with the early closings - each one creates more chaos than the last. So the question is, is there a potential for a peaceful RFC, or will it just become a flame war like half of them do? And will I be called a "troll" for starting one? I'd like some thoughts, and am seeing if anyone is willing to certify the dispute or whatever. Milto LOL pia 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget it, he's said someone can unclose it. Looks like the sensible thing was done.  Milto LOL pia 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, who's going to bite the bullet and actually reopen the AfD discussion? Does it count as wheel warring when the closing admin says it's OK to reverse the closure? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend a slow, measured, and considered approach, rather than yet more flip-flopping back and forth between AFD and Deletion Review. Do not take any unilateral action until the deletion review discussion has had time to for editors to discuss and to attempt to reach consensus. That includes allowing those editors who are not in the same timezone as you to fully participate in the discussion.  Uncle G 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I feel the Essjay debates have got out of hand and should end, I also think it's very important to note that 'forcing the issue' by closing and protecting debate or speedily deleting an article has never had the desired effect of ending actual debate and encouraging people to move on. It simply adds another dimension to the ongoing dispute. Admins should think twice, three times and more about the actual effect of their actions, not just whether they are within policy, especially since WP:IAR is so controversial. Sam Blacketer 18:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that those in favor of keeping the article present their points, and those in favor of deleting it also present their points, and then have a (gasp) discussion for at least a few days, BEFORE you all start "voting"? I think that might be a good idea.  It's my experience when we see the urge for people on both sides of a discussion to "WP:SNOW" the discussion in both directions, there's some very strongly held feelings that somebody needs to get out and the usual AFD/DRV discussion formats aren't very useful for this.  In a normal parliamentary environment, I would suggest moving to recess for a fixed time to allow the members on each side of the question to go into their respective caucuses, select champions, and marshal their arguments, then return to a discussion of the question at hand (possibly in committee of the whole) with the champions presenting the respective cases.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia's format doesn't allow for a "recess", nor does it readily permit the election of champions in caucus.  Perhaps a three-day deferral of any attempts to delete, during which any interested party may write their own summary (or, alternatively, endorse someone else's summary) of the arguments for and against deleting (based on the opinions expressed in the prior AFD and DRV), followed by a discussion and, if consensus can be reached, then and only then a deletion (if warranted)?  The regular deletion discussion format breaks down (in my opinion) on contentious issues, and I think the RFC approach method of summaries and endorsements is likely better in this situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kelly is onto a good idea here. Rather than immediately skip to the "voting" of actions in bold-face, how about hold a discussion for a couple of days first?  That should help deal with these kinds of cases.  -- Cyde Weys  23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a new idea. It's a long-standing maxim at AFD that It's Not About The Votes.  There are several editors who reject the idea that every contribution to an AFD discussion should be prefixed with a boldfaced word, and do not do so themselves.  If you think likewise, you are welcome to set an example by doing the same.  An AFD discussion is a discussion, and is intended to be a discussion.  Saying that a discussion between editors in order to consider alternatives and to achieve consensus, with editors presenting arguments and discussing those arguments with one another, isn't "the usual AFD discussion format" is to be misled by the current overuse of such boldfacing at AFD.  In fact, such a discussion to achieve consensus is the ideal AFD discussion to which editors should aspire.  Many of the best AFD discussions over the years have taken exactly this form.  Uncle G 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, however, it is safe to say that this is NOT what we are seeing in the discussions being spoken about above, and why I suggested that perhaps a more formal, constrained approach to "discussion" might yield benefit in this context. I certainly do not believe that every discussion deletion should be conducted in the more formal "summary and endorsement" format of RFC -- doing so is  extra effort to no benefit in most cases.  Contrariwise, I think the use of that format, or some other format which helps to provide structure to the discussion, is critical to the development of true community consensus.  And that's why I so strongly urge it in the context of this particularly divisive situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If memory serves, this was proposed as a replacement system for RfA awhile back, but was rejected. I thought it was a pretty fantastic idea :/  —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?  <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I've been wondering if I might see the day that someone decides to be bold and ignore all rules in order to do something like set up a workshop page for determining what's best for an article, rather than directly deleting, protecting, or replacing it. Bitnine 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you all probably know by now, Essjay has made ABC News  Link was on ABCNews.com about 8pm tonight. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil
<div class="boilerplate metadata" 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.

Consensus to endorse an indefinite block (de facto ban) appears to have been reached. is indef blocked with the option to appeal to his her user talk page using the unblock template with the understanding that the editor must address the communities concerns so as not to do the same behavior over again. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for disruption, violations of WP:NOT, personal attacks, BLP violations, and assumptions of bad faith. She's been blocked eight times since November, warned dozens more, and it was made clear before the last block that she might face a community ban; discussion here. The latest attack is here, in which she calls other editors "paid propagandists" and "long-time sppoks [sic]." People have put up with the attacks long enough, and BabyDweezil invariably responds to warnings with more attacks, so it's time to call it a day. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved here from WP:ANI per new policy. (Moved in the midst of an edit conflict storm, porting some comments by hand, please check—I don't think I've mislaid any editor, at least! Bishonen | talk 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC).)
 * Endorse block/ban - this editor is destructive and has exhausted the community's patience. Johntex\talk 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban - The previous discussion of the "community ban", was brought up by several other editors, and not myself. However, as this user seems to only be able to edit and attack other editors in a destructive and not constructive manner, the indefinite ban seems to be no great loss to the project.  Smee 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Endorse ban. People here are far too tolerant of editors who do little but disrupt and attack other editors (and/or real-life individuals). In addition to solving this specific problem, perhaps it will serve as a lesson and warning for a number of similar editors I can think of. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I proposed the latest block, and that one really was in the nature of a last chance and an extra chance, before a community ban. It wasn't taken. (I have moved this discussion to WP:CN per the new policy.) Bishonen | talk 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Question -- I have no view yet and will try to look at this later today. In the meantime, would it not be better to take this to ArbComm?   <font color="#DF0001">Buck  ets  ofg  19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an extensive history to read through with this individual, however you can start out with Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206, and read the comments posted there about this user... Smee 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Oppose block - If User:Cberlet wants to edit in articles about his own writings and sling the term "cult" at people that oppose him then he should develop a thick skin. He really has no business there in the first place as it is an obvious conflict of interest and for him then to start baiting BabyDweezil with such as words "marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the Lyndon LaRouche cult." to refer to something he know BD believes in is unconscionable and deserving of sanction in itself. --Justanother 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, with regret. BabyDweezil did make some valid points about bad sourcing in articles. Unfortunately (s)he has consistently resorted to indiscriminate personal attacks, despite numerous warnings and requests to desist. The community has shown this editor a lot of patience - it's regrettable that BabyDweezil hasn't responded positively. -- ChrisO 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - Looking at the block log and the shear number of blocks it seems this users has exhausted the communities tolerance. I would prefer a 1 year ban on editing, but indef is fine as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Partial endorse - One month and probation would be a better approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban WHile Cberlet acted inappropriately at times, this doesn't excuse the highly disruptive nature of Dweezil's editing. JoshuaZ 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse Blocked 11 times by 7 different admins in just a short few months. Has been given more than enough chances. Raymond Arritt 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse - The one Month and Probation tactic has been offered before to this user. This is one of those situations where the carrot has been offered and it didn't help, now it's time for the stick instead. SirFozzie 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) On probation, I would say to have user on probation for about one or two months. If her behaviour still remains the same and worse then I would prefer to ban the user. Shyam  ( T / C ) 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. The accumulation of recent blocks on this account demonstrates that the editor hasn't been getting it.  Durova Charge! 21:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. This user has been disruptive since the beginning. -Will Beback · † · 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Opinion Since I have been involved in disputes with BabyDweezil I feel like voting in my case would be a COI violation. I will simply point out that BabyDweezil has had more than one chance to change his/her behavior. Anynobody 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you fo disclosing that. According to Disruptive editing, it's a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians that matters.  Feel free to comment, but involved parties don't decide this.  Durova Charge! 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Question Are there any other alternatives, like a mentor given permission to refactor BD's comments?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, I suppose so. Yet that sort of effort rarely succeeds in turning someone who has this many problems into a productive editor.  At this point it's probably best to let this person sit on the sidelines.  In three or four months I'd consider lifting the ban if the user doesn't evade through sockpuppets in the interim, then pledges to enter WP:ADOPT and cease disruption.  Durova Charge! 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Refactoring can be more productive than just the short-term goal of removing offensive material. It could potentially teach someone, by example, how to phrase things more sensitively.  Of course, it is also possible to offend someone, since they might take refactoring as an accusation that their comment was uncivil.  (This is not necessarily the case.  It is possible to write something which some people may find offensive without violating WP:CIVIL.)
 * In any case, I like the idea of a 3-4 month ban followed by conditional unblocking better than the indefinite ban.
 * — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd as soon leave it up to the editor to appeal the ban after a fair interval rather than end it automatically. Durova Charge! 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional unblocking would basically mean "You are now invited to appeal this ban if you are willing to meet these terms," wouldn't it? Of course, even then, the editor might need help in learning how to phrase things sensitively.... : /  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the default situation with indef community blocks is that if the editor abides by the stricture and doesn't sneak back on a sockpuppet or otherwise sling mud at Wikipedia elsewhere on the Internet, they usually get a second chance if they're polite about the reinstatement request. People who get sitebanned rarely show that much self-control, which is why the action is usually permanent.  According to ArbCom precedent, all editors are theoretically reformable.  Theoretically I disagree with that finding in some instances.  This isn't one of those instances.  Durova Charge! 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think mentorship has more potential to help editors become more productive than long bans, but I do not know of a mentor to suggest. : (   Anyway, thank you for explaining that to me, I did not really understand how indefinite bans worked.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had encountered this situation during its developing phase I would have recommended mentorship. At some point the community has to get on with the business of writing an encyclopedia.  Some users aren't here to help achieve that goal and after a reasonable interval we need to shut the door.  It stays open a crack in case they come around, but the burden no longer rests with the community to reform them.  Durova Charge! 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The ArbCom and the Essjay business
One of the things that has bugged me most about the whole Essjay saga is the way in which Jimbo appointed Essjay onto the ArbCom, when he didn't ever run in the last election, after he knew about Essjay's liberties with the truth: nor, apparently, did Jimbo check Essjay's contribs for using those fake credentials to win content disputes, which we now know he did. Fair enough, Jimbo's a very busy chap, and all his actions after the initial mistake have been of the most wise and statesmanlike nature.

Now, my point is that that one bad decision - not that Jimbo makes very many of those - would not have got past us had it been put to community scrutiny, and an awful lot of bad publicity would not have occurred. Collectively, we have the time to check Essjay's contribs for dubious behaviour based on false credentials, which is what we eventually did at the RFC. The further bad publicity incurred by Jimbo's initials response to the New Yorker would not have occurred had the whole matter been put to community scrutiny earlier when Dmcdevit resigned and we needed replacements for the ArbCom.

Anyway, my point is that we, as a community, need more direct control over the final stage of our dispute resolution process, the ArbCom. It is our wiki. I have not been able to understand why Jimbo exercises so much control over the ArbCom, not only at election time but also when replacements during terms are needed. (BTW, the ArbCom terms are ludicrously long and make insufficient allowance for the high rate of admin and arbitrator burnout. But that is a side point). I cannot understand why we turn our brains off when it comes to ArbCom and delegate our responsibilities to Jimbo. As a community we control virtually every other aspect of Wikipedia: why not ArbCom? Why the abdication of responsibility? We need to take control of the process: ArbCom is important and deserves maximum scrutiny. So, any ideas how? Best, Moreschi Request a recording? 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of running potential arbitrators by the community would be useful. Jimbo ran them by the arbitrators, and I feel somewhat guilty that I did not catch his use of his supposed degree and position in content disputes. I'm sure the community, with its many eyes would have found that problem. Fred Bauder 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the fifth of the Foundation issues will be useful. HowIBecameCivil 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, aware that the ArbCom is a delegation of Jimbo's authority over the community, and acts on his personal authority as "god-king" rather than on any authority delegate to the ArbCom by the community. The ArbCom is not responsible to the community, and the community has no authority over it, except insofar as Jimbo chooses to allow.  The ArbCom need only consider the community's interests to the extent that brazenly disregarding the community will cause the community to fail to respect it and render it practically unable to do anything useful.  However, be very clear that you are delegating nothing to Jimbo when you "allow" Jimbo to select Arbitrators. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As Kelly points out above, Arbom is distinct from the community. Arbcom only exists because the community has failed to handle its own problems.  I am always surprised by how quickly various cases are pushed onto Arbcom.  Each case sent there is really the community saying "please step in we cannot handle this one".  I would think the community would try harder to deal with these incidents themselves rather than abdicate responsibilty so easily.  I think Moreschi is asking the wrong question.  Don't ask why the abdication of responsibility in choosing arbitrators, but why the abdication of responsibility in relying on the "god-king" and his court of last resort to step in and settle so many disputes.--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I have often said that the purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to make decisions for the community in those situations where a decision is needed but the community is unable to make it.  I've heard other Arbitrators say the same thing, so there must be some merit to the claim.  Unfortunately, far too often the community abrogates its obligation to attempt to make decisions to the Arbitration Committee; conversely, (especially lately) the Arbitration Committee has occasionally seized the authority to make decisions from the community prematurely.  When I was an Arbitrator, I often moved to reject cases where I felt that the community could manage to deal with the matter on its own, or where I felt that letting the community find a solution was likely to cause less damage than the Arbitration Committee taking the matter on.  I fear that the sense that the Arbitration Committee should not take on matters in such a posture has been lost with the current Arbitration Committee; this is likely a reflection of the fact that the community has forgotten my oft-repeated admonishment: "The Arbitration Committee is not your mother."  It is the community's obligation to police itself, not the Arbitration Committee's.  The  invocation of the authority of the Arbitration Committee represents a failure on the part of the community, and if the community were healthy would be an infrequent thing.


 * People, please try to be adults and work your problems out on your own. Don't rely on the ArbCom to do it for you.  And remember, if policy gets in the way of doing this, feel free to ignore it (c.f. my above suggestion regarding controversial deletions). Kelly Martin (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But I would say that invocation of the Arbitration Committee's authority is an infrequent thing. We have 1.6 million articles, tens of thousands of active users, over 1000 administrators, and at present, exactly 10 open arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ten? That's high, compared to when I was an Arbitrator (except for that brief period when I was first appointed, and that's because there was a backlog caused by a shortage of Arbitrators).  And more informative is not the number of open cases, but the number of cases filed (whether or not accepted).  Each case filed represents a situation where the community failed to sufficiently resolve the dispute in question.  And I'm quite certain that that number is increasing.  Kelly Martin (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the community and the number of pages whereon conflict can arise is also larger than when you served as an arbitrator. As for rejected cases, typically when the arbitrators decline to hear a case, they advise the editor who filed it to pursue a more community-based solution to the issue. I would guesstimate that there are maybe about three rejected cases filed every week&mdash;still not a lot given our current size and scope. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)That is not useful metric. How many non-content disputes are sent to RfC without ending up at ArbCom after three months? Is the percentage up or down from a year ago? It seem to me an awful lot of disputes eventually end up on Arbcom. Especially if the dispute involves established editors on both sides (which you would think would be the ones where Arbcom is not needed to lay down the law). And there are many disputes that are just left simmering, sometimes even after Arbcom. There is not alot of dispute resolution happening within this community. It seems that the community as whole simply avoids getting involved with settling disputes as a neutral party, but jumps to get involved as an advocate (of either a position or a person). I really do see it as abdicating responsibility. I like this project and all but I am not so invested in it as to take on such these things.  The problem is many people who are so invested choose to aviod the disputes as well. Things would improve greatly around here if the main players here made it a priority to resolve disputes before they get to Arbcom. As Machiavelli said "A battle delayed is a battle deferred to your disadvantage." "A battle deferred is a battle delayed to your disadvantage."--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Jimbo consulted community leaders about the appointment of Essjay and ones that had reservations have apologiged for not speaking up when they should have according to Jimbo's talk page. It's not all jimbo's fault. Whether he should appoint people in the future is being rightly questioned, but it was what worked in the past,
 * 2) The community does indeed control arbcom any time it has the will to do so. Their decisions care moral weight only. If need be the community can fork the project. The community will not do so without a really good reason.
 * 3) Our current setup has elements of monarchy/president (jimbo), democracy/anarchy (editors), and aristocracy (guess who). Theorists from ancient times to the founding of america have considered a balance of these forces to be useful in the governing of an institution. WAS 4.250 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are alternatives besides Requests for Comment and Arbitration. The Mediation Committee is not backlogged any more, and there is always the Mediation Cabal.  : )  Of course, mediators cannot actually enforce anything, so mediation probably would not work for the types of disputes you are talking about right now.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to the use of :) next to the MedCabal! It's highly productive, and is a welcome break from the intense attitude of DR processes higher up the chain. anthony cfc  [ talk] 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Arbitration isn't just a matter of the community abrogating its responsibilities. At the outset of Wikipedia only Jimbo could ban editors personally. In early 2004 when that load got too large for one person ArbCom was created. Community banning didn't become an established concept until last year and community topic banning is a developing issue - the recently closed discussion at the top of this board appears to be only the second time the community has applied a topic ban, and the previous one got appealed as far as RFAR (the Committee rejected the appeal). Wikipedia.en is far larger today than it was three years ago, yet there's still only one ArbCom. So it stands to reason that enough precedents have been created for the community to peel away the more routine and straightforward cases and let the arbitrators crack the tough nuts. To the extent that I can, I've helped with that in coauthoring the Disruptive editing guideline and spearheading the Community enforced mediation proposal. I hope the latter gets more attention when the Essjay affair dies down. I've got six volunteer community mediator trainees and am pretty much set to give the thing a trial run. Durova Charge! 01:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In practice, how is Arbcom different from, say, something that worked exactly like Arbcom but was instead formed by the community? I would argue "not at all". If the present Arbcom election process was deterministic (the top n in terms of percentage, with a percentage floor of x%, become arbitrators) rather than treated like an elaborate advisement-of-Jimbo process, nothing would change except perhaps who became arbitrators. (An elaborate "arbitration cabal", selected exactly this way and operating alongside Arbcom, with the wide administrator and user support of Arbcom, would replace Arbcom entirely. It might not get this degree of admin and user support because Arbcom already exists and we have no need to recreate it, but that only illustrates how Arbcom is already accepted within the community.) So I don't think it's an issue of the community failing to solve problems and referring them to Arbcom—it's an issue of Arbcom simply being the community's way of solving certain problems. On a similar note, Arbcom has nothing to do with dispute resolution and arbitration—it's more of a formal disciplinary process much of the time, much as User RFC is a means to collect opinions about users who we feel have done wrong, and Article RFC and Mediation are about actually resolving disputes. Treating them as all the same system is about as myopic as pretending Arbcom is something totally separate from the community. (Wikipedia's greatest problem: the names and legal and organizational fictions we employ differ so much from the reality that we have to continually play an Orwellian translation game to stay on top.) Philwelch 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you describe the current situation as Orwellian in a statement that appears to propose a doppelganger arbitration committee. One of the defining characteristics of a totalitarian society - as originally articulated by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism is that different branches of government maintain departments that compete with each other to serve essentially the same function.  The outcome of that structure is that contradictory precedents and interpretations emerge, which results in a fearful society in which no one is certain of being on the right side of the law.  Obviously Wikipedia won't generate a Gulag, but serious change proposals must be thought out thoroughly: I don't see the need to replace ArbCom, although there are certainly reasons to augment it.  Durova Charge! 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By "Orwellian" I refer to the fact that we call things by names that vastly contradict reality. For instance, we vote on deletions, adminships, etc., but aren't allowed to call them votes because "voting is evil". We have an arbitration committee which doesn't really arbitrate in the usual sense of the term. "Orwellian" does not necessarily mean "totalitarian"—playing language games in order to, for instance, reconcile the dogma that "voting is evil" with the fact that voting is an essential tool to reconcile opposing views in a community is the classic sort of thing George Orwell wrote about. Competing government agencies are Arendt's idea, not Orwell's. My "arbitration cabal" wasn't a proposal of anything so much as it was a thought experiment to illustrate my primary thesis—that Arbcom is no different from something that worked exactly like Arbcom but was instead formed by the community. My point in illustrating this thesis is to illustrate, first that the theory of Arbitration Committee being an extension of Jimbo's authority instead of the community's is rather meaningless in practice, and secondly, that Arbcom isn't something external from the community that we go to in order to solve problems we can't. In essence, if we had to, we would solve those problems ourselves…by forming an arbitration committee. Philwelch 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So I don't think it's an issue of the community failing to solve problems and referring them to Arbcom—it's an issue of Arbcom simply being the community's way of solving certain problems. On a similar note, Arbcom has nothing to do with dispute resolution and arbitration—it's more of a formal disciplinary process much of the time, much as User RFC is a means to collect opinions about users who we feel have done wrong, and Article RFC and Mediation are about actually resolving disputes I don't want to be misunderstood here that I have problem with Arbcom; I think it has been very useful. But I still see it is a symptom of the community's failure.  There is no reason for a successfull community to allow the collateral damage that has to occur for a dispute to reach the level of Arbcom as simply it's way of solving certain problems.  Arbcom is the community's way of giving up on certain problems.  If Arbcom leans towards being disciplinary, it is only because the community failed to hold the editors to the most basic standards for months if not years before they stood before Arbcom.  User RFC has scant participation, but I have seen policies completely misinterpreted there.  I think it works much better as a place to reinforce specific policy interpretations than as a place to collect comments on a user as whole.  But it is hard to really reinforce much with six people responding.  I haven't participated on Article RFC in long time.  Once I discovered the gem of an article that is the nation directly north of Greece that way.  I hope it is actually resolving disputes these days, my long past experience was not that favorable.  Mediation is seriously the best chance of resolving a dispute.  Every dispute where the participants can agree that a resolution to the dispute is actually a priority should be resolved that way.  The problems are the disputes where one or more parties would rather have continuing turmoil than to make concessions.  Those are the cases where the community has to make it clear turmoil is not an option.  However turmoil often seems to be a valid option here.


 * But I want to repeat that I support Arbcom. They are doing their best with an often floundering and a sometimes failing community. When we talk about the community being in control of dispute resolution (read the intial post in this thread again), we should not be talking about how to choose the handful of people who pick up the pieces when we fail, so much as we should be talking about how to prevent so many issues from falling to pieces in the first place.--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect both of your viewpoints. Here's a rephrasing of mine: on a practical level ArbCom can't be expected to keep up with the site's growth.  If we assume user conflicts increase proportionate to total articles and site membership, the committee would get swamped.  Somehow the community needs to shoulder a greater share of that burden.  I think we all agree that more community involvement is a good idea.  I've been working on some ideas that would work on a practical level without rethinking ArbCom from the ground up.  One of them is at the proposal stage (linked in my earlier edit).  I'd appreciate it if you gave the idea a look.  Regards,  Durova Charge! 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed—it's not Arbcom's fault that we need them. But it's a little misguided to say that we're failing as a community if we do need them. Any community has courts, judges, systems to settle grievances. Perhaps it's true that if you need a judge to settle your grievance you're failed in some way, but given a community of more than a handful of people, it's gonna happen. Inevitably. The only places you *don't* see these things are highly authoritarian places—companies don't have pseudocourts to settle grievances that arise between coworkers over their work because companies are hierarchical, and there's always a boss who can say "this is what's gonna happen, and you're fired". Unless we want to elevate administrators to some higher level of discretionary power and let them say "this is what's going to happen, you're fired for being a net negative contributor, you should leave because you're a fanboy and this isn't a good place for you, you're a deranged nut, you're a valuable contributor and I trust you more than Anonymous Coward…", we're gonna need Arbcom. That's the price of a free society. Philwelch 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I really do not think very differently from what you say above. I do think you are taking my comments too generally.  Every case sent to Arbcom is a case where the community failed.  There will always some cases where the community fails; it does not follow that the comunity is Failure.  I don't think we should aim to get rid of Arbcom.  But we should aim to minmize the number of cases that reach Arbcom.  It does seem to me that lately many disputes are treated as if an Arbcom case is a forgone conclusion.  My point is that community has been giving up on resolving disputes too easily.  That they are too quick to pass the buck to Arbcom.  This damaging for all that happens as an individual dispute progresses to the level of Arbcom and also because it spreads the idea that anything short of warranting an Arbcom case must be tolerated.  It is also an indirect problen because it is not uncommon for people facing an Arbcom case to leave or at least plan on it.  This then fuels other disputes by showing the example that if a dispute can escalate all the way to Arbcom there is a chance the other guy will just quit.  This undermines the entire dispute resolution process because why would someone resolve a dispute when they can possibly WIN by forfiet.  The more Arbcom is relied on the worse the general atmosphere around here will get.  It is just a viscious cycle that will continue until the community stops tolerating misbehaivor.  Arbcom should be a BIG DEAL.--<font color="#9966FF">Birgitte <font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB  05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Section break
Maybe a few things so I can get my thoughts together.
 * Technically, is Jimbo really the absolute authority? I've always thought that if Jimbo indefblocked me in his capacity as project leader - not just as ordinary admin - I could appeal that decision with the Board, if not anywhere else.
 * I rather like Fred Bauder's idea of the community having a preview of arbitrators appointed in the manner that Essjay/Mackensen were when Dmcdevit resigned.
 * The phrase "community leaders" really, really sucks. Up to a fortnight ago Essjay would have been considered a "community leader", if we actually had any. We have no community leaders here, with the exception of Jimbo. That's rather the point of Wikipedia. In the absence of "community leaders", the community should be consulted.
 * A few people above seem to have missed the point. I'm not talking about the existence of ArbCom being us turning our brains off: it's the way in which we elect our arbitrators which, in my opinion, is us turning our brains off: with, as we have seen this week, catastrophic results.
 * In practice, whatever power ArbCom has comes from the community, insofar as it would lose credibility if we all started ignoring its rulings. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect a greater element of control in the way in which we elect our arbitrators. I agree with Philwelch's point that an ArbCom that took its power from the community, rather than Jimbo, would be no different at all to the current ArbCom, which in practice already does, if not in theory. IMO it's time the practice became the theory.
 * An awful lot of pages - WP:DR, WP:AC - describe ArbCom as the last stage in dispute resolution, a last stage that can issues binding rulings. And it is a dispute resolution process that exists to serve the community.

Any thoughts? Best, Moreschi Request a recording? 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This website is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation; Jimbo "owns" Wikipedia. Don't like that?  The door is that way.  This message was brought to you by the harsh reality department.  Guy (Help!) 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, the Wikipedia Foundation owns the servers and supplies the bandwidth, but each individual contribution is "owned" by the editor who creates it. You might say that Jimbo ownes the servers but "we" own the contents.  These editors ("we") have, however, irrevocably licensed their contribution in a way that allows the Wikipedia Foundation (or anyone else, for that matter) to continue distributing it.  It's that sentence below the edit box that says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL".  The effect of Guy's statement is correct: if you don't like Jimbo controlling things, get a copy of the database and start a new Wiki-encyclopedia. - EMET-MET 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Forking is easier said than done. The last image dump was, IIRC, in November 2005. Deleted content is not included in the dumps. --Random832 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We could ask Jimbo nicely that next time he wants to appoint arbitrators without an elective process, that there be a comment period so the community could vet the candidate. Thatcher131 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(moved from WP:AN) [ context was Moreschi's comment: "In the wake of the Essjay shebang, I've kicked off a discussion at CN on the lack of - as I perceive it - community influence over the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to tell me I'm being stupid. ] You're not being stupid, but you are mistaken about a key issue. Jimbo's authority is written into our policies.  If you disagree with him, fine--he's actually generally open to constructive criticism if it's phrased politely and doesn't come (as at present) in the middle of a bombardment.  Admins are admins because Jimbo created the position and appointed the first ones; arbcom is arbcom because Jimbo created and appointed the original tranches, and has overseen and had final authority over every subsequent election.  So yes, there is a lack of community influence over arbcom--that's the idea. Chick Bowen 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Moreschi, you've put your finger on soemthing that is very troubling. Jimbo's relationship to the English Wikipedia -- let alone any one of the Wikimedia projects -- is undefined. Since he resigned from the Wikimedia Board, he has no official relationship to any of the projects; & that resignation suggests that he wants to limit his interaction with these projects. All of us here on en.wikipedia tacitly accept him as the final say over any dispute here; I'm not clear on what the communities involved at the other projects think. (I suspect Jimbo isn't interested in finding out either in the case of, say, the Arabic or Georgian language Wikipedias, where not only would he need a trustworthy interpreter but perhaps even need to introduce himself to them.) Because of that lack of a official relationship, it is entirely possible that a group of unhappy Admins could conspire to ban him from Wikipedia -- & convince a large number of the rest of the community to uphold their act.


 * This radical act is not something I am in favor of doing. So far, his worst decision has been to appoint Essjay to the ArbCom without an open discussion, so I'm willing to continue editting under the current ill-defined arrangement. But if someone as slow & unimaginative as I can conceive of doing this, I suspect that this occasion -- which I do not want to see happen -- may come to pass. -- llywrch 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * <Sigh>. . . Once again, that's simply not the case. Not accepting Jimbo's authority is not an option: it wouldn't be legal or financially possible.  The Foundation still answers to Jimbo and the Foundation owns the server, the domain name wikipedia.org, etc. etc.  So enough of this, please. Chick Bowen 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Enough of this"? I'm just describing a serious point of failure here -- & it disturbs me. Right now, all that connects Jimmy Wales to this project is a lot of trust & unofficial connections -- nothing official. A group of (insert your choice from the following: Admins, Developers, Trustees, etc.) could decide one day to tell him to take a hike & ... he'd have to do it. I don't want to see that -- which is why I'm pointing this out, before someone decides to try that stunt. Since this is falling on deaf ears, I'll end this subject here, but I reserve the right to say "told ya so" if this happens a few years down the road. -- llywrch 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Foundation does not answer to jimbo alone. Foundation answer to the board. Jimbo is only one memeber. Now we have got the constitional stuff out of the way it is important to remeber that it isn't practicle to hold more than one set of arbcom elections per year so some kind of mechanism is needed for fill in apointments.Geni 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my gruff tone, but I still don't see this as a serious problem. Our foundation principles still preserve Jimbo's role, and far as your (addressing Llywrch here) hypothetical scenario goes, only trustees have that power even on a legal level.  Admins and developers don't. Chick Bowen 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * jimbo's formal ranks is on the same level as any other board memeber.Geni 10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2
The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Philwelch
The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by age - my UCFD solution
Please take a look at how I decided to close the Wikipedians born in YEAR UCFD. Before I implement it, I want to see if it's okay. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A very fair and measured closure that took finesse, is my opinion. Xiner (talk, email) 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair compromise. It's important to remember that while WP:ENC, it's not harmful to have community-based aspects as well, and this solution cuts down on overcategorization of users while maintaining a definitive age-based structure for those who like that sort of thing. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have modified User:Ian Moody/User age auto to reflect this (and added equivalent code to other templates which did not formerly categorize, i assume due to this mess). Anyone know what we're doing about the 18-19 set? (and, did we ever reach a consensus on whether identifying users who are (say) 16 or 17 in a "15-19" group is acceptable or not? --Random832 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not have categories for Wikipedians born "in the 90s", "in the 80s", etc? This would avoid specific ages while dealing with the issue of older teenagers (including 18-19). —<font color="#0000bb">Da<font color="#000066">rk<font color="#000022">•S hik ari [T] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians born in the 90s are under 18, and my closure of the debate specifies that children categories are to be gone. Same applies for a small part of the 1980s. Maybe we could have Category:Wikipedians aged 18 or 19, then Category:Wikipedians in their 20s, etc. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't Wikipedians aged 18 and 19 covered adequately by Category:Teenage Wikipedians? WjBscribe 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose... &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how having categories dividing users up by age or year of birth helps us to write an encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some people want to encourage age discrimination? Durova Charge! 14:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's a potential for trying to consider generational gap POV issues/systemic bias, though I am personally doubtful that the categories will end up being used as such. So long as no one attempts to create Category: Unsupervised Underage At-Risk Wikipedians.  Because there's a point where even the more generous applications of AGF peter out.  Bitnine 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand why it might be useful to know someone's age; in that case, they can just say it on their userpage. I still don't see what categories are necessary.  I can't ever think of a situation that would come up where I would be thinking, "Hrmm, I need to talk with a 24-26-year-old Wikipedian ... better go check those categories."  -- Cyde Weys  16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll refrain from giving specific usernames on this example, but about two months ago one of our younger sysops implemented a perfectly normal block. A disruptive editor promptly joined the blocked user's talk page to lodge an ad hominem complaint based on the acting administrator's age.  I happened to be active while this unfolded and promptly voiced my support of the block itself and of the good judgement of that particular administrator, whom I've seen operate well under tough field conditions.  I dislike the idea of categories that facilitate this type of disruption.  Durova Charge! 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

External peer review triggered by Essjay scandal
I am not sure that I am posting in the right area, but the whole Essjay scandal triggered an external peer review found at http://www.shoutwire.com/default.aspx?p=comments&id=56188. Should I post this in External peer review or not, considering the source is Shoutwire and not a traditional medium? This review looks like it has some valid points. Jesse Viviano 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say to post it. It seems to be balanced and offer useful, actionable, criticism. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted it at External peer review/Shoutwire March 2007 and have transcluded it onto External peer review. Jesse Viviano 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto, looks OK. This comment by one responder was hilarious, though: "Why would anybody lie about having a PhD in Theology? That'd be like claiming to have a nasty case of herpes when you don't. Weird." Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with above. We should be encouraging this kind of stuff - outside readers providing us with some article assessment is a good thing. --<font color="#330066">`/aksha 07:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, a productive response from the media instead of gossip. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not bad grades for a work in progress. I would like to see what grades we get in 2015. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy
I started a thread a few days ago to discuss updating the policy language in light of recent precedents. The folks who frequent that talk page don't appear to have been active on this board. The ongoing WP:RFAR of the BabyDweezil community ban raises additional points. To outline the major things: Durova Charge! 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee has affirmed the community's right to topic ban (per Miracleimpulse's denied appeal).
 * WP:BAN does not link to the Disruptive editing guideline, which provides a detailed model for community bans. Since WP:DE has been at the guideline level for six months it's probably time for the policy to link there.
 * BabyDweezil's request for arbitration raises two interesting points that were not anticipated when WP:DE was in the draft proposal phase - specific notification to the editor under discussion when a community ban proposal opens and a mechanism for letting that user present a defense (if blocked from editing while the discussion is underway). These are reasonable points for the community to discuss, and probably to incorporate at either the guideline or the policy.

WP:N and WP:AI
Interesting discussions going on at both these places as to how our notability rules should work. Posting here because I think some more input is needed from a wider base of people. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this here, I forgot this is a good place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Briefsism
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

One of our most frequently and resoundingly endorsed deleted articles, this can wait for an appropriate interval before being renominated. WP:SPA nominations are unlikely to be persuasive. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am opening this up to full and frank debate here: this subject has been deleted multiple times as a hoax and/or nonsense piece, yet it is a real article.

It is basically a parody of nudism that was created to get around anti-nudism laws.

The article SHOULD be undeleted, and done at deletion review, like the Essjay controversy is.

It's important, and the community NEEDS to discuss this burning issue. Then it is settled as to whether we can, or can't, have an article on this subject or not.

Several admins are guilty of refusing to let this subject be debated at DRV. --Golshadow 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So take it to WP:DRV and post the debate here. Hopefully we can all keep from closing it too early, because as shown countless times before closing impassioned debates too early causes more problems than it avoids. (all this said without viewing the most recent DRV debate, if someone could link me to it that would be great) Viridae Talk 11:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Ads to benefit Wikipedia
Closing this. I do not approve of it at all and it seems unlikely anyone else will. This was absolutely not the purpose of my work – Qxz 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

What do you think about having a banner (such as shown on my user page) shown at the top of the tabs, just like what occured with fundraising in December. These help benefit Wikipedia and help to get users involved. <b style="color:#009900; font-family:georgia;">Real96</b> 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no I don't think banner ads are the way we want to inform people of different parts of the project, they are annoying. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aieee, no offense but one word comes to mind: scary. 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. --Fredrick day 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it's fine for users to have them, by their own volition, on their userpage. But not in the MediaWiki namespace. Grace notes <sup style="color:#960;">T  § 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I do not generally think these should be used in Mainspace, but highly selective use elsewhere may have benefits. E.g. you banner might work well at the top of WP:DAB. Cheers Lethaniol 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As the creator of the banners in question, absolutely no way would I want to see them used above articles, or indeed above any page. By all means use my ad template in your userspace, and if you want to add one specific banner to a particular project page, that's probably OK so long as everyone agrees to it. But your suggestion is not the reason I created them at all. Thanks – Qxz 11:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Community enforced mediation
One of the reasons this board got created was as a venue to dovetail with this proposal. Things have been quiet at the proposal for about a month. Does anyone object to my proposal of a three month trial run? Seeking opinions, feedback, and potential refinements. Durova Charge! 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks OK. No objections from me if you want to run this for a bit as a trial. Moreschi Request a recording? 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting episode summaries
I'd like to propose the removal of episode summaries from Wikipedia. By this, I mean articles created specifically to summarize one single episode of a TV show-- Wikipedia is not a TV guide.

The only reason particular episodes of anything should be mentioned, in my opinion, is if they are particularly noteable. Jtrainor 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, we have TONS of episode articles (by TONS, i mean well into the thousands. And i'm not exxaggerating here). There are some series that have pretty good episode articles, a lot of work has gone into them, and i think you're going to be met by a lot of opposition if you suggest we just delete it all (simply because people don't want to see their hard work deleted). Even for episode articles that are really just raw summaries (stuff that blatantly violates WP:NOT), you'll have a hard time trying to get it deleted. I tried running a few dozen episode articles for a certain TV series through AfD late last year, and it got closed as no-consensus. And those episode articles where clearly just summarizes - unlike some episode articles which do have some context and commentary.


 * I agree with you that we have a problem with episode articles. But you're not going to get anywhere by suggesting we delete them all. --<font color="#330066">`/aksha 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose the following: fairly basic articles, such as Legacies (Babylon 5) should be merged into episode lists. When section on particular episode is expanded at least to state of a good stub, it can be splitted to its own page. Max S em 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is in fact what our current guidelines say to do - start with episode lists for entire seasons/series, and when there's enough to say about each episode, split to episode articles. Sadly, that's not what people do. And very often, efforts to merge stubbed episode articles into larger season articles are met with a lot of resistance. --<font color="#330066">`/aksha 09:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir Arven (proposed ban or indef block)
is a fanatical nationalist, who regularly misquotes other users, and seems to only edit Wikipedia to promote his own agenda, rather than improve the overall quality of the project. He repeatedly uses personal attacks, and has been blocked numerous times for doing so. All the user does is preach hatred against Serbs and Croats, and tries to re-write history. No wait, that's not all he does - he also provokes other users, and, either does not understand English, or, is too unintelligent to understand what people are trying to say to him. Below is important information and evidence about his disgusting behaviour on Wikipedia. After reading over the evidence, make up your own mind whether to trust him or not, and whether he deserves to be banned or not.

Diffs of his behaviour
This section has specific diffs of Emir Arven's contributions to Wikipedia since he first joined. Please note, that this is incomplete, as it does not take into account the many sockpuppets he has most certainly used; and also, I deliberately did not include many of his edit warring pages and uncivil edit summaries, as the list would have been far bigger than it already is. If you wish to examine them yourself, feel free to visit his contributions and conduct your own investigation. This diff list will undoubtedly grow larger as time goes on, as Emir does not seem to realise that his behaviour is unacceptable.

Ustašoids in action ''I want to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his user page,in his mad fanatism goes from one picture related to Bosnia to another, and suggests their deletion. Often he does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard to deal with assholes, but the moron is sick and in this manner he had deleted a lot of articles about Srebrenica also. Emir Arven 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)''
 * 2nd ever edit. Emir here claims Bosnian Language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet; however in the future, he claims anyone who says Bosnian uses Cyrillic "hates Bosniaks".
 * Here he starts using POV language and weasel words to portray the whole Serb nation guilty of genocide.
 * Without providing any sources, Emir claims that Naser Oric did not kill civilians, but "soldiers", in order to lessen the crimes of this horrible man.
 * Edit summarry that implies all of Serbia denies genocide. Also of note, here and almost everywhere else, Emir does not use capital "S" and capital "C" for Croat/ia/n and Serb/ia/n - another example of his racism and lack of respect for Serbs and Croats.
 * Provokes an anonymous user, and says the anon is "condemned" for questioning the "facts" of Srebenica.
 * Here, here, and here Emir re-inserts POV, weasel words, falsifications and propaganda without any sources at all.
 * Provokes another anonymous user. Compares the anon to Nazis.
 * Another anon provoked and called a Nazi.
 * Inserts unsourced POV, and calls it "reverting vandalism".
 * Calls u user a "liar" and "pathetic" and yet again compares him to the Nazis.
 * Here claiming (without any evidence) that 10 000 were killed at Srebenica, when all serious sources estimate anywhere from 7000 to 8000.
 * Another anon provoked.
 * Says "it is ridiculous to discuss with Serbs."
 * Avoids the question and instead provokes the editor.
 * Tries again to whitewash Naser Oric's crimes.
 * Tries to re-write history ("Bosniaks" were known as "Muslims" before/during the war, so the term is correct.)
 * Re-writes history and claims a writer is "Bosniak" and removes any reference to other groups.
 * Emir hates Croats so removes the category.
 * Emir hates Serbs so removes the category.
 * Incivility. Emir provokes a user and says he should be ashamed, just over a content dispute.
 * Hates Serbs so removes category.
 * Another example of his Anti-Serb and Anti-Croat sentiment.
 * Removes POV tag without removing the POV.
 * Removed a POV tag, and then added some more POV.
 * Accuses an editor he has a disagreement with over the Bosnian language of being responsible for genocide.
 * Here he signs a signature as another user - deceives people into thinking he was just attacked, when he was the one who impersonated another user and posted an attack against himself.
 * POV from Emir Arven? You must be joking.
 * Intimidates a user and compares him to Milosevic and Mladic.
 * Lies about Nikola Smolenski and accuses him of nationalism.
 * Edit summary that accuses the Serb editors of "Bosnians" of being guilty of genocide.
 * Labels Serb editors as "lunatics".
 * Hates Serbs so he removes the section about war crimes committed against them.
 * Tells Serb editors to "shut up!".
 * Removes POV tag and does not justify it (but he does make some nonsensical remarks on the talk page though).
 * Here and here, Emir acknowledges that the other parties involved cannot edit an AMA Request for Assistance, but here he goes ahead and edits a request I made; directly contradicting himself, and breaking the rules.
 * No mate, that is definitely not neutral.
 * Removes section about atrocities committed against Serbs. Further more, he provokes and insults Nikola Smolenski and calls him a nationalist.
 * Wow. More POV.
 * Reverted to his POV version. Again threatens Nikola Smolenski.
 * Tries to hide crimes committed against Serbs.
 * Claims that a Serb writer was actually a "Bosniak".
 * After a polite discussion with HRE (now PaxE) he immediately starts provoking him and labels him a nationalist just for discussing with him.
 * re-writes history again, with even more POV.
 * More POV.
 * Deletes other users talk page comments.
 * Without justification, removes POV tag.
 * Lies (again) about Nikola Smolenski.
 * Claims this "warning" is according to Wikipedia policy - it is not. Furthermore, it is a highly rude/uncivil tone.
 * Re-writes history.
 * Even more tag vandalism.
 * re-writes history to suite his POV.
 * Claims Kosovo is independent but not recognized in 1990.
 * Adds to the article a "warning" for people not to edit this article.
 * POV edit warring.
 * Hates Serbs so he removes references to the man being a Serb.
 * Labels a discussion as "vandalism".
 * Another example of prejudice towards Serbs.
 * Re-writes history.
 * Claims he sourced his POV when in fact he didn't.
 * Creates a whole "archive" in order to attack another user.
 * Rejects newspapers as a source.
 * Content dispute is not vandalism, mate.
 * After just beign warned about personal attacks, he denies they were attacks, stands by his attacks, and lies about another user.
 * Oh, I see you love getting rid of those tags, but when you disagree, they MUST stay.
 * Attacks HRE again.
 * Edit summary lies. That's way more than one sentence.
 * That is not an anachronism.
 * Considering that Emir cannot understand English, he should not claim to be an expert on English.
 * Tag vandalism.
 * THAT is anachronism.
 * Tag vandalism
 * Shows his racist colors by hiding the crimes committed against Serbs.
 * More offensive edit summaries and trying to re-write history.
 * he certainly loves to re-write history, doesn't he.
 * Actually, you can't.
 * Tag vandalism.
 * unsourced inflation of numbers.
 * Hypocritical action with tags.
 * Re-writes history.
 * Tag vandalism.
 * Attacks the Serbs article because he hates them.
 * Does it again, but this time with an addition of an extreme POV section.
 * Tag vandalism.
 * Tag vandalism.
 * Re-writing history.
 * As above.
 * Implies that HRE is guilty of genocide.
 * He wants Serbophobia deleted, but it is apparent that he suffers from it.
 * Choke on your lies!
 * Hates HRE, Serbs, and everyone who disagrees with him.
 * Canvassing for votes in a language other than English.
 * Croat hater.
 * History re-written
 * This is a strange one. Edit warring with another Bosniak nationalist vandal - I would have thought they'd be best of friends.
 * History re-written.
 * Yet even more historical revisionism.
 * Vote canvassing, and accusing Serb editors of being guilty of genocide.
 * Here he provokes an anon by using a tactic he would later use to provoke me - accusing an unrelated anon of being someone else without any justification.
 * POV revisionism.
 * More lies and attacks aimed at HRE.
 * Hates Serbs so he removes references to them.
 * Calls Serb editors "war criminals".
 * Liar.
 * False history.
 * Tag vandalism.
 * Example of Serbophobia.
 * Re-writing history.
 * But everyone else thinks so.
 * No. "Terrorist" is correct.
 * More revisionism and offensive edit summary.
 * he always uses Noel Malcolm as a "source". Malcolm is one of the most ignorant fools and con artist the world has ever seen.
 * Serb hatred.
 * Actually Emir, you are the one stealing history.
 * Re-writing history.
 * More lies.
 * Emir hates Croats.
 * More lies.
 * But... you never use sources yourself Emir.
 * "Nationalistic crap"? I've seen that before.
 * More personal attacks and lies.
 * Trying to defend a personal attack.
 * Well, why don't we all invent history.
 * Lies and personal attacks.
 * That was not vandalism. Furthermore, Emir Arven insists on doing the exact same thing to people - tagging pages as sockpuppets without any justification at all or any investigation.
 * More nationalism by Emir.
 * Another example of his hatred of Serbs and Croats.
 * It's true. Also Americans are largely descendant of Angels who came to Earth thousands of years ago.
 * More lies and attacks against HRE.
 * Wow. He just warned someone about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and in the same paragraph, violated those policies.
 * Serbophobia.
 * Are you?
 * Actually they are needed.
 * Offensive edit summary.
 * Accuses Serb editors of being involved in genocide. He then tries to justify his attack, and says the blockign admin should be ashamed for blocking him.
 * Provocation and harassment without proof.
 * Personal attack.
 * My very first encounter with Emir Arven. he immediately assumes bad faith, and calls my edit vandalism, when in fact, I reverted vandalism from a known sockpuppet of banned user Hahahihihoho.
 * He then provokes me, and tries to say that he sourced the above edit, when he in fact did not.
 * He then went to some person's talk page and lied about what had just happened - he says that i am a potential nationalist who removed a huge section of sourced information, when in fact, I reverted unsourced vandalism, that was in a tiny section of the article.
 * I read it, he didn't source it.
 * More provocations. Quite possibly the beginning of his vendetta against me.
 * Doesn't answer; only provokes more.
 * That's true. Anyone can see what happened. I was completely write, and Emir just used profanity - instigating a huge dispute.
 * More lies and attacks.
 * More personal attacks.
 * No Emir, you provoked him.
 * Personal attacks - called someone stupid.
 * Again tries to justify personal attack on an anon.
 * Called someone a "stupid child"
 * reverted a legitimate speedy nom.
 * Provoked me by saying the edit was done by me.
 * More provocation. He clearly reverted an anonymous user, but chose to accuse the anon of being me.]
 * ,, Huge personal attacks against me. He still has not been punished or warned over these three. Translated they mean:
 * Personal attack.
 * More provocations, personal attacks, false accusations, and general incivility and ignorance. Even after I explained that the anon could not have been me, he just ignored it, then used the link I GAVE HIM to try and "prove" his claims - which is odd as the link proves that they were not me.
 * Provocation.
 * This is one showing that he did not read my comments proving that it was not me.
 * I actually answered his stupid question a long time before this.
 * Unjustified revert and provocation.
 * Personal attack and huge provocation.
 * As above.
 * After getting pissed off about his block, he decided to provoke and attack me some more.
 * After an admin removed Emir's personal attacks against me, Emir just put them straight back in.
 * Racism. He hates Indians, and says they "conspired against him".
 * Threatens an administrator.
 * More provocations and attacks.
 * Provocations that restarted the whole situation.
 * No it's not ok. You hate Serbs and removed all references to him being Serb.
 * Provocations again.
 * Didn't provide source for his removal of vital info.
 * Racist colors fly again. Claims a source is false because a Serb wrote it.
 * Repeating his bullshit. because of his childish actions on this noticeboard, not one admin looked into the situation.
 * Trying to paint a rosy picture of these radical Islamic terrorists.
 * Not only is he removing sourced important information, but he also used the exact same edit summary I once used - he doesn't have very good command of English, so he copies my words.
 * Threatens me, attacks me, provokes me, repeats bullshit, etc.
 * Removes sourced information.
 * Lies. Revisionism. And provocation.
 * No Emir, you know that you are not allowed to edit that page.
 * More provocation.
 * More lies, attacks and provocations.
 * As above.
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Ivan Kricancic - Emir created this page to try and "prove" his claims. In the end, it proved him wrong, and his accusations of sockpuppetry are unfounded, as usual.
 * Not it wasn't a private message. It was a personal attack against me, and no, you have not been warned or punished over it yet. Choke on your lies!
 * Lies, provocations, insults.
 * Repeating (again) the same old bullshit that has been proved false. More lies, accusations, personal attacks etc.

Attack pages
User talk:Emir Arven and the bottom half of User talk:Emir Arven/Archives 4 are basically attack pages against me.

Block log
Let's now have a look at Emir's block log


 * 00:32, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (3RR violation, several personal attacks, longer block as this user has been blocked for PA multiple times.)
 * 00:30, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (Extending block.)
 * 11:20, February 11, 2007 Aksi great (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR on Alija Izetbegović)
 * 03:26, September 11, 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (personal attacks)
 * 21:48, March 6, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (need to defuse)
 * 22:11, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (reblocking)
 * 22:09, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (had earlier been given shorter blocks)
 * 21:47, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Mandatory cooling-off period)
 * 18:53, February 26, 2006 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Stephen II Kotromanić)
 * 23:37, November 25, 2005 Chris 73 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš and other articles)

Emir has been blocked eight (8) times for heavy edit warring, personal attacks, and rampant incivility. These blocks span his entire Wikipedia career, so it is clear that he will not learn from his mistakes, and he will continue his disgusting behaviour into the future unless something is done.

Conclusion
At this stage it has become clear that Emir Arven is nothing more than a vandalistic, nationalist troll. He certainly is not here to edit constructively, but he is here to spread lies, propaganda, racism, and get on everyone's nerves. In all honesty, I believe that any administrator who has good foresight will punish this "editor" as soon as possible with an indefinite block or a ban, with no chance of him ever coming back to the English Wikipedia. <font style="background:none" size="3">&mdash;<font color="darkblue" face="Vivaldi">King <font color="darkred" face="Times New Roman">Ivan 08:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: thread moved from WP:ANI. MER-C 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Community ban of 1B6
Editor is banned from editing Wikipedia per consensus of uninvolved editors. The blocking administrator is encouraged to log the blocking action on the appropiate section on the bans page. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  13:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Add to above: Should the user defend him/herself on the talk page with anything of substance, I do not think anyone would mind us opening another review here. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: The user has replied on that talk page,  [ with threats ] ; page is now reverted/protected. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

<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.

Per this edit which impersonates administrative powers I have imposed an indefinite block on this user. I also propose a community siteban. The block history on this account demonstrates that this editor already received an indef block as a vandal only account that was lifted with a final warning. In the month since that time the edit history has had serious problems. JzG has had more involvement than I and may supplement this. Here are some highlights:
 * WP:POINT
 * Adds an indef blocked template to the talk page of an account that has never been blocked and has no edit history. Then adds a welcome template to that talkpage.
 * Adds a notability template to an article that received a unanimous keep in a deletion discusson.
 * Changes a policy nutshell to make it less informative. Then makes rude accusations of admin abuse at the editor who reverts it.
 * During the debate about the WP:SOCK nutshell, user tweaks a doppelganger account.


 * WP:CIVIL
 * Removed stupid weasle [sic] words
 * Removed stupid image
 * I haven't got time to talk to childish little fools like you.
 * Shut up you insensitive little brat.


 * WP:OWN
 * I have added a section on the How Hard Can It Be challenges, if you wish to edit these, do so at your will but mleave me a message first. 


 * Borderline threat: Where would be the best place to punch him?
 * More impersonation of administrative powers: Go on, make my day, let me block you.

Durova Charge! 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse indef block Not sure if non admins' opinions on this are welcomed (I've guessed they are, as this we're "Community" members) but this block seems entirely reasonable - with two "final warnings" already passed, it's arguably overdue. --Dweller 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually nonadmins' opinions are welcome. I'd like to make this a siteban. Durova Charge! 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse, per my earlier comment on WP:AN/I. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse this troll poll, anything from this user which is not outright vandalism seems to be tiresome and vexatious. Nothing worthwhile to offset the disruption caused and my (limited) patience is well and truly exhausted.  Guy (Help!) 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, there is no point in allowing disruptive editors to keep editing, even if they do occasionally make good contributions. And he is unquestionably being disruptive. Although I'm not sure why impersonating admin powers seems to be seen as mattering more than what he threatened to do with those powers he doesn't have... -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, impersonation of an administrator is a straightforward reason for indef blocking. Although this individual didn't actually forge a signature the prior indef block with a final warning upon unblocking weighed.  I figured this merited both an indef block and a siteban and that particular edit provided the clearest grounds for doing so.  Durova Charge! 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse - first thing he did upon come here was to start arguing with several administrators and regular users, make WP:POINT accusations (including by vandalizing my and other people's userpages). I was willing to WP:AGF, but seeing as he's not improved, I say block. He has to know this isn't acceptable on this site. Part Deux 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Highly disruptive user with very little to contribute, and has already received more than his share of warnings to behave, so it's certainly not because he doesn't know better. --Maelwys 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse User is clearly not here to improve the project. There is no sense in putting up with more. --DSRH |talk 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse the bulk of this user's edits are pure disruption. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse indef and siteban. Anchoress 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse for obvious reasons. Vandalism, trolling, disruption. The lot. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will stay neutral but I would welcome you taking into account his discussion with me here (and would welcome any comments if you think my own initial response was conceivably "uncivil"). Halsteadk 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm the admin who made the last block on User:1B6. It was within my first four days as an admin, you should probably know that. I made the block after these two edits in particular and a history including recent vandalism. The account seemed to be going downhill from a low point (see first block ). My explanation of the block is here at the unblocking. He promised at the time not to do it again. His antics and incivility are clearly straining. My previous comments stand and I am disappointed by what I've seen since. Due my previous involvement, I am otherwise neutral. -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: All of the diffs I present in this ban request occurred after the final warning and the pledge to reform. Durova Charge! 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Wikipedia cleanup day

 * Moved to WP:VPR. This page is for sanctions/bans/other nasty conflicts.
 * Erm, regarding other nasty conflicts - once or twice this board has seen the start of a thread that tried to use it as user conduct WP:RFC. This isn't part of WP:DR.  Thanks for moving this discussion.  Cheers,  Durova Charge! 13:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

End of Anon edits

 * Moved to WP:VPR.

Community discussion about WP:ATT
Moved to WP:VPP where it belongs. See previous thread for details they donate money to the sick kids hosipBy today's standards the resources seem few. However, it was indeed a good library for its time. As well as a large collection of books, there was also a reading room (not a regular feature of lending libraries of the period).and that's why it's a community. because the books help the kids read better.Each year we offer a wide variety of programs and services,Milton library did to bring the members of the community together.

Community ban library
Moved to WT:CN <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Starwood
The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Community ban on User:Roitr
It appears consensus to ban has been reached to ban this user. It is recommended that the blocking sysop please place the notes in the appropriate places, e.g. talk page, and ban list. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC) <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.



'''Comments refactored to remove bold. THIS IS NOT A VOTE. Please do not treat it as such.''' Viridae Talk 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC) This user has a long and interesting history of repeated vandalism, as detailed on Long term abuse/Roitr, however formally he is not banned but just indefinitely blocked. A formal ban would help fight him because there will be no slightest restrictions in reverting any of his edits (this has been a sensitive issue and some legitimate editors were blocked for 3RR in the past). --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The point of this request is an important enough difference between an indefinite block and a ban - i.e., as the policy says, any indefblocked user is always welcome to create new account, reconsider his behaviour and start anew, but banned user is simply not welcome to edit on the Wikipedia anymore, and all his edits (including legitimate ones) are to be reverted.
 * Now not every vandal out there on WP:LTA has been formally banned (though many can be considered effectively banned, given their history of indefblocked sockpuppets), but this particular account been blocked for more than a year now and yet he just continues with his actions, despite multiple warnings and attempts to reason with. Considering his past behaviour and especially his threats to disrupt the work of other users and the Wikipedia as a whole, I believe this user is well deserving a personal community ban. I can compile a detailed rationale if his actions documented on WP:LTA are not enough to warrant this measure. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For reference...


 * --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The above summary misreads policy.


 * Here is the entire text of Blocking_policy:
 * A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked.


 * Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Admins can revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.)


 * For comparison, the complete text of WP:BAN:
 * Except for partial bans, the primary account of any banned user is customarily blocked for the duration of the ban.


 * If the banned user creates sock puppet accounts to evade the ban, these may be blocked. When evasion is a problem, the IP address of a banned user who edits from a static IP address can also be blocked for the duration of the ban.  When a banned user evades the ban from a range of addresses, short term IP blocks may be used.  Typically, these last 24 hours.


 * In addition, WP:SOCK specifically covers both situations:
 * Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it.


 * Hence this nomination's formal basis proceeds from a misreading: although banning policy specifically empowers immediate reversion and blocking of ban-evading sockpuppets and their edits, it does not preclude such action on blocked accounts. Banning policy's purpose is to define banning rather than blocking.  Blocking policy specifically allows those responses to block evasion and sockpuppet policy covers both areas.  Productive editors are already empowered to do everything this proposal seeks.  Durova Charge! 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks for clearing this out. However, I didn't mean to put technical and procedural implications as the primary reason, at least not intentionally. From Banning_policy:
 * The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia... Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct...
 * Bans should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia... A ban is a social construct and does not, in itself, physically prevent the user from editing any page.
 * So the most important question is whether this user has exhausted the community's patience beyond an usual indefinite block to warrant formal revocation of editing privileges. Given his 1.5 year long history, I still feel a nomination for community ban is very appropriate. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I support the request for a ban. Durova Charge! 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How are there any restrictions on reverting an indef blocked user's edits other than WP:AGF during the interim between a new sock's emergence and a strong whiff of the familiar odor? I see no difference in that respect between a block and a ban.  Durova Charge! 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What would "we" be fighting him against? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Answering that may be why Long term abuse/Roitr was linked above. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 07:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the page and agree the behavior is appalling. My question regards the reasoning of this proposal.  Durova Charge! 15:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I support a ban, if only to back up the indefinite block. ~Crazytales (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse Appalling track record. --Dweller 12:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity, for whomever closes this, we are endorsing a block. (correct me if I am incorrect) My opinion remains Neutral<font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For clarity, this is not about endorsing a block, it is (as the section header says) about imposing a community ban. Dmitry says Roitr's account is already indefblocked but the person behind the account is not banned, and Dmitry is here requesting a ban on the person. The difference will be that, with a ban, any other account identified as belonging to the same person will be subject to not only blocking but reversion, without 3RR applying. Dmitry says "some legitimate editors were blocked for 3RR in the past", so the ban would protect them where a mere indefblock did not. That's why to have a ban on top of the indefblock. Please correct me if *I* am incorrect. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse. Unfortunately, this user seems to be damaging to the project. I support a permenant ban. Vassyana 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I'll accept that explanation.  Durova Charge! 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: based on what's just happened today, he's not here to help us.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Today was a horror show of mass vandalism from multiple IPs coming faster than 3 editors could keep up with. He's got a track record a mile long. Didn't realize he wasn't already banned. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, this user's behaviour is disruptive and detrimental to the project. – Riana ঋ 14:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse community ban: if you have your own subpage at LTA, and haven't been community banned, then you damn well should be. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Community Ban on Turok 1
Request removed per requester and comments. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC) <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.

This user has been block indefinately, and has created numorous sockpuppets, some of which were used for severe trolling and personal attacks. Though I've never filed a report here, I stronly think this has gone too far. I think this user needs to be banned to protect Wikipedia, it's contributors, and all other people.--User: (talk • contribs) 06:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note WP:RFCU has been filed. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone there, because I thought the sock puppetry is already known.--User: (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm agreeing with you. This is crazy. I was just linking to it, that's all. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally this area is for users who have a clear persona on Wikipedia and present an ongoing problem to the community. I don't see this case as fitting this description, am I wrong? 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Community bans are for those who persist in abusing Wikipedia via sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, etc. in a chronic fashion. Short episodes such as these should be under WP:RBI. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree with both Netscott and Physicq. There have been countless sock/vandal episodes similar to this.  They dwindle out eventually.  If it persists over a longer period of time then more serious measures are in order.<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that banning was for severe editing abuse, not mainly chronic. Though, you are right. It was not ongoing enough for to be handled with a ban. I think it would be an appropriete time to remove the request, as concensus has spoken.--User: (talk • contribs) 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it staying here and being archived as normal. Folks are still getting used to this relatively new board... this case will help to illustrate what is to go here. 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Community-imposed personal attack parole
Moved to WT:CN <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Community ban on User:BenH
Bearing in mind the community bans are not determined by agreement of a handful of folk, there are at this time no objections to the banning action. If there is a substantial objection, the action is welcome to be relisted here. It appears consensus has been reached from those who commented. The blocking administrator is encouraged to re block linking this discussion and list the user at the appropiate talk and ban pages. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC) <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.



This guy was repeatedly warned for vandalism and infantile edits (I've fixed at least two of them), and was blocked at least once. He's had an RfC pending on him for almost a year and hasn't bothered to respond--he's been indefinitely blocked since July. Moreover, he's been suspected of using numerous sockpuppets. An administrator mentioned that he'd blocked one of them since BenH was permanently banned, but there's no notation in his block log of this. One of his suspected sockpuppets was active as late as March 20.

This guy obviously has no intentions of being a meaningful contributor, and the block hasn't stopped him. This more than meets the criteria for a community ban. Blueboy96 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse. Once you start using Sockpuppets to get around an IndefBlock or ArbCom decision, there's really one path that follows. SirFozzie 16:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. But to clarify, the checkuser got declined because it was too old.  Already indef blocked; no reason to oppose.  Durova Charge! 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to note the latest user cited is IP address, not blocked as of this edit. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by user proposing ban I should also note that he asked to be unblocked, but was turned down by User:JzG for not answering his RfC. Instead, as you'll see, all we got was more sockpuppetry.  A community ban would enable us to nip this in the bud, and permanently. Blueboy96 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse -- Everything BenH has contributed has been superfluous, unneeded, and/or false, especially in the History section, where he makes up his onw history, if a station doesn't have one. -- azumanga 22:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing I might be concerned about is that he hasn't been logging in, and every IP he edits from will likely be blocked so we might have a denial of service vandal. Almost every user on his list is an IP as opposed to a logged in user.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worse than just making trivial or annoying edits, most of what he included seems to be disputed as being either original research or outright fabrication by others knowledgable in the field. We don't need him.  Guy (Help!) 08:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse: sockpuppetry to evade blocks for disruption is a pretty clear-cut rationale for a community ban. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requests for arbitration/Free Republic
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to User:DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year. The articles Free Republic and Democratic Underground are placed on article probation. It is expected that these articles will be improved to conform with Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. Either article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user, and users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack parole for CalJW
No consensus, closed without prejudice. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) <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.



Based on his recent bullying and attacks that caused user:RobertG to leave the project, and because his userpage suggests he finds it acceptable to make nasty remarks at admins, and because he appears to have a history of incivility and personal attacks (e.g. here and here) I would suggest that be placed on personal attack parole. That is, based on WP:BLOCK and similar ArbCom rulings, he may be blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for 24 hours, or as much as a week for repeat offenses. Such blocks should be logged on this board.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some more links: the user appears to have a history of this sort of thing, particularly with regard to admins: see and  and  and  and . Moreschi Request a recording? 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

discussion of editors actions and community action (parole, etc) regarding this editors actions

 * Endorse this. CaJW's bile aimed at RobertG over the trivial matter of one CfD closure made in the best of faith was entirely unacceptable and somewhat sickening. We really cannot have this sort of harassment. Not an indefinite personal attack parole, though, because I don't think that's warranted: I say we put an expiry time of six months on this, in which the user will hopfully calm down and stop viewing the harassment of admins as acceptable. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would endorse this; it is, after all, merely requiring that which is already expected. If CalJW is reluctant to accept a sanction without ArbCom then we go to ArbCom, but I see no pressing reason to waste their time on something which looks, to my eyes anyway, pretty clear-cut. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the editor in question have to accept anything? I believe the community has the right to enforce this with or without consent of the user in question, just as ArbCom can. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say so, yes. If the community reaches an overwhelming consensus that a sanction should be applied, and the editor refuses to accept it, then we go to ArbCom.  They have speedily endorsed some previous community sanctions (all bans, I think) and that should satisfy even the most legalistic.  I see community sanctions as RfCs with teeth, where the problem behaviour is beyond gentle admonition. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. The community is far too tolerant of those who create a poisonous atmosphere. Paraphrasing Gresham's Law, the bad editors drive out the good. We need to stop it. Raymond Arritt 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't find CalJW's comments to all that vicious and in fact it was an action by RobertG similar to what seems to have annoyed Cal, that has stopped me from seriously editing in wikipedia and convinced me instead to spend my wikitime doing this sort of thing. Cal did not appear to be rude, but he had some serious things that he felt needed to come out, so he said them.  By banning him you are (opinion) actually proving that his allegations of oligarchical behavior is a reality.  Carptrash 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing a ban: we are discussing a potential personal attack parole. The odd semi-controversial CfD closure made in good faith is no justification for allegations of a cabal, because there isn't one. All admins have to make tough calls from time to time: if we prevented that happening we'd have no admins. Moreover, it is not what you say: it's the way in which you say it. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying the difference between a ban and a parole - or at least suggesting that there was one.  I will ned to know these and many more things since I am now going to haunt these halls instead of, say, those of John Henry Waddell or  Ulric Ellerhusen or the places I usually frequent.  But I wish to mention here that there is a growing number of committed (or, formerly committed) wikipedians who feel that the rift between those who edit and those who tell other what and how and where and when to do it is growing. This discussion here,(opinion) grows out of that.  Still Oppose. Carptrash 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, but I rather feel that characterising non-admins as "those who edit" and admins as "those who tell other what and how and where and when to do it" is not really accurate. Many of our finest admins are excellent content contributors with featured articles to their names: viz User:Makemi, User:Antandrus, User:Kirill Lokshin, and RobertG himself - I could easily go on. Many non-admins do nothing but vandal-revert all day long or do process wonkery. It's not easily clear-cut. You may well be right as to that's the reason why CaJW's personal attacks were made - and those diffs I listed above would certainly support that theory: all the unpleasantness involved is against admins - but those personal attacks were made, and there is a history of them. Hopefully six months of personal attacks parole will sort this problem out. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I did not mean to suggest that admins are "those who do not edit". I do not feel that way. 97.2 % (carpmath) of my interactions with admins have been pleasant and productive.  Rather, that this particular incident involved members of the Editor and Non-editors and it just happened that one of them was an admin.  And in fact I didn't really realize that RobertG was an admin.  To me he was (massive projection on my part) someone hunched over a bot or something, chorkling with glee as it devored hours of my work. Oh well.  In any case, I've looked at most of the Look here and Look there's posted here and still oppose.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC). Sorry about that. The dog peed on the big potted plant and I was distracted. Carptrash 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to close. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this needs more input. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I just hope we see it get more input. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

other discussion regarding nature of solution

 * Comment this request would establish a new precedent for community action. Previous community decisions have been bans and were covered via WP:BAN.  What policy empowers the community to impose this requested sanction?  Has this sort of extension of community powers ever been the subject of consensus discussion (if so where)?  What is the exact substance of this proposed personal attack parole?  I'm not theoretically opposed to this sort of thing, but the request proposes a significant extension of community powers in language that implies this is routine rather than precedent-making.  Durova Charge! 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an extension of powers. If the community has the power to ban a user from the encyclopedia as a whole, they by definition also have the power to do less than that, e.g. ban a user from some article, or from making personal attacks (which users should not be doing to begin with). Personal attack paroles have in the past been imposed by the ArbCom. The relevant policy is WP:BLOCK, which, among others, says "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect ... its users ... Examples include ... Persistent personal attacks" and "User accounts with persistent violations [of NPA] may be blocked indefinitely." In effect we're saying "we don't like that you did this and will block you temporarily if you do it again".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the request in principle. Community bans are a developing area and it has been only one month since ArbCom affirmed the community's ability to topic ban.  Perhaps extension of community powers is an overstatement since you're correct in stating that the ability to impose community personal attack parole is implicit in the ability to community ban.  Either way, this is an innovative proposal and Wikipedians who participate here should be aware that this thread will probably get cited as precedent.  I'll confine my participation to neutral procedural questions.  In particular I'm interested in the specifics of this personal attack parole.  Would it have a formal schedule of remedies, and if so what?  Where would it be logged?  Durova Charge! 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good questions... taking the wording from Arb cases, we'd end up with "standard personal attack parole for . He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for 24 hours, or as much as a week for repeat offenses.". Arb cases do not specify logging; if we want logging, either the user's talk page or the CN board would work. Formal schedule is, say, half a year as suggested by Moreschi. Remedies is the block as stated above.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you work those ideas into formal specifics and expand upon the initial request? It would be easier to get a consensus one way or the other if the proposal is comprehensive.  Durova Charge! 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly the community has the ability to do this. The community even has the ability to pick up wholesale and dump the entire Wikimedia Foundation and continue work somewhere else if they please (right to fork).  We don't need ArbCom to handle everything, you know.  We're grown-ups.  we can handle things ourselves.  -- Cyde Weys  14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF: I do not mean to imply that the community is immature. This request does break new ground and I want to make sure the oxen are pulling a good plow.  Durova Charge! 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please AGF yourself. Nowhere did I accuse you of bad faith and it's sad to see you accusing me of it.  -- Cyde Weys  15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Damned if I can see any bad faith from anyone :) Certainly, if the community can topic ban, it's logical that we can enforce measures such as personal attack parole. Having said that, as a side issue I do often wish the community handled more stuff itself, rather than dumping responsibility onto the shoulders of authority figures such as Arbcom/Jimbo. But that's fairly irrelevant. Just going out, I think more evidence needs to be presented on the specifics of this later, which I'll do. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Moreschi, and apologies to Cyde if my reply seemed inappropriate. All I mean to say is that this proposal deserves a full and open discussion.  Respectfully,  Durova Charge! 15:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt; , would it be possible to encourage CalJW to write a statement here? I am greatly saddened by RobertG's departure, but I think it would be helpful to hear both sides.  Thanks,  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CalJW has been notified. Durova Charge! 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, to try to keep focus, might I suggest devoting this section on the particulars of the case at hand and starting another (here or on talk) in order to discuss the mechanics/logistics/etc of community sanctioned parole as a general matter? Something like that seems like it would be best in giving both issues the attention and focus that they deserve. Bitnine 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that User:CalJW has quit Wikipedia. Note that User:82.18.125.110 is apparently the same person. --Sam uel Wan t man 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal to ban User:Ararat arev
Bearing in mind, banning is not done by a handful of folk, there have been no objections and the discussion is appears unlikely to generate more discussion. Editor banned, the banning sysop is encouraged to reban linking this discussion, and mark the appropriate talk page and note the ban page. Relist if substantial objection raised. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC) <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.



This user was blocked multiple times for edit warring and use of sockpuppets to continue the edit wars while blocked, eventually leading to an indefinite block being placed. Subsequently, only more of the same has taken place, armies of socks continuing the same tactics on Armenia to the point that the page has had to be protected twice,. (See the page history, effectively every redlink username editing in the last few days is a sock continuing the same edit war). This user obviously has no intent of contributing constructively. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. Non-stop completely nonconstructive sockpuppetry is not acceptable, ever. This user is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Appalling track record, plus making a mockery of the rules by evading a block. Totally unacceptable.Blueboy96 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It's time to convert this indef block into a ban.  Durova Charge! 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. He was vandalizing an arbitration case via IP less than 24 hours ago. Picaroon 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal to ban User:LegoAxiom1007
No consensus, and consensus appears unlikely. Closed without prejudice. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC) <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.



User is a very subtle vandal, so much so that WP:AIV rejected the report and instead suggested sending it to ANI. I prefer this forum for this person. He's been "experimenting" with Twinkle, doing things like spending hours reporting already blocked users to WP:AIV, reverting edits randomly (although to be fair he's gotten a little more on point more recently), and submitting invalid page protection requests. User has one block for misusing Twinkle. User re-violated it on getting off the block. Most of the user's warnings regard these invalid reports. I'll post specific diffs tomorrow when I have more time. Nardman1 01:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's about using twinkle, this is about having a monobook.css subpage, we can stop him from using it by blanking and then protecting it for a while. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already put it up for deletion. Nardman1 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if it's just about that, no ban. Looking at the talk page this is a newcomer learning the ropes.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I doubt that. His very first edit was to his monobook.js. That's not a very newbie move. And now he's using WP:ARV. And he's applied to use vandalproof. Not only is he not a newbie, he's a very sophisticated user, probably a sock of an older editor. If only I knew who. Nardman1 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User notified. Maybe if he sees this he'll take refraining the tool to heart. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 01:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are going to ban me or not? Because I'm very actionable and very innocent. But, what, so I got blocked only 1 time. It's still a minor problem, is it? IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And he doesn't even sign his real name. He is a very experienced editor. He's gaming us. Nardman1 01:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just referain from using the twinkle tool unless you know what you're doing. Your experiments worked.  If you want to make good use of twinkle, go to Special:Recentchanges and look for vandal edits (page blanking, inserting comments in non-talk pages, etc).  But reverting good edits and reporting already-blocked users is abuse. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another example of his sophistication . This IS NOT A NEWBIE EDITOR. Nardman1 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. I think I forgot to add a period at the end of a sentence in . Thank you for spotting that error mistake, Nardman1. I think I can be your friend to you right now. Or, I think you can help with me. IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we just ban from any sort of semi-automated tool? If so, that is definitely best. -Amarkov moo! 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there, you guys. This is a message for everyone who started this session. I just want you to know that I sometimes got woken up early or late form bed. I think I got really sleepy and grumpy lately. However, you might not want you try to be very mean to me. I am a bit sleepy lately. And I may not respond very excellently. And I think I may put a WikiLove template to your userpages. Thank you, good night, and have fun posting. IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to believe this may be a newbie user. But he needs to seriously slow down his editing and avoid page moves and the like until he learns what is going on. I've added some messages to his talk page to help guide him in the right direction. Nardman1 04:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, some of his edits are misguided but glad you're AGF. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The proposer of this action has filed RFCU at Requests for checkuser/Case/LegoAxiom1007. Thanks, <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment Checkuser request rejected. – Riana talk 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a long wikivacation. This case has shown just how much I've begun to stress about vandal-fighting. If this user is a vandal it'll be known in time. So long, and thanks for all the fish. Nardman1 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about banning, but something is very, very fishy here. I first caught wind of this one with a huge pile of dodgy RFP requests, for templates he'd just created, or userboxes, or things like that. I AGF like no tomorrow, but I only knew about the existence of my monobook after about a month in, only began using it after 2 months, and never knew about the existence AIV or RFPP till about August of last year. Almost definitely a sock of someone, and probably just subtly testing us to see just how far we can be pushed until someone drops the banhammer on him. Don't think his actions are, well, disruptive enough to merit a ban yet, but I would advise that we keep our eyes open for other users with similar edits. – Riana talk 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I found RFPP within 15 minutes of my first edit, and AIV within an hour. Someone who had experience as an anon might be able to do it considerably faster. The monobook stuff is the only thing I find fishy, but I find it hard to believe that someone can mimic a new user so perfectly. -Amarkov moo! 16:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn, maybe I'm just daft like that. – Riana talk 16:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found WP:LOP over a month before my first edit, so it's certainly possible for a new user to know the rules. --ais523 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - I think I'm a heavily experienced user by now, and I never knew of the WP:LOP page until this minute. (It would have been helpful for me to have found it some time ago. :) ) Newyorkbrad 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to close. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Close which way? Do we have a resolution here? Newyorkbrad 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it appears no consensus, and consensus will be unlikely. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to close, but as "ban user from monobook.js for 3 months". I admit that sounds more like an arbcom ruling, if necessary I'll refile there. Nardman1 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another administrator has just left a very final-sounding warning on his talkpage. I think we can leave things there for now, with this account headed for a long-term block if the user doesn't improve his editing very soon. I've also suggested reconsideration of the decline on the checkuser request, though of course there is no guarantee that will be granted. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Two more examples of horrendous edits today, but before the final warning issued. Warning a user for "moving" a page with twinkle when in fact the user just created a redirect and asking a user to change their user name, USING THE TEMPLATE DESIGNED FOR THE PAGE FOR RENAMING  and acting like an administrator, ordering the user to report back to his page. Nardman1 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And here . Nardman1 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just added a final warning and some instructions to the user of my own. I've had about enough of this. Newyorkbrad 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't even mentioned the ridiculous templates He's created. See and the two discussions linked from there. Nardman1 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to get off topic again, just want to link to some discussion I generated about his behavior today here. He's violated a warning from multiple admins. Nardman1 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to refocus this discussion or close it. What type of ban is proposed, and for how long? <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Action and Timeline

 * I'll take the initiative. I would propose a ban from any semi-automated editing tool, defined so as to exclude simple tabs such as used in deltab, for a period of a month. I think that's plenty of time; the point is to give him more experience before using them so they aren't misused. This isn't proposed as a punishment. -Amarkov moo! 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to modify the proposal to add one minor thing: Prevent user from using a copyrighted name Isuzu Axiom as his signature. Nardman1 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This action may better be done at processes at WP:U. <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  / <font color="Green">contribs  03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not really relevant here anyway. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal as nominator (actually I'd support a lot more but I'll take what I can get). Nardman1 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As a tangientally related comment, if this ban passes, and he continues to make bad edits after it expires, I'd support a permanent ban, as that would completely exhaust any ability to assume good faith. -Amarkov moo! 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update1: I've Speedily Kept the MFD, as MFD is not the venue for controling user activities. — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update2: User has removed their local .js settings . — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.