Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6

Community ban on User:SEGA

 * 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.


 * Ban enacted.

(Brought over from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppeter SEGA) A few months ago, a sockpuppeter was found to be through a RFC (Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA) and two more cases since then have led to 40+ sockpuppet bans (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SEGA). I had recently made a third case, but it was declined because there was not ArbComm banning. Since then, there seems to be rampant escalation of sockpuppets again at User talk:Moeron, Marc Daubert, Parlor Tricks, and Image:DaubertAlbum1.jpg including, but not limited to,, , , (which is very close to the SEGA IP blocked, ),. Besides the very similar editing manner, almost all use harsh edit summarys. The recent issues stem from Image:DaubertAlbum1.jpg, which I tagged for speedy deletion with the summary "Repost of previously speedy deleted Image:DaubertAlbum.jpg; not an actual cover, but a cropped and doctored version of also deleted Image:Daubs.jpg." This is not the first time this image has been uploaded and deleted though, since it was also called Image:marcdaubert_part2.gif. I also had WP:PRODed Parlor Tricks, which I may send to WP:AFD now, since there is NO information anywhere about this album besides mirrors of Wikipedia information and http://www.marcdaubert.com is pretty bare.

It was suggested by and  that I bring this here so that a definitive ban can be placed on SEGA so that future RFC cases (and other such actions) can proceed with such a ruling. Since posting at AN/I, this evening two more "new editors" appeared that I believe to be sockpuppets, and, both who have targeted articles I have created with WP:PRODs, perhaps stemming from my PROD of Parlor Tricks. I would appreciate a ruling on this so that these sockpuppets, the underlying IP (which stems from the 68.112.XXX.XXX range, such as ), and future ones can be dealt with. -- moe.RON   Let's talk  01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse. Once you get beyond a single sockpuppet, you are telling the WP World that you're not going to play by the rules. 40+ Socks? Ban. SirFozzie 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If this guy is indefinitely blocked and no one is willing to unblock, isn't this guy banned already? We're getting a lot of indefblocked users.  Besides, his name would fail username policies as sharing the name of the SEGA videogame company and that alone is enough to merit an indefblock as there is no indication this user represents the company.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not formally; WP:BAN requires a decision by Arbcom or the community to ban, not just block indef. The point of a ban would be that there need be no discussion about blocking any of his socks and reverting all their edits. -Amarkov moo! 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kinda wonder what User:SEGA claim is. His only block was his current one leading me to believe that extra accounts were not initially created in response to the block but a grudge against another user. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse, strongly. This guy has been a right pain in the backside, and has sure gone beyond my patience levels. I'm pretty sure the community has had enough of him and his wikilaywering and sockpuppeting. Ban.  Daniel Bryant  04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse, per one of the largest abusive sockfarms I've ever seen, at Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA. I haven't yet seen any productive contributions from this user. As mentioned above, it's highly unlikely that any Wikipedia would support unblocking this user, and this discussion is (in my view) largely a formality which is apparently necessary to justify further checkuser requests. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly endorse. His talk page is crowded with concerns about images he uploaded--this is the beginning of another Primetime.  Nuke him.  Blueboy96 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse per previous community ban discussions about chronic uploaders of unfree images and massive sockpuppeteers. Durova Charge! 21:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And then you have, another user who somehow went astray and ended up resorting to jumping from one username to another. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 23:00, 29 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 enforceable mediation
Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. This new option in dispute resolution allows some disputes to avoid full arbitration by giving the participants the option to enter binding agreements that use arbitration-like remedies such as WP:1RR or civility parole.

This noticeboard plays an important role in CEM: mediators will announce new cases here when they open and will present proposed solutions to the community for ratification. The community has three options with each package deal proposal:


 * Accept - ratify the agreement and make it enforceable, similar to how arbitration remedies are enforceable.
 * Reject - nullify the agreement and close mediation.
 * Return - send the proposal back into mediation for refinements.

If no consensus emerges the default outcome is return. See WP:CEM and its FAQ for more information. Durova Charge! 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it, looks good. When I see an appropriate dispute I'll send it your way for the mediators to practice on. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed topic ban on, and  from Pete Townshend is deferred pending the outcome of mediation.  Durova Charge! 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(moved from WP:ANI) Durova Charge! 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am hereby banning, and  from editing this article; I am implementing here a "soft-ban" - as the article history shows the edit war exists only between these three participants, and thus the article may be unprotected in the event of these users being banned from editing. Upon the event of these users violating this soft-ban, administrators may, at their discretion, implement blocks from editing Wikipedia in enforcement of this. This is made in line with ArbCom precedent that editors who perform fixated edit warring upon an article may be banned from editing that article, such as in Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Should anyone have any questions or concerns relating to this, please do contact me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this action in line with WP:BAN? I'm under the impression bans are governed under the "decision to ban" section.  I do not see how that specific arbcom case delegates this authority.  Perhaps the article should be fully protected while the editors explore dispute resolution or proposing a topic ban at WP:CN. v/r Navou 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this action should be reversed in line with my above rational, but I'd be happy to hear what the community thinks. Navou 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd been editing the article less than 12 hours and edit thousands of articles so am not sure how I could be considered to be fixated on any aspect of Townsend. Calling someone fixated on ana rticle after less than 12 hours might be construible as a personal attack. Indeed this seems wildly inappropriate and I may test the ban with a "soft" edit, which also has its antecedents in arbcom history as well as WP:IAR I believe, while this declaration with no policy backing by one individual would set an ugly precedent were it to be allowed, SqueakBox 03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the fixation part, but it's definitely of benefit to Wikipedia that the article can now be edited, whereas while protected it could not, and while there was an edit war continuing nobody with any sense would have wanted to edit it anyway. So this is a win.  --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A reasonable restriction, certainly within our discretion, if the editors affected wish to challenge it then we have the community sanction process or ArbCom. I suggest they should not challenge it, but that they may ask in a few weeks for a review, if they have something meaningful to add to the article. In the mean time, the talk page would be a good place to start :-) Guy (Help!) 10:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse this. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. ArbCom has issued bans on editing certain groups of articles in the past, at least once on my request in the "Depleted Uranium" case. I have issued such bans in the past on the grounds of "disruption to Wikipedia", but I take this upon myself if they are ever challenged. Physchim62 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the community has imposed topic bans before and ArbCom has upheld the community's right to do so. Durova Charge! 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has been listed as a proposed action, however, I do not think I am comfortable with the development of this particular case. For clarification, what Dispute Resolution steps have been taken?  Navou   banter  /  contribs  14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify if this is (a) a proposed action seeking community sanction, (b) an action taken as mandated by the ArbCom, or (c) the unilateral action of one administrator? I hope it's (a) but it appears to be (c). Is there additional information or context that I am missing or overlooking? --ElKevbo 15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to WP:AGF but it appears to be item c. Upon further consideration, I have un strike thru my above statement as I believe it is applicable. In order to impose a ban, it requires community consensus.  And in this case, we do not have consensus, yet.  There are other ways and processes in place that I believe should be used in this case. I'll wait to hear the banning sysops opinion on this.   Navou   banter  /  contribs  16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's reasonable to restrict at least temporarily their editing of the article itself. If they play nice, that restriction can be lifted in a week or so.  If not, we have to explore any underlying problems with these folks.  SqueakBox and Pigs are both inclined to edit war, but SqueakBox does not strike me as malicious and has taken past blocks in good part, usually coming back calmer. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Protect the article, refer them to WP:DR. I would be happy to mediate.  But, at this time, I feel any type of ban in inappropriate in the absence of any other evidence.  Navou   banter  /  contribs  16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But protecting the article means no one will be able to edit it. This ban eliminates the need to protect the article, so everybody who hasn't been disruptive can still edit it - while those who have been disruptive can't. Picaroon 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, in the event of edit warring the article should be protected and editors involved are encouraged to take it to the talk page. I don't see any evidence they are unwilling to attempt this.  From WP:BAN:"Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct".
 * I see no evidence that steps of dispute resolution have been taken. This is simply not the way we do things.  If it should be different the we should change the policy, but I firmly believe that in the case of a content dispute, protection is appropriate and the editors encouraged to take it to the talk page.  Banning is early and inappropriate at this juncture.  WP:RFPP and WP:DR is the logical course of action. respectfully,  Navou   banter  /  contribs  21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So he made a decision and ignored the rules. Things worked out. No reason to change policy. I appreciate your adherence to process, Navou, but there really isn't any point in debating the legitimacy of an otherwise sound action just because it's illegitimate. Picaroon 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent)In the interest of improving the encyclopedia, I have no issue with WP:IAR, however; I would like to see this softban have a timetable other than indefinite, and a plan for content dispute resolution. Perhaps the actioning sysop would like to leave DR options on the talk pages of the effected editors. I generally do not feel comfortable with the entire banning process and would like to see it done with consensus. Perhaps I'm being prude, but I would that if those editors have good content to add to the article, they work out the differences, come to an agreeable outcome and include the content. The soft ban, in its current wording, prohibits that. I have a difficult time supporting it as is. Navou  banter  /  contribs  22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was a little surprised that one administrator unilaterally instituted a soft ban - especially as there was already a lock on the article - which in the past has led to compromises being proposed and resolved. And morevoer there was no warning or prior discussion that this might happen. I have chosen to assume that the action was well-intentioned to resolve a problem. I have never had this happen to me before. There have been edit wars twice before on this article that I am aware of. One in Dec 2005-Jan 2006. And one in mid-Feb 2007. On both occasions an administrator stepped in and worked out a compromise. Neither side were thrilled with the compromises of course (I was on one side of these edit wars) but both sides seemed to accept the compromise. The first compromise held for 13 months - without anyone making any fuss. The article expanded - but continued to reflect the compromise. The second war erupted in Feb 2007 when a comparatively new editor (6 weeks new and with a user page that attacked the very premise of wikipedia) challenged the compromise and fought hard to have it overturned complaining that the police's decision to not prosecute Townshend did not mean that he should not be described as "guilty of accessing child pornography" in the article. That war was again settled with a lock on the article for a few days - during which time an administrator proposed a compromise that achieved support (albeit with some disappointment expressed.)

All had been well again for 6 weeks - when suddenly it erupted again. This page is not the forum to argue the merits of the matter. But it is important to understand that the topic is contentious. And involves arguably libellous statements - or certainly libellous implications - about a living person - with some notability. Not something that Wikipedia should be too nonchalant about.

I will of course abide by whatever is decided in regard to the soft ban. I would prefer that myself - and the two persons whose opinions I strongly disagree with - are not subjected to a soft ban. But that the time-honored process of compromise that has resolved these matters before - be deployed. Thank you. Davidpatrick 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Referring to dispute resolution would be beside the point here.  The editors in question were obviously only interested in prosecuting a petty edit war.  We shouldn't let them inflict their pettiness on Wikipedia, and on the article.  It should be editable by all reasonable people, that huge majority of editors who are capable of resolving disputes without bringing them to a silly edit war. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with the above note. While I disagree strongly with the points expressed by the other two editors in question - I don't for one moment believe that they - any more than I - were "only interested in prosecuting a petty edit war". They strongly hold to their beliefs - as do I. And heat was generated. That heat came from passion not pettiness. Assume good faith...? The better resolution would be the Talk Page and the help of an administrator. Davidpatrick 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * , and, would you be agreeable to an informal mediation session regarding the differences on that article? Navou 01:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support temporary topic bans in this instance (also single purpose account ), and the ability of univolved admins to topic ban without much fuss in obvious cases. Per Guy above there are many chances for review: on AN/I and here or ArbCom if the editor objects. Just to be clear though, the case NicholasTurnbull cited above contains permanent restrictions on Bogdanov Affair, this proposal steers well clear of any type of article probation correct?&mdash;eric 01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I view this more as a kind of article protection rather than a ban. When IPs are causing problems on an article it is semi-protected so other users can continue to edit. Here established users are causing the problem, and this is a reasonable way to protect the article and still allow others to make changes. If the topic here were general user conduct, i think the community would impose much different sanctions on each of these three editors.&mdash;eric 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the admin who locked the article down prior to the soft ban being implemented. I also performed a similar action during the article's previous edit war earlier this year, and in fact my request for compromise worked out quite well on that occasion (although one of the parties in the latest round has since denied such a consensus existed - see the Townshend talk page). I would like to see a timetable clarified regarding the bans on the editors involved because, as noted above, it was implemented without the usual arbitration. I do think this is only a band-aid solution as an examination of the history of the article shows that periodically someone will try and push a POV regarding a certain aspect of Townshend's life, which results in push-back from others who feel this should not be overplayed. For my part, save for a few edits to resolve what I consider WP:BLP issues, I haven't landed on one side or the other (or at least have not intended to appear as if I have). I would like to see this resolved equitably, without the need to ban anyone from editing the article in lieu of an arbitration process. For the record (since this is a lengthy discussion thread and I'm not sure I might not have missed something), the admin who unlocked the article and performed the soft bans did leave a note on my talk page indicating his action, with an invitation for me to reverse at least the unprotection if I so chose. I decided to let it ride for now since I'm in the middle of some major "real world" commitments that are restricting my availability to oversee any ongoing mediation. But I'm always willing to help out as I have done so in the past. There have been two major previous "blow outs" in the Townshend article: the first one more than a year ago ended in a compromise that held for months, while the latest compromise lasted for about 6 weeks until an editor (who appeared to disappear from the discussion) added something to the article to which others objected, and the round started again. In Yahoo Groups mailing lists, there is an option that group moderators can approve all postings by members, and this is often used to diffuse flame wars; it's a shame a similar process can't be put in place for articles that seem prone to controversy, such as this one. 23skidoo 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Navou for volunteering to mediate. There was also an earlier offer to mediate from the admin. who brokered compromises to the previous edit wars on this article and who is very well versed in all the arguments on both sides.  He/she seems to be even-handed - I know this because neither side (including me!) were totally happy with his/her compromises!  But the compromises prevailed for long periods of time - until the recent spat.  I am willing to work with that admin again to try and restore the civility and compromise that had prevailed for a long time.  Since it now appears that the imposition of the soft ban may have been rather premature given the state of play - I think that the soft ban should be lifted and we should all attempt to work together calmly.  Thanks. Davidpatrick 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, could you contact that admin, and if he or she is willing, you may contact the other involved parties. Once the dispute is in mediation, I would ask that the community review this discussion and see what we can't do about concluding this, in the interest of the project.  v/r Navou 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding timestamp for archival purposes. Navou 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While mediation may be of help in enabling the editors who have been banned to work out their differences, there are no edit wars on that article since they were banned. Everybody else seems to be editing quite happily without warring.  The encyclopedia is running as designed.  --Tony Sidaway 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed community ban on User:Mmbabies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

hereby banned by the community for vandalism, personal attacks, threats, and egregious sockpuppetry. —210 physicq  ( c ) 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)



Indefblocked on February 12--only 15 days after joining--for adding blatantly false information or outright nonsense to articles. Suspected of being the puppetmaster of almost 40 sockpuppets, some of whom have made threats on talk pages and on actual articles. Some of the uglier examples:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Some of his suspected socks' edit summaries are abusive and outright threatening:
 * What did I tell you about changing the logo, punk.
 * What did I tell you, what did I tell you! Son of a b(beep from KETH). I'll hurt you next time if you change this.

Azumanga1 alerted us on WP:TVS about this guy, but after taking a look at his edits, this guy's threats pose a direct threat to the project--we're lucky the Foundation wasn't flooded with calls because of some of the threats he made on articles. This calls for a community ban.--Blueboy96 04:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse and Addition -- In addition, he also revealed a list of Alief ISD school bus drivers in this article: . Furthermore, while he mostly used SBC IPs for his crimes, two of them originated from Alief Independent School District servers:, . He is a person who needs to be stopped NOW. -- azumanga 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And he's continuing to rewrite mathematical laws -- see the history in this article for the number 35. -- azumanga 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support. This request is a slam dunk.  There's no room for that behavior at Wikipedia.  Durova Charge! 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse community ban. Jesus, this chap has been busy with the sockbabies, and by the looks of it they're all as unpleasant as each other. We don't need this obvious troll, ever. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by user proposing ban I would think it would be a good idea to block the Ailef ISD from editing Wikipedia for a time as well. It's obvious from his activity that they don't have even cursory methods of monitoring usage.  There's precedent for such an extreme measure when an educational institution doesn't police itself (Long term abuse/Primetime).  Any collateral damage to the ISD's other students is more than outweighed by the fact that the whole project could have been TOSed by our upstream provider had someone not caught those threatening edits in time.  --Blueboy96 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't support this (only two edits) but if we must, allow account creation since it's limited to six per IP address per day. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse for reasons listed above. -- Gridlock Joe 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support The community cannot tolerate anyone who creates such a poisonous atmosphere. See UninvitedCompany's law. Raymond Arritt 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support. --Yamla 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This needs more discussion, could some uninvolved editors who watch this page, review this and comment
Needs more discussion to conclude. Thank you, Navou   banter  /  contribs  16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, this person is not adding anything of value to Wikipedia and I agree, block on sight per a ban is the way to go here.--Isotope23 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I started browsing through his contributions and just, wow. A completely clear-cut case for a ban. Vassyana 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Looks like a clear cut case to me. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please review ban

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

is banned by the community for disruption/trolling, potential legal threats and high conflict of interest.

User:Biochemical Mind is seeking ten billion dollars in damages from the Wikimedia Foundation for lost business opportunities following our refusal to offer him exclusive control over and subsequent deletion of his article Erinacine. His user page makes it clear that he is unlikely ever to be able to edit within policy. I have locked him indefinitely, a formal ban is requested in case of return. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to why his user page leads you to this conclusion.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. Genesis 7:11 : Gen 7:6. ; On my pages, I will explore various medicinal products of nature that can lead to longevity described in the Bible." Guy (Help!) 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is a clear indication that he is going to sue the Foundation, it does not matter whether "his" article was deleted due wrong reasons. We have channels to follow in order to review apparent wrong decisions, and suing is not one of them. -- ReyBrujo 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean User talk:Biochemical Mind, and how he says that he will excommunicate people from the Roman Catholic Church because an AFD resulted in redirect? Then I see your point.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He emailed OTRS with a copy of the plaint. To be clear: he is blocked and will stay that way, I wish to make it a ban. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to qualify for a ban. We will need the ticket for the block to make it clearer too. -- ReyBrujo 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Accurding to his reply (which I removed) he has reported this to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center. I guess they will be used to this kind of crap. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy, for completeness and ability to review, can you please copy the OTRS ticket number here? Thanks,  Daniel Bryant  00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse First a copyvio, then deleting an AfD template, then violating WP:OWN, then suing for an extortionate amount--this guy is batting a thousand. I would suggest, Guy, that you change your message on his talk page to indicate he's indefblocked, and you're seeking a ban--not that he's already banned.  Blueboy96 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the block and ban. Based on activities to this point, the likelihood of positive contribution to the encyclopedia is close to zero, and the disruption per day of activity index is quite high. Besides, not even Dr. Evil would ask for $10 billion... MastCell Talk 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support block and ban per Guy. Durova Charge! 01:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the ban with complete incredulity that someone would be this.. um.. (reads WP:NPA, and disregards several hundred different sentences). this completely off-base with the way Wiki works. Sounds almost like he's trolling SirFozzie 00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. He obviously didn't read policy before considering suing. 10 billion over "lost business opportunities" and excommuniations? Pretty much a troll.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. And in my considered lack of legal experience and knowledge - he doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Philippe 04:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. My Experience Is That People Who Capitalize The First Letter Of Every Word Usually Are Nutcases. Raymond Arritt 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support; we don't need psychologically unstable people to misuse Wikipedia as well as governmental organizations. That and Ryulong feels that individuals who refer to themselves in the third person are generally not normal. Also, when did the FBI start investigating internet complaints?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the  National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C)." Normally they investigate "computer crimes" like email- or web-based fraud, not Wikipedia editing disputes. But perhaps they'll make a special exception for B.M., since he's not only a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church (and claimant on the throne of England), but also an actual head of state, being the current King of France . Tremble, all ye unbelievers. --  Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * May I ask that this discussion not be closed for another two hours and thirty-six minutes? Timing is everything in comedy. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I Bet The FBI Is Getting A Good Laugh Right Now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Banning for legal threats is a foundation matter. This discussion is without authority. --Tony Sidaway 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta disagree, Tony--and even if you were right, this guy is clearly too unstable for Wikipedia. Looking at WP:LOBU, we've banned people before out of concerns about their stability.  Blueboy96 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This individual does not appear to be here to help write an encyclopedia. 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because trimming signatures is soooo anti-encyclopedic. -- ReyBrujo 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Ah, you must be referring to the subject, not Tony. I hope so. -- ReyBrujo 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because he's made legal threats doesn't mean that's the only thing he could be banned for. Support ban on the grounds of irredeemable conflict of interest.  Friday (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed topic ban on, and  from Pete Townshend is deferred pending the outcome of mediation.  Durova Charge! 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(moved from WP:ANI) Durova Charge! 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am hereby banning, and  from editing this article; I am implementing here a "soft-ban" - as the article history shows the edit war exists only between these three participants, and thus the article may be unprotected in the event of these users being banned from editing. Upon the event of these users violating this soft-ban, administrators may, at their discretion, implement blocks from editing Wikipedia in enforcement of this. This is made in line with ArbCom precedent that editors who perform fixated edit warring upon an article may be banned from editing that article, such as in Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Should anyone have any questions or concerns relating to this, please do contact me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this action in line with WP:BAN? I'm under the impression bans are governed under the "decision to ban" section.  I do not see how that specific arbcom case delegates this authority.  Perhaps the article should be fully protected while the editors explore dispute resolution or proposing a topic ban at WP:CN. v/r Navou 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this action should be reversed in line with my above rational, but I'd be happy to hear what the community thinks. Navou 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd been editing the article less than 12 hours and edit thousands of articles so am not sure how I could be considered to be fixated on any aspect of Townsend. Calling someone fixated on ana rticle after less than 12 hours might be construible as a personal attack. Indeed this seems wildly inappropriate and I may test the ban with a "soft" edit, which also has its antecedents in arbcom history as well as WP:IAR I believe, while this declaration with no policy backing by one individual would set an ugly precedent were it to be allowed, SqueakBox 03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the fixation part, but it's definitely of benefit to Wikipedia that the article can now be edited, whereas while protected it could not, and while there was an edit war continuing nobody with any sense would have wanted to edit it anyway. So this is a win.  --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A reasonable restriction, certainly within our discretion, if the editors affected wish to challenge it then we have the community sanction process or ArbCom. I suggest they should not challenge it, but that they may ask in a few weeks for a review, if they have something meaningful to add to the article. In the mean time, the talk page would be a good place to start :-) Guy (Help!) 10:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse this. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. ArbCom has issued bans on editing certain groups of articles in the past, at least once on my request in the "Depleted Uranium" case. I have issued such bans in the past on the grounds of "disruption to Wikipedia", but I take this upon myself if they are ever challenged. Physchim62 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the community has imposed topic bans before and ArbCom has upheld the community's right to do so. Durova Charge! 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has been listed as a proposed action, however, I do not think I am comfortable with the development of this particular case. For clarification, what Dispute Resolution steps have been taken?  Navou   banter  /  contribs  14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify if this is (a) a proposed action seeking community sanction, (b) an action taken as mandated by the ArbCom, or (c) the unilateral action of one administrator? I hope it's (a) but it appears to be (c). Is there additional information or context that I am missing or overlooking? --ElKevbo 15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to WP:AGF but it appears to be item c. Upon further consideration, I have un strike thru my above statement as I believe it is applicable. In order to impose a ban, it requires community consensus.  And in this case, we do not have consensus, yet.  There are other ways and processes in place that I believe should be used in this case. I'll wait to hear the banning sysops opinion on this.   Navou   banter  /  contribs  16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's reasonable to restrict at least temporarily their editing of the article itself. If they play nice, that restriction can be lifted in a week or so.  If not, we have to explore any underlying problems with these folks.  SqueakBox and Pigs are both inclined to edit war, but SqueakBox does not strike me as malicious and has taken past blocks in good part, usually coming back calmer. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Protect the article, refer them to WP:DR. I would be happy to mediate.  But, at this time, I feel any type of ban in inappropriate in the absence of any other evidence.  Navou   banter  /  contribs  16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But protecting the article means no one will be able to edit it. This ban eliminates the need to protect the article, so everybody who hasn't been disruptive can still edit it - while those who have been disruptive can't. Picaroon 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, in the event of edit warring the article should be protected and editors involved are encouraged to take it to the talk page. I don't see any evidence they are unwilling to attempt this.  From WP:BAN:"Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct".
 * I see no evidence that steps of dispute resolution have been taken. This is simply not the way we do things.  If it should be different the we should change the policy, but I firmly believe that in the case of a content dispute, protection is appropriate and the editors encouraged to take it to the talk page.  Banning is early and inappropriate at this juncture.  WP:RFPP and WP:DR is the logical course of action. respectfully,  Navou   banter  /  contribs  21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So he made a decision and ignored the rules. Things worked out. No reason to change policy. I appreciate your adherence to process, Navou, but there really isn't any point in debating the legitimacy of an otherwise sound action just because it's illegitimate. Picaroon 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent)In the interest of improving the encyclopedia, I have no issue with WP:IAR, however; I would like to see this softban have a timetable other than indefinite, and a plan for content dispute resolution. Perhaps the actioning sysop would like to leave DR options on the talk pages of the effected editors. I generally do not feel comfortable with the entire banning process and would like to see it done with consensus. Perhaps I'm being prude, but I would that if those editors have good content to add to the article, they work out the differences, come to an agreeable outcome and include the content. The soft ban, in its current wording, prohibits that. I have a difficult time supporting it as is. Navou  banter  /  contribs  22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was a little surprised that one administrator unilaterally instituted a soft ban - especially as there was already a lock on the article - which in the past has led to compromises being proposed and resolved. And morevoer there was no warning or prior discussion that this might happen. I have chosen to assume that the action was well-intentioned to resolve a problem. I have never had this happen to me before. There have been edit wars twice before on this article that I am aware of. One in Dec 2005-Jan 2006. And one in mid-Feb 2007. On both occasions an administrator stepped in and worked out a compromise. Neither side were thrilled with the compromises of course (I was on one side of these edit wars) but both sides seemed to accept the compromise. The first compromise held for 13 months - without anyone making any fuss. The article expanded - but continued to reflect the compromise. The second war erupted in Feb 2007 when a comparatively new editor (6 weeks new and with a user page that attacked the very premise of wikipedia) challenged the compromise and fought hard to have it overturned complaining that the police's decision to not prosecute Townshend did not mean that he should not be described as "guilty of accessing child pornography" in the article. That war was again settled with a lock on the article for a few days - during which time an administrator proposed a compromise that achieved support (albeit with some disappointment expressed.)

All had been well again for 6 weeks - when suddenly it erupted again. This page is not the forum to argue the merits of the matter. But it is important to understand that the topic is contentious. And involves arguably libellous statements - or certainly libellous implications - about a living person - with some notability. Not something that Wikipedia should be too nonchalant about.

I will of course abide by whatever is decided in regard to the soft ban. I would prefer that myself - and the two persons whose opinions I strongly disagree with - are not subjected to a soft ban. But that the time-honored process of compromise that has resolved these matters before - be deployed. Thank you. Davidpatrick 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Referring to dispute resolution would be beside the point here.  The editors in question were obviously only interested in prosecuting a petty edit war.  We shouldn't let them inflict their pettiness on Wikipedia, and on the article.  It should be editable by all reasonable people, that huge majority of editors who are capable of resolving disputes without bringing them to a silly edit war. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with the above note. While I disagree strongly with the points expressed by the other two editors in question - I don't for one moment believe that they - any more than I - were "only interested in prosecuting a petty edit war". They strongly hold to their beliefs - as do I. And heat was generated. That heat came from passion not pettiness. Assume good faith...? The better resolution would be the Talk Page and the help of an administrator. Davidpatrick 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * , and, would you be agreeable to an informal mediation session regarding the differences on that article? Navou 01:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support temporary topic bans in this instance (also single purpose account ), and the ability of univolved admins to topic ban without much fuss in obvious cases. Per Guy above there are many chances for review: on AN/I and here or ArbCom if the editor objects. Just to be clear though, the case NicholasTurnbull cited above contains permanent restrictions on Bogdanov Affair, this proposal steers well clear of any type of article probation correct?&mdash;eric 01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I view this more as a kind of article protection rather than a ban. When IPs are causing problems on an article it is semi-protected so other users can continue to edit. Here established users are causing the problem, and this is a reasonable way to protect the article and still allow others to make changes. If the topic here were general user conduct, i think the community would impose much different sanctions on each of these three editors.&mdash;eric 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the admin who locked the article down prior to the soft ban being implemented. I also performed a similar action during the article's previous edit war earlier this year, and in fact my request for compromise worked out quite well on that occasion (although one of the parties in the latest round has since denied such a consensus existed - see the Townshend talk page). I would like to see a timetable clarified regarding the bans on the editors involved because, as noted above, it was implemented without the usual arbitration. I do think this is only a band-aid solution as an examination of the history of the article shows that periodically someone will try and push a POV regarding a certain aspect of Townshend's life, which results in push-back from others who feel this should not be overplayed. For my part, save for a few edits to resolve what I consider WP:BLP issues, I haven't landed on one side or the other (or at least have not intended to appear as if I have). I would like to see this resolved equitably, without the need to ban anyone from editing the article in lieu of an arbitration process. For the record (since this is a lengthy discussion thread and I'm not sure I might not have missed something), the admin who unlocked the article and performed the soft bans did leave a note on my talk page indicating his action, with an invitation for me to reverse at least the unprotection if I so chose. I decided to let it ride for now since I'm in the middle of some major "real world" commitments that are restricting my availability to oversee any ongoing mediation. But I'm always willing to help out as I have done so in the past. There have been two major previous "blow outs" in the Townshend article: the first one more than a year ago ended in a compromise that held for months, while the latest compromise lasted for about 6 weeks until an editor (who appeared to disappear from the discussion) added something to the article to which others objected, and the round started again. In Yahoo Groups mailing lists, there is an option that group moderators can approve all postings by members, and this is often used to diffuse flame wars; it's a shame a similar process can't be put in place for articles that seem prone to controversy, such as this one. 23skidoo 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Navou for volunteering to mediate. There was also an earlier offer to mediate from the admin. who brokered compromises to the previous edit wars on this article and who is very well versed in all the arguments on both sides.  He/she seems to be even-handed - I know this because neither side (including me!) were totally happy with his/her compromises!  But the compromises prevailed for long periods of time - until the recent spat.  I am willing to work with that admin again to try and restore the civility and compromise that had prevailed for a long time.  Since it now appears that the imposition of the soft ban may have been rather premature given the state of play - I think that the soft ban should be lifted and we should all attempt to work together calmly.  Thanks. Davidpatrick 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, could you contact that admin, and if he or she is willing, you may contact the other involved parties. Once the dispute is in mediation, I would ask that the community review this discussion and see what we can't do about concluding this, in the interest of the project.  v/r Navou 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding timestamp for archival purposes. Navou 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While mediation may be of help in enabling the editors who have been banned to work out their differences, there are no edit wars on that article since they were banned. Everybody else seems to be editing quite happily without warring.  The encyclopedia is running as designed.  --Tony Sidaway 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durova (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Community enforceable mediation
Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. This new option in dispute resolution allows some disputes to avoid full arbitration by giving the participants the option to enter binding agreements that use arbitration-like remedies such as WP:1RR or civility parole.

This noticeboard plays an important role in CEM: mediators will announce new cases here when they open and will present proposed solutions to the community for ratification. The community has three options with each package deal proposal:


 * Accept - ratify the agreement and make it enforceable, similar to how arbitration remedies are enforceable.
 * Reject - nullify the agreement and close mediation.
 * Return - send the proposal back into mediation for refinements.

If no consensus emerges the default outcome is return. See WP:CEM and its FAQ for more information. Durova Charge! 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it, looks good. When I see an appropriate dispute I'll send it your way for the mediators to practice on. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Timestamp to push archiving this another 48h. Navou  banter  /  contribs  14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disabled the bot because I noticed it stripped the closure template from a discussion. Navou, would you have a look at archive 5 and see if other templates got stripped from that page?  Durova Charge! 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Navou   banter  /  contribs  14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see any anomalies in 5, did a quick look, did you let the BOT OP know? Navou   banter  /  contribs  14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Instructions said to post a notice at WP:ANI, which I've done. Durova Charge! 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request Community Ban on
This user has been indefblocked formally twice, once initially as User:JB196, snuck back as User:BooyakaDell, and since being indefblocked when found out under that account, has switched to using sockpuppets. He has a long term abuse report here. He continues to vandalize articles, inserting his link, at one pointt he site he was using got put on the spamlist, and then he turned to using proxy sites such as proxyhole to get the link into the article. I think the time has come to formally ban him from WP. You can see the accounts linked to him at his LTA report, his most recent set of socks were blocked over on ANI recently. Thank you. SirFozzie 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He is already community banned. Check his user page. —210 physicq  ( c ) 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or see WP:BANNED. Banned September 8 2006. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's listed as a specifiy needed on the ban page, so I wanted to formalize it :) SirFozzie 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was already formalized. We just need some time and someone to find the appropriate ban discussion, which should be in the archives somewhere. —210 physicq  ( c ) 05:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have been searching the archives but haven't found it. Eyes hurt. Head hurts. Good luck to the next searcher. Going to sleep now. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he was banned under the old style definition, "No Admin would unblock him" SirFozzie 06:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another indefblocked user, came back, misbehaved, indefblocked. Are these bans really effective? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A ban is a social construct, not a technical mechanism. Blocks serve as the technical means. —210 physicq  ( c ) 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There already was a formal community ban, though it was for his sock BooyakaDell here that served to re-affirm the original ban of B196. –– Lid(Talk) 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

question
(moved to Village pump (assistance)) Durova Charge! 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x proposed community ban

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose a community ban of and any socks. Dereks1x was the subject of an SSP that confirmed some of his socks last week, Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x. Yesterday, a checkuser request confirmed that Dereks1x used a sock (also yesterday),, with false medical credentials in a further attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute at Talk:John Edwards; see Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. Durova has been administering blocks: all known socks are currently indef blocked, Dereks1x is blocked for 2 weeks. Even without our recent history in re false credentials, I think this warrants a community ban of Dereks1x and any socks. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved from WP:AN. MER-C 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I consider this particular thread premature, the method of abuse here is serious enough to merit discussion. This editor has used multiple sockpuppets in attempts to manipulate Wikipedia's biographies of leading United States Democratic Party presidential candidates.  Over the past week this editor posted a request for expert attention to medical issues at John Edwards, then two hours later started a sockpuppet who claimed to be a medical doctor.  For several days the sockpuppet edited medical-related articles before "stumbling" upon the John Edwards biography and agreeing with Dereks1x 100% (doing so while Dereks1x was blocked for wikistalking and WP:POINT and the editor's known sockpuppets were getting indef blocked, and while Dereks1x was requesting mentorship).  This editor attempted to confuse the checkuser by posting an image of a diploma with a newspaper to "prove" an M.D. degree, then pretended to "thank" the checkuser for confirming the M.D. degree


 * Reposting part of Jersyko's information from my talk page:


 * 1) Dereks1x placed "expert" tag in the John Edwards article to encourage an expert to conduct original research on Ms. Edwards' cancer (see talk, basically the crux of the dispute) at 12:19 on March 26
 * 2) New User account created, User:Doc United States at 14:30, March 26
 * 3) After a few days of editing medical articles, Doc United States adds a comment in support of Dereks1x's position at Talk:John Edwards today.


 * This sort of egregious abuse deserves to be run out on a rail. Although I normally give editors more chances to reform, this particiular set of incidents follows close on the heels of several other outrageous actions and it would send the wrong message to be patient with such deliberate manipulation of major politicians' biographies.  Durova Charge! 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for the false claiming of medical credentials to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, I would have just supported lengthening the block to 2 months or so, with a strong warning that further shenanigans=ban, but that pushes it over the top. Support the ban, and would recommend once it's done, getting the article semi-protected (if not already), to delay any further sockpuppet attacks. SirFozzie 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've semiprotected John Edwards.  Durova Charge! 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse for gaming the system. Would also recommend reporting this to his ISP--claiming false medical credentials borders on fraud.Blueboy96 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly support to the nth degree. As mentioned above, part of his attempt to establish this false medical identity here included a flurry of edits to medical articles, presumably working from the library he is believed to frequent,  which takes this well beyond disruptive behavior and  gaining an advantage in a dispute and could have real consequences if a reader were to presume that an addition to an article by a "doctor" is accurate. (He also used this false identity to contact doctors on Wikipedia to enlist their support in his - Dereks1x's - position on the John Edwards article.) I strongly support a community ban and suggest that his "Doc" edits be looked at and reversed (if they haven't been already) as they were done  by a sock in evasion of a block and are a potential danger to Wikipedia and its readers.  Tvoz | talk 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a message asking for review of his contributions at Wikiproject:Medicine. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sysop time is scarce and I haven't had a chance to go over all of this editor's contributions, nor am I qualified to evaluate them.  Any editor can revert inappropriate changes.  I agree it is disturbing that edits to serious articles such as glaucoma were implemented under guise of authority in order to mask political manipulations.  Per the comment below, I also advise the editor who made these changes to consider the potential for personal impact if a reporter discovered this abuse: all of these actions are logged in Wikipedia's user and article histories and publicly available to anyone in the world who cares to find them.  Wikipedia endured some bad press over the Essjay scandal and the Siegenthaler affair, but the individuals who perpetrated those deceptions lost their jobs and quite possibly their careers.  I strongly recommend ceasing this now and making use of the site's Right to Vanish.  Durova Charge! 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strongly support per Durova and Tvoz. Calculated deception such as this has no place here. Imagine the bad PR for Wikipedia if he pulled it off, then was discovered by a reporter. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Blocks clearly don't work because he simply evades them with socks. The use of false credentials to gain traction in an argument is disturbing to the highest degree. IrishGuy <sup style="color:blue;">talk 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support His actions have gone far out side of finding sources. Doing anything to make sure his POV is heard, cannot be part of Wikipedia.--Dacium 03:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support only if done correctly
 * Another idea based on Durova's; just a ban and reverting the edits (there aren't that many, I'd be willing to do one day, say day 1 (3/26?) and the next volunteer do the 2nd day of edits, or I could do one day per day and finish in a few days) or we could do that vanishing thing.  The reverting might be much simpler to do because it doesn't require sysop intervention.  That would be a practical thing that can be done without due process as wikipedia is a privately owned website.  I would advise not to revert the administrative comments (that’s vandalism), just the medical articles.  It's possible that this thing about credentials will scare him/her enough to stop, especially since you mentioned essjay and siegenthaler which he/she might not know about, i.e. losing job.  I think pointing that out is better than blanket conclusion about false credentials without giving full due process.
 * I mention due process because it's particular interest of mine.
 * If we make a ban because of a finding of fact of false credentials (which has legal implications), then we must state what the credentials are and then conclusively prove that they are false. Failure to do so potentially puts the Wikipedia Foundation and us on precarious moral and legal grounds.  This is because we don't use the usual mechanisms of due process, such as a hearing, a chance for the accused to defend themselves, present evidence,  and be questioned about evidence against them.


 * These points may seem like mere technicalities, but they are not.


 * For example, is there a legal definition of "doctor"? Was there the practice of medicine?  Was the person a "Doctor of Education" or "Doctor of Divinity"?  Is the diploma fake?  On what basis do we say it is fake?  Have we examined the paper?   There are many more questions that we can't ask or hear the answer in this kind of setting (which I would like to hear). We don't have wikilawyering to speed up things but that also gets rid of some very important legal safeguards that the outside world has.


 * If there is just a community ban citing WK:SOCK (supected sock puppetry), it puts Wikipedia on much stronger legal grounds. The effect is the same (a ban). The difference is that we don't have to prove suspected sock puppetry to deny access to a privately operated website (just like a restaurant can refuse service for any reason).  Just food for thought, sorry for the length.  In the mean time, I'm doing day 1 of the medical articles.Atlas87 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * :update: Hey, this is fun, i.e. deleting! Finished deleting every thing medical (but not talk page or administrative replies and related stuff because that's potentially vandalism).  The medical stuff is just revert.  The only thing I have left is the 3/31/07 stuff.  Oh, besides Durova, can someone second my actions (you know, 2nd the motion, i.e. what I'm doing)Atlas87 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually all of the edits from Doc_United_States between 3:37 31 March 2007 and 3:37 2 April 2007 are revertible per WP:SOCK. Durova Charge! 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When the person writes something in his defense, I think reverting that is denial of due process. That's like saying "the court transcript, we'll censor and hide it".  In a free society and democracy, we don't hide that stuff.  The reverting was done just for medical reasons.  Even the talk pages, I think reverting that is vandalism. I will not commit vandalism or support those who do even if they try to justify it. Atlas87 00:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, his edits would still be there in the edit history ... if he claims that as grounds to appeal a ban (assuming it carries), it won't work. Blueboy96 00:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to quibble over hairs, but I am very much opposed to lynch mob activities, such as trying to rid all traces. I favor practical actions, such as reverting the medical changes and ban, but not political statements like "we determined that false credentials were used even though we didn't have a hearing or allow examination of the evidence".  Some people call that liberal, I call that due process and fairness and a reflection of who we are as humans.  We aren't dealing with al Qaeda ready to blow up people, just some edits.  I think we should wait the full 2 weeks then make a decision even though we think we know how it will turn out, not rush to lynch.  Also in time, other editors may review what was reverted and decide that a particular sentence is worthwhile.Atlas87 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a court, and any attempts to make it so are generally very much frowned upon; while it does have "process", the legal concept of due process does not apply. — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To clarify about the defense, the appropriate way for a blocked editor to offer a defense in a community ban discussion is to post to his or her own user talk page. In this particular instance a better option is probably to contact Wikimedia Foundation and invoke the right to vanish. Durova Charge! 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As noted below, Atlas87 is confirmed to be yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x's, unsurprisingly to those of us who have been dealing with Dereks1x's disruptive behavior the last few weeks and then given what has been posted here. In my view we are feeding the troll at this point, and it's time to do whatever is needed to stop this abuse - we all have a lot of better things to do here. (I trust someone will block this latest sock before he does more damage.) Tvoz | talk 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlas87
I strongly suspect that Atlas87 is a Dereks1x/Doc United States sock puppet. The focus on "due process" tipped me off, compare to the last message left by Dereks1x on my talk page, in addition to a couple of Atlas87's edits before he/she began posting on the CN, such as this comment at Doc United States talk page (not long after I started the RFCU) and a this cryptic comment in the PulltoOpen RfA (not long after I commented there). Given the situation, I thought it would be wise to block Atlas87 for now. Please review my block. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both sides have asked for my review. A checkuser request is getting filed so if it clears things up the account can be unblocked promptly.  I agree the account history looks very much like a sockpuppet of someone.  Durova Charge! 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I started another RFCU. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And the RFCU confirmed that this is yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x's. Tvoz | talk 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have struck through comments posted by the confirmed sockpuppet. Durova Charge! 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, talk about hanging yourself. This guy kinda had me fooled at first ... experienced Wikipedians usually don't know that you can't revert edits into the ether.Blueboy96 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW
Suggest closing this discussion. Durova Charge! 20:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unnecessarily seconded. Hell, even the user himself agreed to it on a "qualified" basis. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requests for arbitration/InShaneee
<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.

The arbitration case, Requests for arbitration/InShaneee, has closed. By the remedies passed by the Arbitration Committee, InShaneee's admin privileges are suspended for 10 days.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Goes to show that moderators are not immune from policy and impulsive or frivolius blocking will not be tolerated. I assume the Arbcom trusts this user to some extent since he retains his access for the duration of the injunction. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 05:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Formal extension of community ban

 * Community banned on ANI for one year after it was decided he was too young to understand what was going on, after being given multiple chances to improve his behaviour. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive219.
 * Has since evaded with socks to attack users involved in his banning:, , , ,
 * Has since evaded with socks to attack users involved in his banning:, , , ,

I strongly believe it is time to consider making the one-year community ban a permanent one, and we need to start to consider contacting Telstra, his ISP. – Chacor 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Diffs please. My opinion remains neutral. Navou   banter  /  contribs  02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Look through the socks' contribs. Also, Sarah provided a diff below. – Chacor 03:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the ban (should be) reset on each case of sockpuppetry, so if the assumption is that the user is presently not mature enough to handle editing constructively, then 1 year after he ceases sockpuppetry should be enough time, shouldn't it? And if he/she returns after that and does not improve, then I imagine a permanent ban wouldn't be difficult to implement.  I guess I don't see the need; changing it to a permanent ban will not stop the sockpuppetry, and will only render the original purpose of the ban obsolete.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, he hasn't created any more socks since his ban was extended (correct me if I'm wrong), so I think we've gotten the message across. Anyway, a permanent ban would seem a little punitive right now. 1 year after he ceases sockpuppetry will hopefully be enough time for him to grow up and decide to stop treating this place like an RPG. – Riana ऋ 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * His ban was last extended about four six hours ago I think. He's probably in school right now, hence no new accounts. – Chacor 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so I was wrong (I don't mind that normally, but in this case... ) I still think that we should just wait a little bit longer before extending the ban indefinitely, although if he creates any more by the end of today (Aus time) I won't object. – Riana ऋ 02:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually school holidays here, so we might be in for a bit of a headache. Sarah 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) After the ban was reset, he created another account and came back with this gem. Sarah 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that was actually before the most recent ban reset. —210 physicq  ( c ) 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. But it was after it had already been reset once. I was talking above about the original reset. Sarah 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Something doesn't quite feel right with the sockpuppets. Nathan's editing skills were not great, but I don't recall him being insulting or vulgar. I would have expected a sockpuppet to run immediately to ArbCom, an RFC or something like that, not drop insults onto Talk pages or WP:ANI. His last edit is more in line with what he does. Either we all are getting played by these sockpuppets or we all got played from day 1 with Nathan. -- Gogo Dodo 07:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, following up to oneself may be bad form, but the CheckUser results coming up with open proxies doesn't strike me as Nathan either. He came up with Wikipedia:Wikisuite (which was never going to work, see MfD), yet he's able to find two open proxies?  I dunno, sounds suspicious.  True, the possibilities of some other vandal running across Nathan are pretty slim, but stranger things have happened. -- Gogo Dodo 08:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting theory, although I do know that Nathan has been abusive to me at least once prior to this by email; however, I just agree that this took it to a whole new level, and as Riana commented, "[she] didn't know words like that when I was 11 (allegedly)". Anyways, I've asked Jpgordon if he can add anything further to this discussion, at his talk; he was the checkuser who blocked the OP's, and I hoping if he can give us any further information (whether one of the socks didn't edit from OP's, or whether Nathan edited from OP's, etc.). Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Until checkuser tells me otherwise, I have no problems believing these socks really are those of the chap who got banned. I knew lots of words like that when I was 11, and plenty worse. The change in behaviour pattern is not so surprising: little kids can be surprisingly vindictive when kicked out of their favorite clique. Endorse community ban as per disruptive sockpuppetry and block evasion. User's net contribution to project has been completely negative. Moreschi Request a recording? 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do we really know this kid is a kid? Could be just some adult troll faking it. Moreschi Request a recording? 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly confident from his earlier contributions that he is a child. This new behaviour may be resultant from his claimed Asperger's disorder. In any event, I came here to note that after I originally reset his ban, I received a politely worded (if terse) email from Nathan claiming the socks weren't his.--cj | talk 09:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreschi, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't like the idea of us going in the direction of community banning people on a guilty until proven innocent basis. I've given this a lot of thought and I do not support extending the ban to indefinite unless we had conclusive evidence that Nathan is responsible for the recent abusive accounts. I also agree with CJ above and my general feeling all along is that Nathan is who he claimed to be. Sarah 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, a non-abusive banned sock


See the justification at User:Squrtle11 (in the template) as well as this. The give-away was the now-deleted talk edit linked in the template (to the Avril fansite). Please review.

However, this raises an interesting question: is he operating abusive accounts out of OP's whilst trying to sneak under the ban with a good-behaving account on a normal IP, or are we dealing with two people (see above)? I'm thinking these are all Noblet, purely because I've seen him get abusive before now in a very similar fashion via email. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  09:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Requesting unblock. The capitals confirm, for me, that all the above absuive socks who write in capitals are Nathan as well.  Daniel Bryant  09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang on, there's something weird going on here. This guy makes obvious, abusive socks and announces them where everyone can see them on ANI? Right? Using open proxies, so as to avoid checkuser? He then tries to sneak a non-abusive sock under our noses while we're all looking the other way? I'm starting to think that's rather too clever for some random kid: if so, he must very get good grades. What odds we're really dealing with a professional troll? Moreschi Request a recording? 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and something for jpgordon: I don't suppose you'd mind indulging my paranoia and checkusering User:Punk Boi 8 against User:LegoAxiom1007? I think the pattern matches up: both serial process abusers. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First edit: : 20th edit: : 5th edit: . Obvious sock of somebody, just a question of who. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but didn't want to say anything before; however, the same refusal to listen to polite requests, even rather harshly worded warnings, is present. – Riana ऋ 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this whole case befuddling. I received a perfectly polite e-mail from this user protesting the one-year block, answered it as best I could (this was before any of the socks, or at least before I knew of them), and am waiting for a reply. The socks' tone or very different from the original user's account's, but as noted above that could be accounted for in a number of ways, one of which is that someone is impostering to try to get Punkboi8 in (further) trouble, the other of which is that this user is a bigger problem than first thought. Newyorkbrad 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused too. I starting to suspect we've either been getting professionally trolled since day 1, or someone rather malicious is going to the trouble of getting Punk boi 8 into more hot water, like NYB says. – Riana ऋ 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Trolls picking on trolls or a complete trollfest since the first account's first edit? You pays your money and takes your choice, but damned if I can work out which one. We need some checkuser here to help us out!


 * As an aside, if that User:LegoAxiom1007 account is a sock, then IMO it's certainly a sock of the real Punk Boi 8, not an imposter. In which case we should certainly community ban the lot. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * <after edit conflict with Mr Chacor> Brad, I think that Nathan has engaged in sockpuppetry, both before and after the community ban. However, I'm not convinced that he is behind the recent abusive sockpuppets. Or, at least, not all of them. I received another lovely message earlier today which mirrored both Nathan and the "Mr Pelican Shit vandal" I think this is just a troll latching on to Nathan's ban to try to make us look like bumbling fools. I think we should leave the ban as a one year ban unless we have conclusive, compelling evidence that Nathan is responsible for the recent accounts. At the moment there seems to be genuine reason to doubt that Nathan is behind (at least all) of these accounts and I think the benefit of the doubt should fall on Nathan's side.  Nathan has indicated that he will honour the community ban and leave Wikipedia peacefully. I would like us to give him the opportunity to do so and with the possibility of coming back after his ban has expired and when he is older and more mature. Sarah 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhm... Pelican shit vandalism? - Even this seems too far for Nathan. – Chacor 03:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're overlooking the fact that somoene can read pages for a while and not get logged? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 05:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many possible explanations for the recent vandalism, but we need more than possible explanations to justify taking further action against a particular person. Sarah 06:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM
The above entitled arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. and are each banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for VinceB
 hereby banned by the community for disruptive sockpuppetry, relentless edit-warring, personal attacks, and egregious vandalism. —210 physicq  ( c ) 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

<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 an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

'''Comments refactored to remove voting. Please read the top of the page, THIS IS NOT A VOTE.''' Viridae Talk 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Upon encouragement by Durova, I am proposing a community ban of User:VinceB. He has been blocked eight times since October and his sockpuppet User:Slovan was blocked indefinitely. The reasons of VinceB's blocks were sockpuppetry, vandalism, edit warring, and personal attacks. Some of his edits were especially damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia - for example when he changed the meaning of the text cited from academic works to its opposite. His blocks were applied by several admins and positively reviewed by other previously uninvolved admins. In addition, VinceB has been asked to change his disruptive behavior dozens of times by User:Durova, User:Khoikhoi, User:K. Lastochka, User:PANONIAN, myself, and, of course, by all the admins who have blocked him. Even more warnings can be found in an archive (User:VinceB/Blabla). VinceB has been just blocked again (for one month!) after he started to spam random talk pages with personal attacks against other users. Unfortunately, all the previous warnings on his talk page remained ignored, blocks failed to teach him a lesson, and even the recent most severe block turned out to be inefficient. Although it was made clear that he might face a community ban, VinceB is evading his fresh block by editing anonymously from 91.120.97.127 (23 edits since the latest block was applied) and he even openly admits it. I believe such behavior undermines credibility of any administrative measures applied against disruptive editors and it should be dealt with. Given the long block record and inefficiency of all the previous warnings, I think a community ban is the only alternative left. Tankred 23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... is there any reason we're allowing him to link to a blatant attack on Hungarians at the top of his userpage? Yes, ban him please. -Amarkov moo! 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll co-nominate this editor for community banning. Back in October 2006 I blocked VinceB twice for edit warring. I shortened the second block after he sought mentorship, but mentorship just didn't work for this editor. On 29 January I followed up with a statement of concern about his growing block log and checkuser requests. Tankred followed up yesterday with diffs of more recent personal attacks, all of which checked out, so I issued a 1 month block in the hope that VinceB would get the message (numerous shorter blocks hadn't worked). He promptly evaded the block on an IP address, identifying himself through first person comments, in edit notes, and using his registered account's signature. Durova Charge! 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Tankred and Durova have shown that his abuse is persistent and that attempts at encouraging him to change his ways have failed. Flyguy649talkcontribs 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The user has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to moderate his behaviour or heed the good advice and warnings of others. Since there is no reason to believe he will stop his disruptive and threatening behaviour, a community ban is most appropriate. Vassyana 00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse He's already shown that he's not willing to follow the rules by using a sockpuppet.  And now evading it with an anonymous IP?  Nuke him.Blueboy96 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Another one on the brink.  Unlike other derilect users, this one was stubborn with all the chances he got.   tried her best to steer him off the path.  I'll decide pending his plea.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment pretty nice that you go over the content, and just look at formality. He's personal? So what he says is evil also, or bad. I've apologized for many many times, fo my behave, accepted adoptery or what, also proved presented many evidents, proofs, or however you want to call it for my "accusations" before. Slovan is still my roommate, he's go another account since, so I'm not loggin in from his PC anymore. The bad guy is the personal guy, as usual. Maybe a mentor, who mentors me, not just put a nice userbox on my userpage would help. Otherways, notorious sockpuppeteers can be lifted from indef ban ? Noone took the time not the click, to check evidents, no, I go personal, I'm the bad one, not those, who give ridicuolus or none or unverifiable, or recently: POV sources, like at Miklós Horty. No. Personal? Ban. The content of his words behind personal things? Hey, this is not htat place. Speak nice with liars Tankred caught 4 times lying - read the last comment by me. I've got death threats immediately, when P started a lame edit war with me from a Serbian IP address (P is Serbian also), . Maybe I got frustrated a bit? No I can not be angry, I have to swallow it, and speak nice or I got banned. Yeah, ave wikiprocess. Nice. Thank you. --91.120.82.124 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that this IP (which refers to VinceB in the first person) edited articles within minutes of this edit and ignored my recommendation to post a rebuttal at VinceB's talk page. This editor just doesn't get the concept that rules and procedures apply to him.  Durova Charge! 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a rebel on our hands that won't take authority from mentors or sysops. Can we place on him on probation or something?  We can forbid him to edit article and interact with users he harassed.  We need to make him understand that he is out of warnings.  I also would recommend he reading the WP:RFAR.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This situation fits neatly into the paradigm for community sitebanning at WP:DE. He's already gotten considerably more slack than most disruptive editors.  Durova Charge! 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Addenda to VinceB's rebuttal are here: User_talk:VinceB. Durova Charge! 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He thinks that this is free, confusing it with anarachy. After all you can cheaply create accounts like Yahoo! and EBay, but the similarites end there.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is prolly stemming from his grudge with . BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reluctant but firm support. I have tried talking to Vince, asking him to stop behaving so rudely and disruptively, and he has completely ignored me. He turns everything into a personal/political debate--example, his fight with Tankred. From what I can see Tankred usually tried very hard to stay civil and keep to the topic at hand, and Vince was just flying off the handle with every post, calling Tankred a fascist, racist, far-right anti-Hungarian, and whatever else. He does the same thing with many other editors. Worst of all from my standpoint is the simple fact that his rude and disruptive behavior, especially since he himself makes it all about politics and nationality, his behavior ends up damaging the credibility of the entire Hungarian Wikipedian community. I too have felt the effects, no need to go into any elaboration here. So, Vince, I'm sorry, but you have been given many chances to redeem yourself and you have not taken them, instead you have continued your destructive, rude, completely unhelpful and uncalled-for uncivil behavior. Nothing good comes of that trollish behavior, nothing at all. So I must sign in support of this community ban. K. Lásztocska 13:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse this - consistent personal attacks, revert-warring, sockpuppetry, and block evasion are all very bad things. No reason to think we'll see any productive contributions from this editor, per the evidence above. Net contribution to the project is clearly negative. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * New evidence: VinceB declares his intention to evade a potential ban through sockpuppetry. Durova Charge! 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * VinceB thinks it's going to be infinite. Terms and length have not been discussed. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Tankred does not seem to have helped the situation by engaging in minor edit wars and adding fuel to the fire and not really following correct procedure to remove trolling etc. from his user page. The whole situation takes ages to read through (see all the links and comments at User_talk:VinceB). Support becasue VinceB does not seem capable of understanding the rules and constantly missuses them against others.--Dacium 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. After at least 2 years of VinceB's permanent "not-telling-the-truth" (to put it politely), shell games, pseudodebates and open sockpuppetry, it is high time that the reputation of the Hungarian users here and of the English wikipedia as whole be - at least in part - restored. This user (under many names, such as HunTomy, Arpad and many others) has managed to discourage several users, including me, from editing this wikipedia, because his behaviour has shown that permanent vandalism lasting about 2 years is perfectly possible here without any substantial reaction (Even if he was banned right now, someone should really think about this). But given that he seems to use any possible IP he likes, I do not think that is technically possible to stop him. Juro 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. This user has shown no good faith or regard for the community.  Philippe 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW reposting an e-mail VinceB sent me today: Durova Charge! 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Just an example of lies, that Juro, Tankred, PANONIAN speads about me: . I regged to enwiki 2006 march. That's 1 yr. I've been chechusered twice, so it is proved, what is true: HunTomy and others are different persons, it is nothing else, than defamation, lie, and to create a hostile athmosphere against me. By the voting, or "voting" only one user have read what I said, and partially agreed with me. All the others, with you have the wisdom that they do not need to read anything, to know wheter it's right or wrong, or know the one true Anwer. Ridicuolus, that those try to act like „judges”, whom are not intrested in reading more than half the case. If this woud not be enough, you bring your own laws, wich is ... guess what do I want to say. Other admin wants to be funny, by sending me to uncyclopedia, but he's just ridicuolus, and in fact personal, since he literally sent me to "somewhere else". But it is accepted to send me to "somwhere else", but if I send you to somewhere, than "nuke him (me)". I can not decide, wheter to cry or laugh out loud. This worse than a joke, this is deplorable, miseralbe, ridicoulus, shameful, etc. A big bad joke. My content dispute is still nowhere been discussed, just my statements. BTW [this, since full of its content is proved to be a lie, is not a personal attack? Whatever, just a perfect example, how reliable is the content, that [[User:Juro]] „adds” to Wikipedia. Same applies to PANONIAN. Tankred just defending them without a critic, and with it, he's in fact supporting these lies, and became a liar himself. Even more, he defends his lies with more lying . BTW Juro is a puppetmaster, and was (!?!?! not "is", was!) blocked indef for it. Being nice on IRC is enough? Or some sweet letters? Then go to IRC. This i s ... theres simply no word to describe this. There's simply no word in engish for this kind of "community". Awful. When I see this owerwhelming dilettantism, hostility, negligence, and "wisdom", I just wonder, how can the wikipedia still exist. Noone  is taking the time to read, wich is funny, when editing an ecyclopedia. It is like not taking the time to steering, using the pedals and not using the gear stick in a manually transmitted car. Why the hell are you editing wikipedia then, if you do not take the time to read everything? Vince
 * Do you really think that if you repeat this xy 100x times, it becomes true? You have never denied being HunTomy and/or all the other sockpuppets in discussions and you even admit in edit summaries that you are VinceB under an IP or another name. And "interestingly", the sockpputs have always disappeared when "VinceB" appeared and when VinceB was blocked, "suddenly" they reappeared (e.g. Arpad last time). You just say everything that in fact applies to you about others and this is not the first time that you lie in every single sentence you write. I have never seen such a form of hypocricy, never. This trick works if you use it once, but not if you repeat it every day...And as for the "quality" of your edits, this wikipedia would be well advised to delete every single word you have written here, because - as you know very well - you have the habit to cite something as a "source", but to write your own text in reality. Not to mention your bias ideological bias. Juro 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: that e-mail: Vince, we have looked at the evidence you provided for this supposed massive conspiracy against you, and mostly we've just found you behaving badly and your antagonists responding in exasperation. I'm really quite disappointed in you, I thought you could do better. But as always, you refuse to take even the slightest bit of responsibility for your own mistakes (which you HAVE made, everyone here has made mistakes), and instead just blame the your standard trio of enemies: Panonian, Juro and Tankred. I feel compelled to politely request that you grow up.K. Lásztocska 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To comment on the e-mail and this message, here's how this plays out: the banned user tries to sneak back on sockpuppets, sock edits get reverted on sight. Admin slang for that is whack-a-mole.  It takes me about ten seconds to ban a sock and protect a page.  Sooner or later the banned editor realizes that game isn't worth the effort.  The smart ones sit on the sidelines and send a polite request for reinstatement after half a year.  Nothing personal: I've shown many editors the door before.  Just because I don't kick them in the pants on the way out doesn't mean I'm naive.  Durova Charge! 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would opening an Arbcom case be feasible? Their rulings are more binding.  BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 05:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think Arbcom is completely necessary. Since VinceB clearly refused his last opportunity to abandon disruptive behavior, I am not sure I understand why Arbcom would help the situation better than WP:CN. I am afraid a new lengthy administrative process would just give VinceB another month to belittle everyone around as fascists, liars, and conspirators, but the final outcome will be the same anyway. Evidence is listed on this page, discussion is already going on, and I really hope that the community can reach consensus and close this case right here. Tankred 06:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing and community bans exist for simpler cases such as this one. VinceB is welcome to appeal a community ban to arbitration if he wishes by e-mailing an arbitration clerk.  Otherwise a community ban is just as effective as an ArbCom ban.  Durova Charge! 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requests for arbitration/Darwinek
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Darwinek's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Darwinek is placed on standard civility parole for one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

please review ban user:Serafin


It appears consensus is reached for a ban of user:Serafin. User Serafin is banned in accordance with this discussion. Banning is not done by a handful of editors, however, this discussion appears unlikely to generate anymore comments. Relisting may be needed if an editor has a substantial objection. The blocking administrator is encouraged to note this ban at the correct ban listing and talk page. Navou  banter  02:32, 9 April 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 voting. Please read the top of the page, THIS IS NOT A VOTE. Navou'''   banter  /  contribs  17:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Serafin is constantly vandalizing multiple articles, has created more than 40 sockpuppets, and continues to be a pain in the neck to hard working editors. He has already been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias, can we please do the same? --Jadger 06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You will need to provide evidence in the form of diffs to back up your statements. Please list all diffs that will bolster your argument (the more, the better). A ban is a serious thing; you should be able to write quite a lot if the user really should be banned, I presume. This is one of the places where succinctness need not apply. —210 physicq  ( c ) 06:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to comment that I have not yet seen this use "vandalize" an article. There is a difference between vandalism and POV pushing.  (cf. this essay)  This user is an obnoxious, persistent and nasty POV pusher but not, AFAIK, a vandal. --Richard 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I am not aware of instances where Serafin has deliberately attempted to compromise the integrity of the project. Olessi 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the .de and .pl wikipedias:,. Their EN block log shows them already perma-banned? - Denny  ( talk ) 06:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The block log only shows an indefinite block, which is quite different from a community ban. —210 physicq  ( c ) 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. See previous discussions on ANI (latest one here: []). There's no hope of ever expecting anything from this editor but rabid POV-pushing and insults in broken English. And the sockpuppeting evidence (most recently, ) shows he is simply not willing to stop or to reform. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He did not go by Serafin on the German and Polish wikis, but since I do not edit on those wikis most of that information is second hand. From what I know, he did use ASerafin BSerafin CSerafin or something similar on German wikipedia.  I do not really want to write a lot, as this person has already tired me out.  However, just check out his contribution history on his sockpuppets and his main account to understand why he should be banned.


 * I will supply one dif as a teaser till I have more time later:


 * he made this exact same edit dozens of times to the Germany article:


 * For more reasons why he should be banned, check the articles: recovered territories, Jan Dzierzon, bureaucracy, Expulsion of Germans after World War II etc. Or if you read User_talk:Philip_Gronowski/Archive_2 and the subpage of that talk page here which is a translation of Serafin's conversation with him.  At this point, Serafin had made multiple pages require protection to stop him and his plethora of puppets. He refers to everyone who doesn't agree with him as Nazis or collaborators, and the sentence You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can. is pretty self-damning.


 * --Jadger 09:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Supportive evidence for this proposal has been sorely lacking, but I'll agree to a ban because this block history speaks for itself. To Jadger, the appropriate way to raise this sort of request is to provide ample page diffs and actually track down the instances where the editor was banned on other projects.  You'd have a very hard time at this thread if this weren't such an obvious call.  Durova Charge! 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not alter my remarks at this or any other location. In particular discussions at this board are not votes.  Strongly recommend de-formatting the vote structure for this thread.  Durova Charge! 16:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. I tracked a number of Serafin's accounts earlier in the year at Suspected sock puppets/Serafin. He has flagrantly evaded his original shorter-term blocks placed by User:J.smith, and then later blocks placed by User:Heimstern and myself. In early March I warned him directly at User talk:Serafin to stop using sockpuppets and IPs to evade blocks, to which I received no response aside from further sockpuppetry. His primary means of gaining access to WP was (an account confirmed to be Serafin), which he used after I directly told him not to. Serafin's rants against the German WP's blocking of him can be found at User talk:Contra Nazi. Olessi 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Other incidents/history: Serafin has shown no indication that he can contribute harmoniously as a member of the community, but only as a POV-pusher who resorts to sockpuppets to achieve his goal. His primary targets have been Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Recovered Territories, Jan Dzierżon, Germany, and Nicolaus Copernicus. Considering his actions over the last several months, I have no confidence that he has any intention or desire to reform his ways. Olessi 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User talk:Richardshusr
 * Suspected sock puppets/Serafin (2nd)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Serafin
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive68
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive38
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive179
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive203
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive204
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive206
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive208
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive215
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive216
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive219
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive222
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223

Blocks on the German Wikipedia: Olessi 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * aserafin
 * bserafin
 * cserafin
 * Dlugopis
 * Ptak
 * 131.104.218.46
 * larger listing


 * Weak Oppose but will accede to a ban if there is a general consensus - Yes, it's true. This user can truly be a pain in the neck.  He has violated a bunch of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and probably WP:3RR.  And he has evaded blocks by using an extraordinary number of sockpuppets.
 * However, he oftentimes has a valid point which is just expressed badly. He is too enamored of POV pushing and too aggressive and nasty in the way he expresses his point of view.  But, at the end of the day, at least some of his points have validity and often represent a minority POV that is not getting adequate treatment.  My interaction with him has been long, tedious, and occasionally unpleasant.  However, at the end of it, I learned some things that changed my perspective on the bias in articles related to the Expulsion of Germans after World War II.
 * Given this editor's willingness to generate an unlimited number of sockpuppets, all that a ban would accomplish is to allow us to block those sockpuppets more quickly and give us justification to revert his edits. I would prefer a resolution that allows us to engage this editor and to incorporate his POV where possible.  I believe that a willingness to engage this editor in dialogue can yield a positive result for Wikipedia.  It sure is a lot of work, though, and it is often unpleasant.  But I think it will be worth it.  --Richard 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So here's the problem. Serafin seems to be willing and able to create sockpuppets with ease. Banning him doesn't solve the problem except that it gives admins justification to block accounts on sight as being "sockpuppets of a banned user". Since his POVs are not unique to him, this risks collateral damage of inadvertently blocking another editor who might have similar views.

And, as I've stated above, I think Serafin's views deserve to be heard. The views themselves are not that objectionable. This is important to understand. It's not as if his POV is that African-Americans are inferior or that Jews are evil or that the Pope is the anti-Christ. At least some of his POVs are reasonable but the presentation is too wrapped up in emotion and invective.

So the issue is really the way in which the views are expressed through edits which are not based on consensus, violations of 3RR and uncivil Talk Page edits.

I would propose that Serafin be unblocked but banned from editing the articles where he has misbehaved. He should then be engaged in dialogue to determine the basis of his POV and mediation should be sought to find an acceptable resolution. If Serafin's edits are limited to his Talk Page only, that would encourage him to learn to discuss his POV issues more civilly.

However, for this to work, editors have to be willing to engage him. I'm willing to take this on.

Maybe he needs to submit to mentoring. I would agree to be his mentor if he would accept me. I don't know all the various options. I'm just looking for a way to include this editor rather than exclude him.

--Richard 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This argument is very strange: sockpuppetry is normally a reason for banning, not a reason against banning. Sysops deal with sockpuppets of banned users all the time.  Durova Charge! 16:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Durova- we should not ignore the actions of a repeatedly problematic user because of the threat of future sockpuppetry (reminds me of appeasement). Serafin has a long history of not abiding by our policies and guidelines. He does not have a right to edit. Regardless of how much information a user may potentially offer to the project, it is no excuse for not following our policies (of which we have informed him of before). Olessi 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never been involved in a community ban discussion before. I assumed the consensus development process here was much like other similar process such as AFD or RFA which are also not votes but do have support and oppose !votes.  I apologize if that's not the way things are done in this process.


 * That said... I will support the community ban if the door is left open for Serafin to repent of his sins and promise to follow Wikipedia policies, possibly under the tutelage of a mentor. I accept that repeated violations of policy after multiple warnings, blocks etc must not be allowed to continue without some sort of consequence.  I just hold on to the faint hope that Serafin will repent and reform. --Richard 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All banned users are given that option by default. However, it is only their manner of expressing it and communicating it that determines whether such a chance, after all chances have already been exhausted, will be granted. —210 physicq  ( c ) 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is happening? is he banned now? has their been a decision yet?

--Jadger 05:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Support ban. There are ways to discuss things and ways not to do so. Serafin has long ago crossed the line.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

POV-pushing, personal attacks & unsigned comments
Moved to WP:AN/I Navou   banter  /  contribs  20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Common debate ban on Bowsy and Henchman 2000 from AN/I
Consensus for a common debate ban appears to exist. Bowsy and Henchman 2000 are prohibited from participating in discussions together, where one comments, the other may not. This does not preclude the participation of one or the other, the two may not share a common debate. Navou  banter  20:53, 9 April 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 voting. Please read the top of the page, THIS IS NOT A VOTE.''' Viridae Talk 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Following this thread on WP:AN/I, the consensus is unanimously in support of allegations of votestacking and unanimous-1 for a charge of Meatpuppetry. Evidence is contained in the AN/I thread and at User:AKMask/puppets. Per the discussion, I'm submitting a request for a ban on these two users from engaging in the same debate/discussion at all poll-like and consensus determining procedures on the 'pedia. - M <sup style="color:#990011">ask  16:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is unfair. Bowsy and I are two separate users and are entitled to two opinions, be they the same or not. We have never votestacked, as AfD IS NOT a vote and I have not always had EXACTLY the same opinion, like you are making it out to be. We are not meatpuppets and have been proven innocent on TWO occasions. We are allowed to engage in the same discussions, as is everyone as we all have the right to freely express our opinion. You are just totally biased against us for having conflicting views. Stop bullying us. Henchman 2000 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that the admin who closed your sockpuppet case and warned you not to participate in the same XfD's was the one who suggested this ban. so you may want to revise that 'two times' statement - M <sup style="color:#990011">ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been two closed unsuccessful sock cases, so it has been two. Henchman 2000 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support banning both editors from shared PC on a xfd. SirFozzie 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support such a ban. This has been an ongoing issue.  Not only has there been dual participation in XfDs, there's also been an issue of canvassing surrounding the Mario Party minigames AFDs.  Based on the combination of those two, it seems like there is a strong desire to manipulate AFDs as they please in some way. Metros232 18:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may wish to read this <Based on what I saw on the talkpage here I wanted to clarify something. There was a sockpuppet case which I closed with the finding that they were probably not puppets. Henchman 2000 (talk • contribs) and Bowsy (talk • contribs) are free to participate in the same AfD's and talkpage discussions. If they want to have the same position on something, that is fine. As I said in my closing notes, they need to be careful because "soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community". That was an opinion on my part that such actions may induce a closing admin to ignore one of their !votes at discretion. It was not permission to harass them for participating in the same AfDs. Unless they are actively working in tandem to circumvent WP:3RR though, I don't think the accusations of puppetry are warrented.--Isotope23 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

/blockquote> This shows that we CAN participate in the same XfDs. Bowsy (review me!) 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet more clarification... I posted an opinion there. I have no authority whatsoever to decide what you can and cannot do unilaterally; I'm not the benevolent dicator here.  My opinion was simply this:  There is nothing to preclude you from participating in the same AfD's but you needed to be careful per my first sock case closure because !voting on the same AfD's minutes from each other is probably going to wear thin community patience here... and that seems to be what happened.  My clarification, which you've posted above, was intended to stop a series of posts by others discrediting your !votes based on my opinion when I closed the original sockpuppet case.  There was no policy or guideline reason to discount your opinions from those AfD's.  That said, I suggested this WP:CN discussion because at this point, the whole debate over Bowsy/Henchman and their debate participations is starting to become rather contentious, so it is time for some outside opinions from editors who are not involved in this.  In my opinion, the sticking point with several other editors is the fact that Bowsy/Henchman admittedly share a computer and often add the same opinions to XfD discussions, so the common sense solution here is to limit them to not participating in the same XfDs.--Isotope23 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what these discriminators have been campaigning for, and this seems to be an effort to limit opposition of some Wikipedians. This is supported by the fact that the only people keen to point this out are those with a conflicting view than that of mine and Henchman's. As you have said, there is no policy or guideline saying this should happen and it violates some. This is simple discrimination. I'll leave it at that. Bowsy (review me!) 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support And I just know that one of them will leap in here with some barely-understood irrelevent quotation stating my vote is somehow tainted (see my talk page for evidence of bad-faith accusations of abuse and attempting subvert process by these 2.) The Kinslayer 08:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop the suggestions of idiocy, if you would be so kind. Bowsy (review me!) 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Especially based on this diff. One Night In Hackney 303 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support proposal. Although these may not be sockpuppets shared computer use generates a temptation for meatpuppetry at XFD discussions and there's an appearance of impropriety.  I dislike the out of context quotations and accusations of persecution these editors piece together in defense: as a sysop who specializes in complex investigations that sends up red flags because when I see that it's practically guaranteed that actual shenanigans are happening.  Durova Charge! 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We have been cleared of meatpuppetry. Also, when we created our accounts, none of this had happened. It has been proven that we are two seperate individuals and we should be treated as such. Please read my first comment on this discussion. Bowsy (review me!) 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse largely based on the fact that this is basically canvassing once you have them both on the same computer, but there must be no ban against these editors participating at XfD independently. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The way I see it, they were already given that chance and they both blew it. All AfDs they have been involved in got utterly disrupted as they spammed 3-word responses to as many peoples comments as they could. Even when just one of them participated we had the same disruption and accusations of 'abuse' based on absoutely no research (as I highlighted on Bowsys talk page). One of these participating in AfDs is almost exactly as bad as both of them participating in the same discussion. Not to mention (unlike when Bowsy accused me) actual abuse of the DRV process when the articles they created were deleted through AfD. It's plainly obvious from their comments that they were using the DRV because they disagreed with the outcome of the AfDs (which it clearly states they are not for) and their claims of 'procedural incorrectness' are some of the weakest I've seen in 2 years! The Kinslayer 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Spamming, what spamming? Bowsy (review me!) 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my proposal only limits them from participating in the same XfD as each other, they are free to participate in seperate debates if this is accepted. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll go with that. The Kinslayer 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, after reading your comment, there may be some confusion. The proposal mentions all poll-like and consensus gathering. You seemed concerned that they would be allowed on drv in the same debates. This is not the case. I take responsibility, I use XfD as shorthand :) - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having personally come across these two acting in a manner that was, to put it generously, suspiciously like sockpuppetry it's not surprising to see this popping up. While I think it's been demonstrated that they are indeed two different people, their continued collusion on XfD's and other consensus-gathering debates has been made fairly evident by the above comments, and since they have been warned about this kind of behavior I feel the requested action is appropriate.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If we have the same opinions, that's that. Oh, and did you read Isotope's updated verdict I put towards the top of this debate? Bowsy (review me!) 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please forgive my intrusion and let me say first, I know nothing. I am new here. I do have a question, however, if I may be so bold?

What happens with families or people that work at an office where a computer / IP address might be shared? Is that a silly question? It certainly seems as if this is a serious issue when consensus gathering is a key ingredient to policy making.

Further, if being an anon is allowed in all policy making, does that not make gathering a "consensus" an increasingly difficult task to police, so to speak? I am sure there is some policy in place, so maybe you could direct me there? Not all kids have their own computers, so how do we determine which family member(s) shall have rights and which, if any, members must be restricted? Thank you in advance for any response to my inquiry. Step 3 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

— Step_3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Simply put, at any point that you get a fellow editor whom you suspect will share your view on a debate to contribute to it, is against policy. Second, because these things are not votes, but debates, it really doesnt matter how many people you have parroting the same viewpoint as long as that view is said at least once. If its a good point, it wins. If not, it doesnt. Further more, anons are not allowed to contribute to the sorts of discussions that try to build consensus, like AfD and RfA and such. Nor usually users with very few edits, such as yourself, so I have made a note of it under your comment, don't be offended, its just so that the person closing the discussion can take it into account :) - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense taken. When I travel to Germany, Greece or Italy and try to change their language to English, I get the identical response. At this juncture, without knowing your language, I am hardly a candidate for wielding more than an occasional opinion. I know nothing of your procedures here, as you can clearly see by my questions. Thank you. Step 3 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Step 3 has fewer than 50 edits and I strongly suspect this is somebody's sockpuppet. Durova Charge! 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too, but do we have any idea as to who the puppeteer is? Bowsy (review me!) 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't placed it, but the account has been indef blocked and its owner contacted me offsite to request I blank the userspace. So we can disregard that person's input for purposes of this discussion.  If that editor reads this thread, I recommend sitting on the sidelines for a few months and e-mailing a request to have editing privileges restored.  Over at User talk:Durova/Admin and User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle I keep a couple of awards in reserve for people who make a legitimate return from the brink and become good editors.  Durova Charge! 05:13, 9 April 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:LegoAxiom1007


No consensus for BAN. Editors wishing a block review are encouraged to post for review at WP:AN/I. Navou  banter  15:38, 9 April 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 voting. Please read the top of the page, THIS IS NOT A VOTE. Navou'''   banter  /  contribs  16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And I reverted. Don't edit my comments. Nardman1 16:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Some administrators have already enacted an effective ban of this user from editing project space, anyone else's user pages, and from placing helpme on his own userpage. While I do not necessarily disagree with the result, I think this should be ratified by the community. --Random832 04:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Link to last request here.


 * Diffs please. My opinion remains neutral.  thanks,  Navou   banter  /  contribs  14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually he has been indefinately blocked. Random832 has asked my to justify my actions in this case but to be honest I feel his talk page speaks for itself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been no ban, he's been blocked indef. He has repeatedly ignored polite requests, harsh reprimands, civil invitations to explain his edits, strongly worded requests to stop... he's just disruptive. Ordinarily I would not support an indefinite block, but the user refuses to cooperate. – Riana ऋ 08:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblock request denied. Hopefully this troll will hop back under the bridge. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No need for any sort of community sanction here. Troll gets indefblocked, we can all move on. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My reason for posting here was that "You will be blocked if you edit the following pages" (rather than "if there is further disruption") 'smells' like a ban. Admins don't get to make declarations like that. --Random832 00:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He got blocked for applying for VandalProof too soon. BuickCenturydriver   (Honk, contribs)  03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No-one involved had, as far as I can tell, any authority to ban him from applying for the use of automated tools. What was the problem with just letting the request be declined without a punitive block on top of that? --Random832 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. It wasn't just using automated tools improperly, it was creating seemingly good edits that weren't good, as he's been warned not to do. . He edited a template called "engeng" to remove the second "English" in it. . In isolation, this might seem like an innocent mistake, but taken in context it spells either troll or someone who isn't putting the appropriate thought into his edits. That edit there would have been reason to block him again, regardless of the other things he did that were inappropriate (trying to use automated tools after abusing them, and creating useless templates after being warned not to). Nardman1 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Was he blocked for applying for an automated tool, and where is the discussion banning him from doing so?  Navou   banter  /  contribs  16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about all the admins on record supporting his banning? I've seen comments from Newyorkbrad, Riana, Amarkov, Theresa Knott, Moreschi, and Wafulz supporting blocking this user. That isn't enough? Nardman1 16:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my question was misunderstood. Was he blocked for applying for VP, and where is the discussion banning him from automated scripts.  My opinion remains neutral.  Navou   banter  /  contribs  16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He was warned to stop using scripts because he was horribly abusing them: see his talk for details. He ignored this, applied for VP, and got quite rightly indefblocked. He had been warned that this would happen if he did anything else other than edit the encyclopedia. And, wonderful as I am, I'm not an admin :) Don't know why people always think I am, you'll get a big shock when I turn up at RFA again. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting back on topic, no ban necessary. Come back when (s)he's causing serious or persistent disruption using sockpuppetry or other means. Banning is not IndefBlock Part 2. —210 physicq  ( c ) 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The indef block is for trolling. If he comes back under a different username and does not disrupt then he is, of course welcome. He is not banned. Admins indefblock trolls all the time, it is very much within our authority to do so. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see consensus support for a block thus far, but no real community desire here for a BAN. Are there any objections to a close?  Navou   banter  /  contribs  20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The block was the result of a purported ban. If there is no community support for that ban, the user should be unblocked or his block should be shortened. Applying for VP is harmless, since his application would surely fail if it was so obvious as you say that he would misuse it. --Random832 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No he was blocked because he was very clearly trolling.Look at his edits on the 6th April. Innapropriate removal of the word English from a template. Reinstating twinkle despite having abused in the past, applying for VP knowing full well it would be refused, making yet another stupid suggestion for page protection despite having done so before and been warned/adsvised not to do so. These are the actions of a troll not of a well meaning but misguided user. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he got blocked for trolling. He was trolling: check the contribs. Also an obvious sockpuppet, though nobody could figure out of who. There is no need for a community sanction here. He was told to stop trolling: he carried on and got blocked. End of story, someone can archive this now. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How do we "Assume Good Faith" with an editor apparently pursuing a vendetta?
Moved to WP:AN/I Navou   banter  15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta redux
Rfar is in progress. Navou  banter  09:57, 10 April 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.

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)

(restored above from archive)

Many users have reverted Gangsta and no one agrees with him, but all his opponents don't want to waste time dealing with him, which he takes advantage of. If you read the edit warring histories I posted at Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta you will see that he comes back and makes the same edits again and again for months. He literally never gives up.

I have examined his edit history exhaustively and I have not found a single productive edit. All his edits are POV-pushing or reverts or specious arguments. I know it takes a lot of time and effort to look into this matter, but I guarantee you if it is not settled here I will take it to ArbCom. --Ideogram 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any example diffs? Navou   banter  03:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you want diffs of? I have extensively documented three revert-wars at the RFC I linked to.  --Ideogram 04:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have reviewed the RFC, and diffs are there, my next question would be, has DR been attempted beyond RFC, mediation, formal or informal? Navou   banter  04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mediation would be a waste of time. Read the attempted discussion in the edit wars.  --Ideogram 04:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a content dispute. Banning is usually a last resort of dispute resolution.  Are we totally sure the editor in question will not willingly enter into mediation? My opinion remains neutral.  Navou   banter  04:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is his pattern: make his preferred edit.  When people revert him, revert back while asking for discussion.  During discussion, throw wild accusations and make unsupportable statements.  At all times revert any edits back to his preferred version.  During my interaction with him he accused me of wanting to "stall" the discussion while keeping the article in my preferred state.  This is a perfect description of his tactics.


 * If you read the RFC you will see multiple people attempting to discuss with him. The pattern is, a new neutral observer notices the ongoing dispute and tries to intervene.  It quickly becomes apparent to the previously neutral observer that Gangsta is not making any reasonable points or interested in defending them by referring to Wikipedia policy.  For example, he consistently refuses to acknowledge that consensus is the overriding principle at Wikipedia, and continues to argue that because he is right, the consensus against him does not matter.


 * If you are really interested in this matter, there is no substitute for taking the time and making the effort to review the entirety of the three revert-wars I documented, not to mention as much of the rest of his edits as you can. I was not exaggerating when I stated I could not find any productive edits.  Simply having me answer your questions is not going to prove anything since I am obviously not objective.  --Ideogram 04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The RFC clearly shows he's a diehard stubborn revert warrior, but I don't see anything that would justify a site ban, like rampant incivility or sockpuppetry. Maybe a 1RR community sanction? Or failing that, ArbCom is the next step. - Merzbow 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe a 1RR community sanction would be a perfect solution. --Ideogram 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another alternative would be WP:CEM if you're both amenable. Durova Charge! 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a personal dispute between the two of us. If you read the RFC, you will see that multiple people are reverting him.  The difference is I am the only one trying to deal with the overall pattern and stop his unproductive behavior once and for all.  I have no intention of discussing with him, all the evidence is that he is incapable of productive discussion.  Even if we were to try CEM I would not be satisfied with anything less than 1RR, so he can either take it or I take it to ArbCom.  --Ideogram 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know if I should be taking this seriously. As far as I'm concerned, Ideogram is the one whose name should be mentioned here. (It just that I don't have that much time to spend on here). A look at his contributions show he made almost no productive edits since his arrival on wikipedia. He also has a habit of using outlandish accusation and constantly abusing AN/I and article talkpages to gather support for his harassment campaign against me. Our dispute can be traced back to the Guardian Tiger ban-evading sockpuppet dispute. Ideogram decided that since I was zealous in obtaining a ban for Guardian Tiger, he wanted to harass me by stalking my contributions and revert everything that I edit so I will stop pursuing Guardian Tiger. Anyway, I'll be posting some diffs. on my talkpage shortly.--Certified.Gangsta 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope everyone can see why I am not interested in engaging in these types of "discussions". --Ideogram 05:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing is Ideogram needs to quit writing those useless, sarcastic edit summaries. It's not the way edit summaries are meant to be use.--Certified.Gangsta 06:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we see a typical Gangsta tactic: avoid discussing his own actions and attack his critics in any way possible.  I fail to see the relevance.  --Ideogram 06:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this explain the relevance? You're demanding 1RR of another editor, but 3 of your own 5 userblocks are for revert warring and another one - the most recent - is for insane edit warring.  I'd hoped to remain neutral in this, but I have to come down with a firm no.  Even if CG merits a siteban this is a highly inappropriate method.  WP:DE is not designed to give one side the upper hand in an ongoing edit war.  Take it to ArbCom.  Durova Charge! 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Gangsta or anyone else who wishes to is free to file their own RFC on me, open their own discussion on me here, or take me to ArbCom. If that happens I will take great pleasure in explaining my block history.  At this time I believe we are discussing Gangsta.  As I observed below I believe you were not neutral to start.  Whether this is a personal dispute between only the two of us is to be determined by others who may wish to join the discussion, not you alone.  You do not own this process.  --Ideogram 06:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating the assertion you do not own the process as if I had made such a claim, which I have not. I do claim to be one of the principal coauthors of the disruptive editing guideline, the creator of the community enforced mediation venue, and the editor who proposed this noticeboard.  I've been closely involved in the community banning process for half a year and with various angles of dispute resolution for well over a year.  That does place me in a fair position to comment on what type of proposals community banning was or wasn't planned to accommodate.  The talk archive at the guideline contains exhaustive discussion about how to prevent the type of proposal you are attempting in this thread.  Your response amounts to insinuation that some brief interaction with CG on unrelated matters makes me unsuited to comment here at all.  That impugns my character and I doubt it will persuade the community to support you here.  Durova Charge! 06:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be getting emotional. I do not see the relevance of your statements regarding your history with WP:DE, WP:CEM, and this noticeboard, and the length of your involvement with DR.  Either you have more standing here than other participants or you do not.  I claim you do not.  You state you agree, then go on to make statements that seem to argue for the contrary.


 * Political realities may indeed dictate that your word carries more weight here than that of others, especially mine. If that proves to be the case, I will simply remember that this noticeboard is not a useful option to me, and in the future go directly to ArbCom.  If my own behavior becomes an issue and I get sanctioned I am certainly prepared for that, even to the point of leaving Wikipedia.


 * Trying to steer the conversation back to something relevant, if you read the RFC (have you read it?) you will see that there are many editors who have endorsed my description of the situation. Gangsta has not seen fit to reply, so we cannot see who endorses his view.  --Ideogram 06:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom may be a better venue than this noticeboard for this particular situation. You could agree to mutual 1RR through CEM, which may be good for both of you based on your block histories. This community ban proposal makes me uneasy. Durova Charge! 06:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reason to doubt your objectivity in this matter, see this. You do not control this process.  I suggest your best action would be to recuse yourself from the discussion and let other participants here make a decision.  I am most certainly willing to take this to ArbCom.  --Ideogram 06:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That diff is certainly valid, which is one reason why I suggested neutral alternatives. I am not here to support CG and I was sorely disappointed in my brief attempt at coaching him.  Yet the consensus that formed community banning and the disruptive editing guideline depends on this option not being leveraged in an edit dispute.  Neither party comes to this table with clean hands.  I make no apologies for directing this elsewhere.  And for the record CG did not take up my offer to communicate offsite.  Durova Charge! 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, I remind you that that determination is not yours to be made alone. I have repeatedly stated my willingness to file an ArbCom case, but I'm not going to bypass Community Sanction just because you say so.


 * You also show a disturbing tendency to forget that I have already agreed that 1RR is the best solution and that I am no longer asking for a ban. --Ideogram 06:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we are making a habit of discussing tangents, I would like to note that we have disagreed before, and we have markedly different opinions of certain controversial editors. --Ideogram 06:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is unrealistic to propose unilateral 1RR under these circumstances, and with this proposer's block history and involvement. Durova Charge! 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you did not notice that someone else proposed 1RR, I simply agreed. --Ideogram 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, if one is looking for objectivity, I will say this: file a request for arbitration. Numerous threads of discussion have been devoted to the ongoing dispute between you two, with no visible positive result forthcoming. This thread seems to have turned into an ongoing spat between you two, and we are getting nowhere except delaying the inevitable. So please, let's just take a deep breath, calm down, and get the RfAr over with, as it seems like that is were you two are invariably heading. I don't know the entirety of your dispute, I don't want to know the entirety of your dispute, but I know that it will not be solved until the gavel comes down. —210 physicq  ( c ) 06:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, some of your recent stuff is nothing to be proud of. Just because Certified Gangsta has improperly reverted a couple of things and improperly removed a handful of talk page comments doesn't mean that you're "in the right" here. Georgewilliamherbert 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to discuss my behavior, I will be happy to do so, in the proper venue. I fail to see why people are trying to change the subject of a CSN proposal regarding Gangsta to me.


 * If you read the RFC (have you read it?) you will see that Gangsta made dozens of reverts in only the three revert-wars I documented. I have reviewed almost all of his edits and can easily cite more examples.


 * Whether my behavior is above criticism or not has nothing to do with whether I am "in the right". That can only be decided by objective observers, which means either here or ArbCom.  Since this venue exists to take load off ArbCom, I am trying to use it.  Again, if there is no result, I will proceed to ArbCom.  --Ideogram 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the issue, not the editor. This is not the 1st time you did this when you face oppositions. I remember you digging up someone's contribution when the guy defended me on AN/I after you falsely reported me for 3RR when there were no violations (not to mention you broke 3RR yourself and later self-reverted). You, then, contact Georgewilliamherbert accusing the guy of removing talkpage comments, which was totally out of personal vendetta. Moreover, when Bishonen told you to stop making personal attacks, you spammed her talkpage. You and Sumple also accused her of being a member of the so-called "Certified.Gangsta fanclub community". Now you are accusing Durova, a well-respected admin in the community, of supporting me because you had previous run-ins with him. (run-in he probably doesn't even remember) Btw Haven't you ever consider yourself to be a controversial editor. You are definitely one of them. I will file a RfC against Ideogram after I gather all the evidence. I also have strong reasons to believe you and Guardian Tiger are related. The fact that you stopped editing when LionHeartX was unblocked and also that you and Sumple repeatedly defended Guardian Tiger when he was banned.--Certified.Gangsta 06:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There appears to be some confusion. Ideogram contacted me on my talk page complaining about your (Certified.Gangsta) removal of his material from talk pages, which I warned you about on your talk page.  That was an entirely proper and correct notification; you really shouldn't go around doing that.  I commented above to indicate that I'm not taking sides or anything here, and I don't find either of your recent behavior to be in good standing.  Georgewilliamherbert 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about this User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert--Certified.Gangsta 07:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request opened at Requests_for_arbitration. Durova Charge! 06:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for CG to respond at Requests_for_comment/Certified.Gangsta, but I'm disinclined to support a complete ban yet. CG can be a pain, but I'm sure he has some positive contributions as well.  I guess I'd like to see some restraints put on him, but short of a complete ban.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RfA reform
Okay. I'm going to try to push the issue a bit more. According to the top of this page, "[t]his forum was created for the discussion of issues requiring broad community approval," and this may, in fact, be the place to do it, considering the voices at WT:RFA (which is usually RfA regulars and not a broader cross-section of users) and the soon-to-be-rejected ArbCom request regarding RfA reform. As ArbCom isn't going to touch it, and Jimbo is unfortunately not going to step in, and discussion is futile at the RfA talk page, I think it's imoportant to get some discussion rolling on how to reform RfA. I guess we should see if this is even something we can tackle here first, and if it is, start trying to figure out what's best for the situation and just friggin' do it already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what needs to happen first is establish what isn't going to happen. Once we've gotten out of the way things which either should not change or can not concievably get enough support to change, it will be easier to find where problems we can fix are. -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see what is wrong with the current system, I know some people don't like it, but that does not mean it is broken. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This subject is currently undergoing a rigorous and extended debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I agree with HighInBC. The current system works successfully and I have yet to see an argument against it beyond "I don't like it". Gwernol 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Adminship has become a "big deal" in exactly the way it was once said not to be. requiring millions of edits in all areas, a perfect record, etc, before the bit can be set is not how things were supposed to be, and I don't think _anyone_ really wants it this way. --Random832 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The current system does NOT work successfully. There are perpetual backlogs, and we're all absolutely petrified to desysop anyone for fear of being unable to replace them. Requiring more than a basic level of competence and good intent to be demonstrated before it can be handed out violates WP:AGF. --Random832 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The difficulties in passing seems to be based on the supply and demand for admins. There are so many people running, why not take only the best? I passed my second RfA, and I did not have to perform any miracles, I just needed some experience. It was good I did not pass my first, I was not ready. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Has everyone here taken a good look at CAT:AB recently? It's gotten quite large (even though we're slowly chipping away at it). But really, adminship has become a huge deal, even though it shouldn't be. In my opinion, provided you have 1000 or so edits and haven't screwed things over then you're clearly suitable for adminship. Hell, getting approval for AWB or VP takes less work... ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't have backlogs due to a lack of admins, we have them because they are boring to go through. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And adminship becoming a big deal is not the problem of the system, but of the voters themselves. —210 physicq  ( c ) 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First, in response to the forum question I'm not philosophically opposed to discussing this here. If you find a better venue you can move the thread. Second, I agree there's a need for more sysops. Yet I think it skips a couple of steps to leap to a discussion about procedural changes to RFA. My focus this calendar year is on recruitment and coaching. Partly toward that end I've just started a new personal user award User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle that could help identify outstanding content editors as potential sysop candidates. I suspect a lot of the good volunteers aren't even entering the RFA grinder because they're out there writing articles and we don't know their usernames. Let's try some more outreach and be innovative in our methods. Durova Charge! 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely OT, but what a cute award! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova, that is a very on topic alternative solution to the perceived problem, good thinking. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about requirements for voters or something? BuickCenturydriver  (Honk, contribs)  03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We'd all like to get a few more hands swabbing the deck. I just have a different approach.  I've started two successful RFA nominations and am coaching about half a dozen editors who'd like to earn mops of their own.  It shouldn't be too hard for one active sysop to mentor ten people in the course of a year.  If enough of us make that a priority our manpower problems would be solved - and admin coaching isn't tough to do.  Durova Charge! 06:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another instance is for the folks at RFA to calm down for just a bit. While Danny's RFA is pretty much the exception than the rule, we need to realize this: people screw up, give them a break and RFA isn't a vote or a vehicle to decimate the opposition. It is not to wage your personal campaigns or to rehash greviences from eons ago. And if you do not think someone is right for adminship, say it in a manner that not only it is civil, but acts as constructive criticism so the nominee can actually use those comments to better themselves. It has become too cut-throat, it needs to end now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't RFA, which probably does more inappropriate promotions than inappropriate rejections. It's not even especially that there aren't enough people willing and competent to deal with those backlogs; but rather, that those backlogs exist at all is symptomatic of the general dysfunction on Wikipedia.  I'm not going to launch a meta-essay on what the deeper problems are since everyone has a litany of them already.  For sure, RFA is broken.  But more admins running around isn't going to help.  More important than reforming RFA is reforming Wikipedia to reduce the amount of stress and bullshit that the existing admins have to deal with. 64.160.39.153 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above moved from WP:CN.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did this get moved? The entire point was to have it at the community noticeboard for a different set of eyes following the Arbcom's refusal to hear it.  This completely misses the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it is unrelated to "community sanctions" and therefore does not belong on the "community sanction noticeboard". For additional eyes, I'd suggest posting a note on WP:VP and WP:GO and WP:SIG.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I already explained at the top as to why it fit the description of the page. And, in fact, it may involve a community sanction - the community sanctioning the bureaucrats as to how to deal with this.  I'm very close to moving this back at the moment, so I'd need a better reason than "it's unrelated" when that's been addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon "Dodona"
No consensus for Ban. Navou  banter  12:31, 11 April 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.

For three months now, an anon editor signing his posts as "Dodona" has been plaguing Talk:Arvanites and several other article talk pages related to Balkan ethnicities (Talk:Bulgarians, Talk:Albanians) with a deluge of incessant political ranting, in broken English, about alleged ethnic continuity of Albanians with ancient Illyrians and similar nationalist memes. Often these rants have degenerated into personal attacks and ethnic slurs. He is unstoppable, impervious to reason or debate, and unable to make a coherent point that would amount to a suggestion for actually modifying an article. In fact, he has never even tried to edit any of them (his only edits in article space seem to be minor edits on Albanian footballers and similar topics).

The Arvanites page is an ideologically sensitive one with a very long history of disputes, but the article itself has been virtually stable since last summer. However, talkpage trolling like this always carries the risk of inflaming the old disputes again, and unfortunately several other editors have repeatedly taken the bait. The results have always been so chaotic that whole threads had to be removed to keep the page readable. A previous WP:ANI thread about the problem is here.

I myself blocked Dodona's IPs twice for disruption on various of these articles, but since I'm a long-time contributor to the Arvanites page and have taken part in the debate with Dodona (or whatever sorry substitute for a debate it was), I'd consider myself too much involved to hand out longer blocks here.

I would like to propose a full community ban for having exhausted the community's patience with his off-topic soapboxing. We need to be able to simply revert this guy on sight.


 * Here's Dodona's IPs:



Oldest contribution: 2 January. Other representative samples:, ,. Latest: 5 April, 5 April
 * And some representative samples of his edits:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of IP addresses. Could you simplify things for visitors by linking directly to the bans?  And has any dispute resolution been tried?  Durova Charge! 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. The blocks are documented on these talk pages: User_talk:80.90.85.46 (for off-topic rants such as and elsewhere), User_talk:217.24.240.8 (for block evasion), and User talk:217.24.247.51 (for edits such as ). There has been little attempt at "dispute resolution", content-wise, for the simple reason that there was no content dispute. In fact, there never was any content to dispute, because Dodona's rants don't rise to the level of proposing any concrete, coherent claim. The "dispute" there was was purely about asking him not to abuse the talk page for off-topic debates. Such requests can be seen at, , . On some occasions, one user even tried addressing Dodona in Albanian in order to get a better communication with him , but the result was only that Dodona accused him of being a traitor to his own ethnicity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I could support that and I'll add another question: would a topic ban be adequate? That's a lot of IP addresses and I'd like to leave the door open a crack, particularly if some of those IPs change hands.  Durova Charge! 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, topic ban will be just as fine. Actually, I'm not asking for all those IPs to be technically blocked. We don't do IP blocks like that anyway, do we. I just want community endorsement for being allowed to roll him back when needed without further ado. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Support topic ban. Nudge to other editors: this thread needs more participants. Durova Charge! 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears this discussion is unlikely to generate more comments, move to close? Navou   banter  20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed community ban of Arkhamite and 68.84.17.112
is banned per consensus community discussion. The blocking administrator is encouraged to note this ban by reblocking the editor noting the ban in the block log, user page and ban page. Navou  banter  12:34, 11 April 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.

I'm putting this situation up for a community ban because this editor has a substantial history of vandalism and disruption and has developed a sexual fixation regarding me. This person also has a self-confessed inpatient psychiatric history. Per the editor's self-description:


 * Committed to the asylum in October 2000 after defying a police officer. Diagnosis was bipolar, later revised to schizoaffective. Obsessed with dinosaurs, aviation history, and girls in dangerous situations. Delusions frequently take the form of scientific theories. Paranoia focuses on sexually transmitted diseases, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Kennedy political dynasty.User:Arkhamite

I blocked the editor for 1 week for a comment at Talk:Joan of Arc that included ''She's your sexual fantasy, you look it up. ;-D LOL OMFG''

The next day he altered my block notice at his user talk page and add Just because I'm a lesbo doesn't mean you can insult me on my Joan of Arc website. to my statement. Also of note are the following Wikipedia edits to my user talk page from 22 February,, which had seemed nonsensical to me at that time, and this (which I didn't see until much later).  On April 3 he made a similar assertion about me at his blog where his self-description is remorseless troll.

The overall editing history of this account is dismal, as a browse of the contribution history and comments at his talk page shows (representative examples are at Talk:Robin_%28comics%29). The following edits demonstrate that this editor and this IP are the same person.

He also issued a personal threat against me.

There's no place for this behavior at Wikipedia. Durova Charge! 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Support indefinite commitment to Arkham Asylum. - Merzbow 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I haven't indef blocked this user and I'm asking for a siteban. Durova Charge! 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote also includes "Should be banned immediately" - I suggest you oblige. Addhoc 10:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've indef blocked the registered account and put six months on the IP. Durova Charge! 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse community ban, obviously. There's no need for us to tolerate nutcases. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully endorse block. I appreciate your respect for process but gross threats of this nature do not require extended discussion before blocking. Newyorkbrad 01:48, 11 April 2007 (*UTC)

Endorse community ban. Newyorkbrad, sometimes a block and a ban end up being acted on differently when a person returns with socks. Mak (talk)  01:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse community ban. Johntex\talk 01:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, obviously. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. This one's a no-brainer, we protect our users always and forever.  Period the end.  Philippe 02:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Duh. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Get the fruitcake out of here. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban for completely unacceptable behavior. --ElKevbo 03:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Without hesitation. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm completely in agreement with this ban. And some admin should clear out the "predators" and "death squads" crap on that user talk page too. I'd do it but it's protected (as it should be). — coe l acan — 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually read the history on that talk page. It was worse before I cleaned it up.  Durova Charge! 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw. If you're not bothered by what's left, that's your call, but I would take this "remorseless troll's" toys away. — coe l acan — 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's worth leaving up as evidence during the ban discussion. He can't do any more harm to a full protected page.  I'd left up the user page too, but someone decided to delete that.  Durova Charge! 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse siteban. What a creep. Natalie 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "This person also has a self-confessed inpatient psychiatric history." - How is this relevant to whether an editor should or should not be banned / blocked? The problem is poor behaviour, not the psychiatric history.  Dan Beale  09:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ban or block of Ernham
is banned per consensus discussion, the blocking administrator are encouraged to note the ban on the user page, block log and correct ban log. Navou  banter  12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Ernham has been indefblocked by The bainer per this ban. Mango juice talk 14:18, 11 April 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.


 * Requests for comment/Ernham
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive225
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive178
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive59
 * User_talk:Ernham

This user is chronically incivil, and is a highly tendentious editor and edit warrior. He edits in an aggressive biased manner, and has been blocked for a total of eight times. In one case of October 30, he did a 9RR in about three hours and continually accuses opposing edits of being vandalism. As noted in the link to ANI Archive 178, he repeatedly removes negative and critical information about Michael Schumacher's driving tactics on the MS article and various related Formula One articles. He does the same on some tennis players, such as Steffi Graf, shifting the article to extremely pro-German state. This style extends to various German footballers, as previously noted, he has repeatedly blanked out information that Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski have Polish blood. As also previously noted, this extends to German Jews, and he has constantly deleted information about the Nazis expelling Jewish faculty from Gottingen. He also frequents Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua Genocide continually blanking info about the negative activities of German colonial troops in the African colonies. He was blocked for a month, but has returned, and continues to engage in the same activity,, deleting info about famous German Jew scientists to portray them as pure blooded Germans. This is in addition to continually blanking parts of the other articles which doesn't sit well with his viewpoint. His rather unhealthy editing behaviour in his attitude to race topics can be seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=108527011 If this does not get deleted, I'd probably consider creating a "Ashkenazi Incestousness" wiki, and we will see if the same people use the same arguments for keeping it. We will use all sorts of fun stuff, like propensity for genetic defects, inbreeding customs, and niffty annecdotal things like Einstein marrying his cousin. Then we can all watch what a crock wikipedia is]. He is again calling other users liars. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse; this user clearly seems to be more trouble than he's worth, and that "Ashkenazi Incestousness" edit (which also calls Wikipedia "a crock") is really bad. History of blocks and bans shows that he's had several chances to change his ways. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Das ist hier nicht erlaubt.  Durova Charge! 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, strongly. I've been watching from the sidelines, with minimal interest - Ernham's behaviour is so constantly disruptive and annoying that it gets boring after a while. Strongly endorse community ban. By the way, as a note, I refactored CH's comment above, to remove the bolding - no need for this to become more like a vote (per the header). Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  06:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. He continues to ride roughshod over community consensus since returning from his most recent ban. Greenman 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - no improvement since his RfC. Addhoc 10:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - Highly disruptive behaviour which has not been modified by either his blocks or the countless appeals made on his talk page to calm down and follow Wikipedia policy. Mark83 10:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - I haven't been had dealings with Ernham since he got blocked for harrassing Mark83 sometime last year, but it seems apparent he has only got worse (the ani-semitism hadn't surfaced, for example). I guess I just don't get why people dedicate months of their lives to trying to disrupt websites they must know they will be eventually banned from. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - edits he makes are clearly POV-pushing, tendentious and some of the latest ones could even be construed as racism. I don't think we need anyone plastering these kinds of views all over Wikpedia articles.--Ramdrake 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - Has had more then enough chances to modify his behavior and to contribute responsibly, and hasn't. SirFozzie 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - similar behavior on Talk:Barack Obama. Tvoz | talk 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - per incivility and edit warring already noted by Tvoz at Barack Obama. Italiavivi 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse - his behavior hasn't improved since I blocked him. Ernham has exhausted the community's patience. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 05:55, 11 April 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/Armenia-Azerbaijan
Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan has closed. The Arbitration Committee's decision is as follows.

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Review all old-style "community bans"
(This is in response to the failing Daniel Brandt arbcom case) The conflation of the old-style (no admin willing to unblock) and new-style (a formal discussion has taken place resulting in a consensus to ban) leads to a catch-22 situation - where the reason no admin is willing to unblock is because of the belief that there is a ban with more substance than "no-one has unblocked them" in place. In practice, this means there is NO avenue for someone under an "old-style" community ban to appeal, since an unblock is essentially a landmine. My proposal is to stop documenting old-style so-called "community bans", and just call them what they are, "indefblocks that haven't been lifted" - and since almost certainly most of these users do deserve community bans, they should be discussed and the bans made official. --Random832 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All prior community bans were discussed on WP:AN or WP:ANI to the best of my knowledge. This board was created as community ban requests were filling up ANI too much. Bans like those on Blu Aardvark, Daniel Brandt, etc. are effective. And removing the "banned" status from the users prevents the editor from preventing abuse from them in the future (a banned user is not allowed to edit, and anyone is allowed to undo their edits regardless of 3RR, sorta like BLP)— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, an unknown percentage of the banned users have moved on to other pursuits and it would be a poor use of time to debate whether someone is allowed to edit who hasn't even thought of editing in months anyway. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At Brandt's RFAR I proposed to formalize his status under the present system by holding a ban discussion here. From the tenor of his request to ArbCom, such an action could protect Wikipedians from potential liability by removing any ambiguity about whether indefinite blocked or community banned is the appropriate terminology.  Mr. Brandt didn't take up my offer, but perhaps it's worth running a formal community ban discussion for any presumptively banned editor who contests status.  Durova Charge! 01:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (fixed - my bad)  Durova Charge! 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um ... I think you mean Daniel Brandt, not Daniel Bryant! :) Newyorkbrad 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very good idea, because the catch-22 described is real. Seconded. -Amarkov moo! 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More thoughts about this matter: we could open a blanket proposal to convert all old indef blocks into (formal new style) community bans for blocks that were implemented prior to (insert appropriate date here). It's been almost seven months since I became active in this side of the process and things seemed to be gelling at that point, so I suppose it's fair to say that any editor who hasn't gotten an indef block lifted in half a year probably had serious enough problems to merit community discussion before editing privileges get restored.  If I understand correctly, a confidential arbitration case that took place a few months back probably could have been avoided if the community had handled things this way.  Sounds like a plan?  Durova Charge! 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about handling old-style community ban appeals like appeals to ArbCom are currently done? If someone would like to appeal an old-style community ban, they can email an administrator, who will then post their request here on that person's behalf. That process could also work for those who have been banned a year or two, and may wish to apologize and ask to be let back in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify here, they could probably email any editors, regardless to admin or not. However, I would that unban requests go to arbcom email.   Navou   banter  13:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We'd need community approval to do that anyway plus agreement on a dividing line for which indef blocks are covered and which aren't. It would be useful to make a formal statement and clarify the ambiguous status at the same time: Daniel Brandt asserted that it may have been libellous to call him community banned if his actual status was indef blocked.  Editors shouldn't need to worry about a lawsuit over semantics.  Durova Charge! 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this being a forum for discussing any and all unbanning, regardless of what type of ban it is. I do have a problem with saying that only admins could post an unban request, surely any user in good standing should be able to do so.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)  PS.  This page was created not because AN/ANI was being overloaded, but because community bans are more than just an admin decision.
 * That's an extraordinarily odd reply. How do you construe an implication that only sysops would post a ban proposal into my words?  And there's absolutely no need to tell me why this board was created: I'm the editor who proposed this board.  Durova Charge! 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's no need for us to go back over community bans that were endorsed by the community at ANI, but it would probably be a good idea to have a look at indefblocks that became de facto community bans if someone complains, such as Daniel Brandt. Were would the burden of consensus be: there has to be consensus to unban - if no consensus then they stay banned - or consensus to endorse the ban - if no consensus they are unbanned? I personally favour the former: any thoughts? Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (reset indent) I agree that we don't need to proactively review de facto bans. The appeals process as currently constituted is ArbCom, and banned users can contact ArbCom by mail.  No further action required, other than to clarify the appeal route and email address. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed that we shouldn't revist a ban unless someone specifically asks for it to be appealed. The question about threshold is a good one that I think is worth a subsection of its own.  I'll start one and continue there.  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Guy, we really don't need to preemptively review old cases. Should someone insist that their indefinite block is not really a ban, they can appeal to ArbCom, which can either accept the appeal or refer the matter to this board for community clarification.  In the case of Brandt, it is clear from the majority of the arbitrators' comments that they accept the status quo as a ban rather than as a block. Thatcher131 12:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at hold yer horses below before posting here, please. This has morphed into something that barely resembles the actual questions. Durova Charge! 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, the reason I suggested emailing administrators is because they're used to dealing with such users. If we had some type of volunteer board where both admin and non-admin users could volunteer to handle such requests, that may work even better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Threshold for unbanning

 * would the burden of consensus be: there has to be consensus to unban - if no consensus then they stay banned - or consensus to endorse the ban - if no consensus they are unbanned?

I personally favour the former: any thoughts? Moreschi

If there was no strong argument to ban or unban, then I would support unbanning. But if there is a strong push both ways, I don't know. Both banning and unbanning feel wrong for different reasons. My feel is that such cases ought to be refered upwards to the ArbCom. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The threshold for unbanning should be an appeal to ArbCom, in my view, or a new debate which includes most of those who contributed to the original debate. Otherwise we may end up with bans quietly undone without reference to the people who originally investigated the abuse.  Guy (Help!) 11:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold yer horses, folks. The replies here don't jibe with the question: I've proposed that we hold a single discussion where we mass-convert a bunch of old indef block/de facto bans into formal community bans. That means bans under the old process more than half a year ago. The reasons for doing so are to protect Wikipedians from potential libel suits over the semantic distinction between a block and a ban and to prevent troublesome matters such as Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom. Durova Charge! 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The excessively legalistic distinction between "block" and "ban" should be removed from Wikipedia policy pages. We implement blocks. We can remove all use of the word "ban" from the policy pages and be done with this nonsense. The community has a consensus to indefitely block so and so. No need for the word "ban" in the first place. WAS 4.250 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did this...notion...about libel suits come from? And – even if it were a legitimate concern – how would waving our magic wand months or years after the fact provide protection?


 * Honestly, if there are indef bans that need to be reviewed, let the ArbCom handle it&mdash;there shouldn't be a lot of traffic, and most cases can be dealt with very quickly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The notion comes from Daniel Brandt. Durova Charge! 15:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Daniel Brandt would still be a pain in the ass even if we make the declaration you suggest. If he wants to sue me for saying so, he's welcome to it&mdash;and you didn't answer the second part of my question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the purpose of the request either. Just because we have a new procedure for discussion community bans doesn't mean that bans discussed under the old procedure are invalid, and I don't see any reason to worry about individual or corporate liability here.  No one has the right to edit wikipedia, and if Joe Smith decides to edit under his own real name, and acts in such a manner so as to be shown the door, and that fact becomes general knowledge, well whose fault is that? Thatcher131 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way: if we routed old indef blocks through community discussion before unblocking then Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom probably wouldn't have happened. It's a simple matter to incorporate a blanket statement along the lines of all existing indef blocks issued prior to October 2006 are declared to be community bans, regardless of their former status.  It's a simple step to reduce our worries about Brandt and people like him and the basic notion received initial support until I posted at WP:AN and some off target replies began.  Durova Charge! 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be difficult to get consensus on such a broad statement. There's always going to be exceptions and the community would probably spend an eternity arguing over minor points. Additionally, arguing that such a conversion is necessary could actually lead to wikilawyering by banned users who (incorrectly) claim their ban is invalid it was implemented using the old method. I think that reviews should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the ArbCom. ChazBeckett 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. If anyone raises a concern about any specific indefinite ban, it can be discussed here or taken to ArbCom; I hesitate to issue a blanket statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All right then, if that's the way the wind blows I have no objection. Durova Charge! 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help document old ban decisions

 * Several people have been tracking down and linking older community-ban decisions at the listings in WP:BANNED, but some listings still need such documentation. These are marked with a redlink followed by "[specify]". Please take a look through these entries, and, if you know where any of these redlinks should point, please add the appropriate links to WP:AN or WP:ANI archives, etc. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of block or ban for User:Just_H
Per community consensus, is hereby banned from the English Wikipedia. *gavel* —210 physicq  ( c ) 02:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<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 an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.



It has been confirmed that has used sockpuppets to game the system in Danny's rfa. All accounts are blocked indefinitely. A discussion at WP:AN showed significant support for an indefinite block, but also some resistance that things were moving too quickly. Now the the RFA is over and a couple of days have passed, I submit the following remedies to the community for consideration.
 * 1) Block Just_H for two weeks for sock puppetry and then let him come back.
 * 2) Indefinite block all accounts but let him return with another account.
 * 3) Community ban.

In favor of the community ban I will point out this message claiming that he has done this before and promises to do it again. I also suggest that it was not a "blunder" or accident that he voted 4 times on Danny's RFA, in fact, these socks have been active for a long time and have voted multiply in several additional RFAs and possibly AfDs as well. The three sockpuppet accounts were all dormant, and a checkuser would not even have detected them if not for the fact that they became recently active to oppose Danny's RFA. Who knows how many additional accounts he has been using?

In favor of the 2 week block or the indefinite block (but allowing him to come back) I will point out that Just_H is a long-time contributor with many useful contributions. There is very little overlap in the accounts contributions except for the overlapping RFA votes shown below (courtesy of bainer)

Discussion? Thatcher131 13:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Has a request for checkuser been conducted, and had the editor been warned about sockpuppetry? Navou   banter  13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All this and more answered if I take the time to scan the diffs. Navou   banter  13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus on WP:AN was to ban. I'm not sure why we're wasting time with another discussion on another forum. – Steel 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was also some resistance and a request to discuss it here. If it is to be a ban I would be happier if it was confirmed with a more sober discussion than at AN, which ocurred while the bureaucrats were still trying to decide how to close the RFA, which may have had some influence on the discussion. Thatcher131 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think 's final comment on being blocked says it all. He's here to engage in a kind of campaigning which is not permitted on Wikipedia (I suppose the Karmafist arbitration is most relevant here). In addition he has systematically cheated at RFA. There is no place for extremely untrustworthy behavior on Wikipedia. Ban. --Tony Sidaway 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban per Tony. Long-term systematic deception aimed at corrupting the project's decision-making processes. Stated intent to continue to be a DICK. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I browsed through these accounts' Wikipedia namespace contributions to begin with, and came up with this list of RfAs that have been edited by more than one of them. Centurion 5 and Georgian Jungle have few edits each, mainly stub tagging with a little cleanup work, done in blocks of a couple of hours at a time (all of Centurion 5's contribs were made on just 7 different days, for example). Their only edits outside of this have been to their userpages and to the RfAs mentioned above. Yankee Rajput was also used for AfDs alongside the stub tagging and cleanup edits, although I can't find any overlap with the AfDs that Just H participated in. So the only uses of these socks in a manner prohibited by the sockpuppetry policy is the multiple participation in these RfAs (without combing through all article contribs looking for 3RR breaches and so forth); but that more than warrants a ban. These were clearly "sleeper" accounts which were brought out of the sock drawer as needed to participate in RfAs, and that kind of behaviour is clearly not acceptable. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban per utter lack of contrition in parting statement. What this guy did wasn't simple vandalism; he was gaming the system for the better part of a year. -- Cyde Weys 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban per Cyde and Tony for now, though I would perhaps allow a potential unban if and when we get the biggest apology ever, coupled with an end to the sockpuppetry and a limited ban from project space. Having said that, the complete lack of remorse in the parting shot clearly merits a siteban for the present. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban using sockpuppets to corrupt the RfA system is extremely serious and shows a grave contempt for Wikipedia and its community. Gwernol 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban per Tony & Cyde. --ElKevbo 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. The worst type of misdeed. - Y (Y NOT?) 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Endorse Ban. The only remorse he's showing is that he got caught. SirFozzie 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the ban, there's certainly no indication that he realizes his error or intends to stop. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban. This sockpuppetry was serious, long-term abuse and there's no reason to believe that such behavior would cease. ChazBeckett 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. Abuse of sock puppets in RfAs. No contrition. -Will Beback · † · 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban because of lack of contrition and hints of further disruption after he was caught. ElinorD (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. Obvious, I'm afraid. What is cause for a ban if systematic and large-scale use of socks for cheating is not? Bishonen | talk 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Reluctantly oppose ban Endorse ban, but not indefinite. I think an editor like Just H with a great amount of mainspace good edits should not indef banned. If he screws up on project space we can ban him from going there. His edit count shows that his mainspace edits are two times as many as mine. He should still able to continue his mainspace edit, IMHO. A year is enough for his misbehavior. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you propose as an alternative to the ban? How will you identify his edits?  How will you communicate with him?  How will you rehabilitate him, turning his extremely destructive presence into a net gain for Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For an editor who disrupted project space but have twice as many mainspace edits as I do, I'd suggest banning him from project-space for a year, but allow mainspace. And also just FYI, I've never interacted with him, just checked his edit counts and contributions. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He has (from my last check) just over 2700 mainspace edits. If you've been around as long as he has, and you've done half that, thanks very much for your edits but please don't compare him for a user whose good faith we can assume, or a user who is indispensible.  He has damaged the project and (if it's only 2700 edits) really not added much to compensate. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kansai-ben is an example of Just H's mainspace activities. To summarise, Just H edit warred in very poorly sourced material, accused another editor of WP:OWN without any basis and gave a sarcastic reply to my comment that forums and Wikipedia articles are not WP:RSes (either he was deliberately being disruptive, or he seriously misunderstood WP:ATT). He came back a week later and accused the same user being rude and dismissive when it was really himself acting that way. Oh and let's not forget wikistalking that user. Yeah, really a model Wikipedian, Just H. – Steel 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never said Just H should be anyone's roll model. I believe Just H has been a bad user in many sense. The only thing is that from precedents indef community ban is usually given to egregious vandals whose only purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia. I fully support what we've done to User:Punk Boi 8, and I think Just H should be treated as Punk Boi 8, banning for a year, but not infinite. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban: Looking at the fact even that his socks actually probably CHANGED the way those RfA's tilted, it is quite major. just can't oppose a ban given the circumstances.-- Wizardman 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have opposed the ban if he hadn't written his reply as he did. Now that he's made it clear he blames Wikipedia rather than realizing his own guilt, there's no more need for patience with him. Endorse ban. Heimstern Läufer 23:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like on AN, I say ban him. ONE sockpuppet, might reasonably just need a strong deterrent, and not removal from the site. But people who make 3 sockpuppets and use them repeatedly should be banned. No matter what good things they've done, because there is no good thing that can possibly outweigh that, or convince me that the person will reform. He did a lot of trolling, too, now that I think of it. -Amarkov moo! 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any objections to the close of this thread? Navou   banter  02:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WP:NPA violation by User:Grimerking
See here. This seems to be a SPA, and the user has been warned various times about a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This complaint belongs at WP:ANI. Durova Charge! 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Didn't we have an NPA noticeboard a while back? I thought this was the replacement... --Stephan Schulz 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This bears no similarity to the discontinued WP:PAIN. Durova Charge! 04:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article ban for User:QuackGuru
<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.

I'd like to propose a community ban for Quackguru from the Essjay controversy for edit warring over, well, everything really. Since the article was started, he has tried to insert a picture gallery, an image of Essjay, and repeatedly edit warred over whether Larry Sanger can be called a founder of Wikipedia and whether the Essjay letter to a professor should be linked to. He is still arguing over the last two. The article has been protected repeatedly because of his attempts to force things in against consensus. Quackguru has had his userpage deleted because he created a fork of the article in it. The talkpage for about the past month pretty much consists of Quackguru demanding his edits be inserted and everyone else telling him they are against the agreed consensus of the page. He has been asked repeatedly and loudly, and after one editor snapped, very bluntly, to cease his disruption, but he will not stop, and he is exasperating every editor to that page. On a personal note, I find it infuriating that he has taken to signing posts with smug little smilie faces. Everyone has been very patient with him but I cannot imagine he is unaware of how disruptive he is being.

Quackguru has apparently also been as disruptive on other pages, but I don't know enough about them to suggest he be banned from them as well. But I do know that he has utterly exhausted our patience on Essjay controversy, and ask he be banned accordingly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking into this: some precise diffs would be nice. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The evidence really lies in entire sections on the talkpage, which is difficult to diff. Let me find one that is suitable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Essjay_controversy. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can ban someone for making legitimate editorial changes. You may be tired of the debate but the changes that are being made are sourced and defended with a rational argument. Better to solve the issue that is contested than banning a user who, as far as i can see, brings intelligent debate to the table. Sure, people disagree but that does not mean it is disruptive? The editors at that page need to make a real attempt to address the issues rather than black balling quack guru. David D. (Talk) 20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline, looks like a Content dispute that hasn't gone over the top just yet. Strongly recommend that users get a WP:3O or open an WP:RFC on the article. SirFozzie 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit-warring against consensus over the Sanger founder question is certainly disruptive and annoying: that has to stop, but as of yet matters are not so bad we need to start handing out the bans. Blocks maybe if the edit-warring over that question continues, but we can't ban until things get worse. As of yet, they haven't. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I withdraw the proposed ban. I suspect his disruption will continue though. :( Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you look towards RfC then, good luck! SirFozzie 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If edit warring against consensus continues, then we should have another look at this: it's fairly borderline. Certainly that page's protection log is pretty full, mostly due to edit warring. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some diffs, for reference, although I suspect an RFC is more likely:
 * "'a' Wikipedia founder" - tendentious disruption which eventually lead to the article being protected;
 * Which he followed up by attempting to get a tag placed on the article  (which was denied)
 * "Identity revealed" - month-long campaign to insert a bash on Essjay and by extension Wikipedia;
 * restating Ad nauseam the same claims:, , ,
 * Misuse of user Talk space for POV sources -- ongoing
 * -- LeflymanTalk 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A block log of zero and we're moving for a community ban? I would sooner advise WP:RFC first. 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this was not intended as a siteban: this was intended as ban from one page. Previous blocks aren't so relevant then. I agree that an RfC looks like the best option. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough... /me sheepishly reads fully the proposal. 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could Community enforceable mediation be a better option? 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hadn't thought of that...good idea...certainly a possible option in the near future if things get just a bit worse. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if CEM is a good fit for this kind of situation (it's really just a content dispute that has traveled on various topics). But yeah, RfC is definitely the way to go SirFozzie 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page-ban suggested for User:CyclePat
I am not an admin, but nothing in the remedy needs an admin's touch (unless violated), so I think I will be WP:BOLD and state that CyclePat is hereby banned by the community from Editor assistance, as well as all its subpages and talk pages. If CyclePat violates this ban, he may be blocked by any uninvolved adminstrator for up to 24 hours per violation: after 3 such violations, the blocks may escalate in accordance with adminstrative discretion. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. SirFozzie 03:24, 12 April 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.


 * SirFozzie, this comment of mine was removed because you closed the case a couple minute prior too me adding it. (I didn't notice it prior to starting):
 * I would just like to say that this is perhaps a fairly complex issue which stems down to various firm beliefs and Wikipedia rules on trying to build a consensus. Some say WP:RM is extreme and perhaps not the right venue. But clearly RM is a step towards building consensus and finding out what people wanted at WP:ASSIST. Now, however, that information has been removed, supposedly by concensus!? This bring to question; Where does the line between building page concensus start and end? Where is the line between violating policy when a community decides they actually want to do something which goes against policy? Such as this case, does changing consensus and removing old comments (permanently) not violate other rules, such as WP:VAN? Surely, one rule must be more important than the other. This is either a mis-understanding of which rules are more important, including the guideline WP:Ignore. Is the fact that a community (or group of members such as WP:ASSIST) decides that they want to hear about certain "things", warrant the right to remove it? Perhaps it does! But should it not be placed in the correct archive? And, what if that "thing" is being used to try and build consensus regarding that page? Perhaps what has happened here could be a bit more complex than it appears? From my point of view, this was a dispute on the removal of concensus building comments from a talk page and vandalism. This process has in fact subdued my reverts... (as I am still running the other way). I believe it is an attempt to force a concedement when there still lies a problem. Why is it that Wikipedia has permited the removal of an honest attempt to try and build a discussion/concencus/survey? As stated above, and I agree, this process here "should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases, (such as this one), should go to dispute resolution." Personally, I believe I have respected the rules as stated in WP:VAN. I also believe this case should be judged as not being a straightforward case for a community restriction. As an advocate I would have to say "Perhaps it should be guided towards another avenue." --CyclePat 03:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is probably why the AMA's reputation is down the lavatory. This has nothing to do with any of that: wikilawyering again. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, Pat, if you want to put the comment in the body, so it can be properly archived, let me know. SirFozzie 03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello SirFozzie! It's all good, I think it's okay here. Thank you! --CyclePat 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

<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.

I am requesting that the community ban User:CyclePat from Editor assistance, as well as all its subpages and talk pages. If CyclePat violates this ban, he may be blocked by any uninvolved adminstrator for a maximum of 24 hours: after 3 such violations, the blocks may escalate in accordance with adminstrative discretion. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. As is usual, this ban applies to all sockpuppets or proxies of CyclePat, such as User:CyclePat2.

Evidence of conduct that requires this sanction: Has already been blocked once in connection for this matter, insults and personal attacks also in connection with this, templating the regulars, Disrupting AIV, Personal attacks on a group of editors, False accusations of vandalism, More personal attacks on a group, More false accusations of vandalism, Ditto, And again, and again, Disruption, incivility, wasting time, more attacks towards Kim Bruning, Two disruptive moves that were reverted that nobody wanted, More disruption, and more!

Narrative: WP:ASSIST was set up in order to assist editors. CyclePat, a devoted member of the WP:AMA, takes this as a challenge to the AMA, and has been enthusiastically trying to disrupt ASSIST: first by requesting a merge - see - but nobody wanted that. Unsurprising, as this was a flagrant abuse of process: WP:RM is not the venue for one project to attempt to usurp another! He has then continued to disrupt WP:ASSIST and harass anyone who has tried to revert/stop him/tell him he's not wanted or needed, as the diffs show. The existence of ASSIST seems to have thrown CyclePat into a frenzy: ban him from it and the disruption will cease. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some choice quotes:". What needs to be done is to get everyone working on the same page. As Boomer said in an article on the Alliance Party in Canada 'it's time to come back to the fold. Let this be a formal olive branch to those treasonous, mutinous bastards.'" And:"In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to 'persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)' Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism."Best of all:"'I call EA a mutiny on a boat, and currently, the mutineers, instead of trying to fix ship have decided to bail into a little life boat. It's time the ship went back, even if we have to do it with our guns, and gather the mutineers. We need their help just as much as they need our help to make it out alive of the high sea. Personnally, I think they should all be gathered up and shot... forced to do one AMA case.'" There is only so much we can put up with. This limited page-ban is the best solution to the problem. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering a lot of the disruption has taken part on user talk pages, I don't think it could HURT to ban CyclePat from WP:ASSIST, I think that his behavior will merit a site block shortly, if it hasn't already. SirFozzie 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This will hopefully prevent that unfortunate outcome. We do not wish to lose this editor altogether, but the disruption must stop. This is the best way of doing so without indefblocking/community banning outright. The cause of this is CyclePat's reaction to WP:ASSIST: cut off that, and hopefully this nastiness will end. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well. I don't want to end up seeing CyclePat gone, I know he's done a lot of good work, but this has got to stop. This seems like the least harmful way to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely support a ban from editing WP:ASSIST and its subpages, though I think a short-term block may be needed to give him time to cool down. He seems determined to keep disrupting WP:ASSIST despite many requests from many editors to leave that project alone. ChazBeckett 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed then, Moreschi. I'd be happier if it had a bit stronger teeth to it, but I guess that a 72 hour block for violating it would be punitive and not preventative (24 hours should be enough of a cool down time). Maybe a short 4-6 hour block to give him a chance to absorb this without saying something in the heat of the moment that would make it harder on him? SirFozzie 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with that last part. Needs a couple hours to cool down, especially after this. Feel free to go and beep an admin. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification about the narrative...first CyclePat moved Editor's assistance to ([]) without so much as a word, then I reverted ([]) with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/absolute shock that this was happening in mind, and since them it has been looniness. --Iamunknown 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the narrow page ban as described by .  is a good faith editor and I don't doubt that he has very good intentions, but his actions at Editor assistance talkpage and archives is having the exact opposite effect that I think he intends them to have.  As I've said before, it is time for him to disengage here and if he won't do it voluntarily, this seems like the next best step to avoid the eventual disruption blocks he will get if he continues this behavior.--Isotope23 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say the proposed decision would give the best chance of this user avoiding an otherwise likely indef block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally think that if he attacks ASSIST because of his adherence to AMA, then we can contact User:The Thadman (head of AMA) to admonish CyclePat. This works better than a ban. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Already been tried, failed, multiple times. --Iamunknown 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's already been tried. See . Nothing: the disruption has continued unabated. This needs community intervention. Moreschi Want some help? Ask!
 * If this has been done and failed, I will not object a page ban. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that this user has already been admonished. If you think a particular person will be more persuasive then I am all for a solution that is voluntary, if it works that is. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the fact that he's been blocked once yesterday, for three hours about this same issue and been asked to stop disrupting WP:ASSIST by.. well, just about EVERYONE, I'm beginning to wonder if he's already squandered a "final" chance. SirFozzie 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I think, but I'm involved with WP:ASSIST so don't rely solely on my judgement. --Iamunknown 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He's certainly squandered a final chance on this issue, which is why we're here, but this is a contributor worth attempting to retain. Not an out-and-out troll: he has done valuable work. If he continues to disrupt other stuff, we can always turn this into a siteban later. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing other peoples comments (as per WP:VAN) is not right. As per WP:VAN we are allowed to revert such actions. Many editors have decided to remove, not only my comments, but comments from other users at WP:ASSIST. Please, this is an issue of vandalism and perhaps now harassment (since it is ongoing). Of my limited time here are just a few examples.Archive I tried, Moreschi removes my recent comments. I created an archive for the page and the comments which all these user want so badly removed for some reason, (I wish they would explain why?), are actually helpfull towards building a better EA and AMA. Why can't you just leave the comments there and stop harassing me... perhaps then we could work on improving other issues? --CyclePat 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pat, PLEASE take a couple steps back and take a deep breath. Look at how many people have asked you to stop disrupting EA. You've already been blocked once for disruption, and are quite probably heading for longer blocks. It's not worth it. Some fights shouldn't be fought. SirFozzie 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pat, it comes down to this: your comments and actions at WP:ASSIST are not helpful. You have been asked my many members of the community to stay away from that project. Please listen to them. ChazBeckett 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:STICK applies here. Just hit "log out", take a break for a couple days, and come back ready to work on the encyclopedia. It's in everyone's best interests. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish that it was that simple. I would love to agree with drop the stick... even felt this would come this far once I didn't receive an appology from one of the many users that have reverted me. The stick thing sounds so nice compared to this thing... where they keep trying to "delete" the past conversation... even it's archives. The debate was dead a long... long... long time ago. But the removal of important comments however is a big no no! And is still happening even now. One of the reasons the RM was proposed in the first place is that I knew even if it didn't work I would be able to go back and look at some of the comments and perhaps fix some of the highlited issues, to help fix up AMA, as suggested in the Mfd of AMA. If we keep deleting our history (comments and debates), what do have to work with in the future? --CyclePat 19:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, these things have been reverted because they constituted a flagrant abuse of WP:RM, which is not for project usurpation. Even without this, your personal attacks, harassment, false allegations of vandalism, templating the regulars, personal attacks on a group of editors, comparing them to mutineers and Hitler, cannot be ignored. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the ban, but suggest it be preceded by a week long block. As someone so helpfully pointed out, since EA started CyclePat's every single edit has been devoted to trying to destroy it. Maybe a week would force him to calm down. I also suggest that if he fails to heed this ban or insists he is going to ignore it (through either "WP:VAN trumps CN, I am being HARASSED, I tell you!" or whatever means) he be blocked indefinitely. CyclePat has been incivil, repeatedly characterised good faith edits as vandalism even after warnings from at least a dozen people, has been blocked for his aggressiveness and use of vandalism templates on regular users, including me (and if anything pisses me off most it's being accused of being a vandal), and to be honest, he is wikilawyering with his constant spouting off legal definitions of harrassment and propaganda, not to mention disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (I've had to deal with him rather than work on more important matters). As even his defenders are now starting to leave extremely blunt comments on his talkpage and he is still not listening to them, I think this man has exhausted the community's patience enough. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreschi, why is it you believe WP:RM constitutes a flagrant abuse of WP:RM? I fail to see personal attacks... unless you consider stating things like "this edit of yours" falls within the realms of WP:VAN and may be considered vandalism? or Please do not blank talk pages? As for the mutineers... if the analogy offended you then I appologize. Perhaps I should have used the bible analogy of Jesus going to get the lost sheep? But then again, perhaps the reference to religion may then offend you. When explaining, it is inherent that everyone understands differently. To meet the different characteristics of these people it is sometimes important to give a different angle or a story to go along. At that point I felt it necessary so people could understand. Finally, as you probably wanted to hear me say... but I did not refere to Hitler... I refered to popoganda theory called Reducio ad Hitlerum which is taken from the wikipedia article. If this has offended you, I again, appoligize... You may wish to see my comments on my talk page regarding this. Personally I believe the fact that you have constantly removed my comments (which fall under the definition of vandalism) cannot be ignored. This is an issue of Vandalism of my comments... it has nothing to do with AMA anymore... this is my personal affair and those people that keep reverting and removing my attempt to try and historically preserve a conversation or even my most recent comments... should be dealt with. Again, all I am asking is that the comments be preserved as per WP:VAN, and what is common practice. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The more you remove the more revert violations that there are to talk about. Please just let the comments be. In the mean time I will take a break from WP:ASSIST. I am not totally unreasonable towards compromises. --CyclePat 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering like this is why the AMA has a bad reputation. You are rewriting history in this manner: your disruption and evident intent to disrupt further is intent for all to see. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As Dev put it," I have to disagree with this. Normally I am fine with just archiving stuff, but the RfM poll was forced onto our pages, Pat edit warred to keep it here, tried repeatedly to reopen it, and then starting trying to force the remaining mess here again with a discussion closed template". Not only did you use totally the wrong procedure for your attempted usurpation, you then edit-warred against consensus. Then you accuse everyone else of vandalism. No, not really. You still refuse to admit you have done anything wrong: even if you did, this sanction should still be applied, because we can't tolerate such disruption and must not let it go. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Following another vandalism warning issued to Moreschi's talkpage, even while we are discussing the terms of his ban, I have requested an indef block at AN/I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've requested that, just for now, we let that slide. Or maybe I'm just in a good mood because the English clubs all won in the Champions league tonight. I agree that usually that would be a indefblock offence, but in the heat of the moment...Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would agree that an indef block probably isn't necessary at this point. I think the topic ban will do the job just fine, though I do still support enacting that, just to ensure that this doesn't recur. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest community removal from WP:AMA
I suggest extending the suggested WP:ASSIST ban to a general removal from WP:AMA and a ban on all pages related to the two. Certainly the community can do this if AMA will not. CyclePat is creating a great deal of animosity across Wikipedia against the AMA in general, and that project as well as everyone else will probably be aided if he simply cuts all of this out. It doesn't have to be forever, but something is needed. /me ducks -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC) On second thoughts, maybe not. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I would strongly suggest that AMA do this (it is reflecting badly on them for one of their members to be so far off the plot), A) They have tried to reign in Pat as much as any other folks, and B) I am VERY leery of telling a volunteer group that they must kick out one of their own, even temporarily. SirFozzie 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Fozzie. I hear he's inflammatory and divisive as an advocate as well. I have to say though, I find it weird that a middle-aged man who apparently is a part-time lobbyist offline is incapble of reading the signs, even when they are twenty foot high neon signs saying "STOP" on them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I take that back, his website appears to indicate he is in his mid to late twenties. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This would be something for the AMA coordinator to decide. I've also just emailed Cyclepat, perhaps we can talk this through. --Kim Bruning 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is necessary.  has stated above that he is going to disengage from WP:ASSIST and I'm going to hold him to that.  Removing him from AMA seems a bit punitive at this point and the WP:ASSIST ban should be enough right now.  Regardless, per Kim I'd prefer to let AMA decide what, if anything, they want to do about this.--Isotope23 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, agreed. But the ASSIST ban is necessary: CyclePat has had more than enough chances to talk this through amicably and has spurned the lot. This kind of disruption must not be tolerated, ever. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me get a couple things straight:

I think what needs to happen is that I run the other way, and wait for everyone here to "calm" down. Perhaps then, I may be able, later on, to walk by without getting punched. --CyclePat 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm am usually a pretty nice guy.
 * 2) I do not want to take over EA.
 * 3) I am interim coordinator (temp) of the teams section at AMA. That means all someone needs to do is propose or call for an election anytime to "take over" the resposibility.
 * 4) My actions for a "move page" request to the AMA have been viewed as hostile.
 * 5) Removing these comments in the RM process is however considered hostile as well. (they should emain preserved in archive).
 * 6) A resentement still exist for this hostile "move."
 * 7) Despite the fact that I am following rules... it is unpleasant for everyone.
 * So, basically, you don't think you did anything wrong. Do you still not get it? Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pat, when you look at the NUMBER of people who have spoken here, in ANI, on your talk page, people who respect your contributions to WP otherwise, people who are viewing the AMA/EA situation for the first time, and they ALL agree you are in the wrong and need to step back, is it not beyond the realm of possibility that yes, you were and are in the wrong here? SirFozzie 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidently not, which is why this sanction is, regrettably, necessary. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you read carefully, you'll see he recognizes all the errors people have claimed he has made, but one. Note that English is not Cyclepat's first language. --Kim Bruning 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim, the use of the passive voice means that "My actions for a "move page" request to the AMA have been viewed as hostile..." is most certainly not the same as an admission of doing anything wrong. "Despite the fact that I am following rules" - how is that an admission of anything? CyclePat not following the rules is the problem here. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What Kim Bruning said. I wouldn't like people picking over my crap French grammar to find the hidden meaning. Based on Pat's message of 21:06 UTC here, and this comment, he isn't just stepping back, he's "running the other way". It seems like that should be enough. Or am I missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad. Hopefully, this is the end of it. (well, I still would want the ban from WP:ASSIST to go through, just to try to keep from a possible repeat. SirFozzie 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's something best left to Steve Caruso, perhaps. And perhaps he can think of a better idea, who knows. --Kim Bruning 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why best left to Steve Caruso? At least on the EA/ASSIST side, that can be a remedy the community can levy.. (just curious) SirFozzie 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to give him a chance to be seen and heard from, since he's the current AMA coordinator. He might have some useful insights. That, and I'm not sure it's a good idea for the community to interfere with projects like that, especially after we basically disagreed with CyclePat about doing something similar. --Kim Bruning 23:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are aware that WP:ASSIST is unconnected to WP:AMA, are you not? — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The AMA have consistently failed to rein in CyclePat, though not for lack of trying. They've has their chance had it hasn;t worked. I agree that there is no pressing reason as of yet to ban him from the AMA, but that would be within our rights as a community should there be a good reason. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to remove CyclePat from AMA, especially given that it appears there is consensus to restrict him from interfering in the editor assistance project. Removal from AMA as well seems more punitive then preventative to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, CyclePat's issues are with EA and not the AMA. I would recomend a ban from EA but not the AMA as I agree with above it would be punitive and doesn't address the issue correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeon1006 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm not familiar with EA, but well aware of CyclePat's "advocacy" for one of our most disruptive trolls, User:Cplot.   That included leaving vandalism warnings for admins  and long time editors   Such "advocacy" isn't helpful for the project and was disruptive.  Regretfully, I think having CyclePat step down from AMA would be for the greater good of the wiki community. --Aude (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those diffs were a while ago. Did CyclePat ever indicate a change of attitude or at least say that those warnings were mistaken? — coe l acan — 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. In the recent WP:AMA MfD discussion, he disrupted the discussion by Canvassing several groups of AMA members to join the discussion, and stated that he would avoid consensus if it went against AMA by hosting it on his user page. He also stated that he did not believe his advocacy for CPlot was harmful. You can see the discussion here SirFozzie 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In that discussion, CyclePat mentions handing over Cplot's IP (from an email) to an admin or checkuser. That helps. I couldn't support a ban from AMA at this time, as I think it would be punitive and not preventative. Any future actions like those taken for Cplot would change my mind, though. And the ban from ASSIST should go ahead immediately. — coe l acan — 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Topic ban for CyclePat on the AMA...no doubt, his efforts to aide and abet notorious vandal User:Cplot was well above and beyond the call of duty of an AMA representative.--MONGO 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support banning him from both EA and AMA, his behaviour is too close to trolling. Also I don't mind if he'll be blocked for a week (but not indef yet), to calm down and realise that he went too far. Max S em 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose on principle forcing people to leave a Wikiproject they are truly a part of. If he wants to leave voluntarily, fine, and if you want to try to convince him to leave, fine again. But even if we do have the power to do this, which it isn't clear we do, I don't believe that it should be used. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Disruption is at Assist. This would be punative. Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently we have consensus for a ban from ASSIST but not one from the AMA: having said that, it is perfectly within our rights as a community to ban anyone from any set of pages for any length of time. If there was a really good reason to ban CyclePat from the AMA, we could. However, there isn't as of yet. Note to those above: stepping back and running the other way is not the same as admission of doing anything wrong, crap grammar or no. The question is: how soon do we wrap this discussion up and enact the ban from ASSIST? Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I'm opposinbg the idea of a ban from AMA. Banning him from Assist is preventative and thoroughly justified. Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, looks like everyone is pretty much in agreement that Pat should be banned from EA and its associated talk pages, but is free to continue with his AMA duties. I'm gonna be BOLD and close the discussion. SirFozzie 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.