Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive7

Community ban or lengthy block of Reddi
Involved editors are encouraged to attempt measures outlined in dispute resolution. At this time, no consensus for ban. Navou banter  12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

is apparently a longtime contributor to parascience-related articles. A cursory look at his block log and talk page indicate that he is also a user whose (recent) interactions with others tend to be unpleasant (see also his RfAr). I have no prior experience with this user, but was asked by an admin who has been in disputes with him to evaluate this rant on his user talk page (since expanded). My impression of it is – gross violations of WP:NPA, etc. aside – that he is not a user interested in contributing productively to Wikipedia any more. I'm inclined to issue either a lengthy block to cool him down and make him understand how we work with one another here, or an indefinite block – i.e., since we're discussing it here, a community ban. Opinions? (I've notified Reddi of this discussion.) Sandstein 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot express the situation? If i have to remove it, I will, but it is what happened. I am a user interested in contributing productively to Wikipedia. I have created several articles since I have came back. Kansas State Board of Education, Ancient Egyptian technology, War of Currents citations, Timeline of Kansas history, Adolphus Slaby, "Expert" References and external articles, and Invention of radio timeline are a few. J. D. Redding 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [PS., I see that User:Pjacobi and you had a chat[ (maybe elsewhere before you posted this, maybe on IRC? or somewhere? No matter though ... I was contemplating adding him to the section too; but if I need to remove it/move it, I will ... (Pjacobi has already tried to harass me in the Dendera Temple complex article; but his disapproval goes back further and is biased against me.))


 * May we have some diffs of the actual edits in question. And just to clarify, is it mostly user conduct, or mostly content dispute?  Diffs of continuing "abuse" would be helpful.  Regards, Navou  banter  22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a lengthy block history. But the situation looks like DR ought to be tried. Has it? Durova Charge! 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Very soon after his last block and has removed the f-word comment, accordingly, suggest dispute resolution. Addhoc 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to follow his edits and attract editors by article content RfC if necessary. I don't know whether the alleged identity of User:Hillman Reddi "discloses" on his talkpage should be considered actable. --Pjacobi 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have filed a complaint at WP:AN/I over Reddi's list on his talkpage. He has refused to take it down. Can anyone help? --ScienceApologist 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reddi has also been on the wrong end of two requests, for arbitration. DR has already been tried with this user. --ScienceApologist 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly a lengthy block history. Note:  The first and third were "mistakes", the second seems to be a simultaneously overlapping block from 2005, then next one is in violation of ArbCom ruling in 2006, and the third, most recently, was for "spamming". So it's a lengthy history, but three blocks. --Otheus 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in fairness to Reddi, isn't it true the first ArbCom case was never officially opened? And isn't it true he has  "served his time" on the second case, being over a year old?  Just a thought, can 3 Admins together appeal to have these remedies extended, as per the ArbCom ruling? --Otheus 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in fairness to Reddi, isn't it true the first ArbCom case was never officially opened? And isn't it true he has  "served his time" on the second case, being over a year old?  Just a thought, can 3 Admins together appeal to have these remedies extended, as per the ArbCom ruling? --Otheus 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Extend something that was expired? I served my probation or parole ... sounds like double jeopardy?

BTW, the so-called "spamming" was in fact to reinstate 'rex research.com' references and external sites to articles that used them. I did the Harry Perrigo article and rex research is the main information of him (that exists on the internet; I went to the KC library and have whole page photocopies of the newspapers that the library had (which are in portion at the rex research site)). He is of interest [atleast to the Kansas City area historically].

So ... as I see it ... when the "skeptics" come by later to those various articles and "attack" (ex., VfD) the various articles, the references to the articles will be gone and the information is that much easier to destroy.

J. D. Redding
 * Unreliable sources do not count at AfD anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is unreliable? The Kansas City Public Library? Rex Research?

BECAUSE the exact same information is at both places ... and the information from the Kansas City Public Library is on his site! I have the articles, now ... I wanted copies of the original stuff ... I went and verified them!!! They have the same information as rex-research! (you can do the same thing, goto the Library stacks and ask a references clerkc to help look up the old newspapers ...)

It is only your POV that is biased. J. D. Redding 20:45, 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.

WT:RFC - another potential use for this noticeboard
Moved to WT:CN Navou banter  12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Rms125a@hotmail.com
Editor banned. Blocking administrators are encouraged to log this discussion in the block log and note at the correct ban page. Navou banter  01:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * Clerkish note: everyone who has commented agrees with a community ban, but this needs more comments. Thank you. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 12:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com pushes an anti-Irish/anti-Catholic POV into articles, and attacks any editors who disagree with him with charming comments like"FIFTH COLUMNIST PARASITE/CENSOR", "Demiurge--I AM NO ONE'S SOCKPUPPET AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT BY NOW, NO MATTER HOW THICK YOU ARE" and "You are a disgrace to the UK.". That's just the tip of the iceberg, more can be seen here and here.

After an RfC in March 2006 a case was put before the Arbitration Committee. The case was not accepted, but two arbitrators recommended that Rms125a@hotmail.com should be banned by acclamation, and was indefinitely blocked in April 2006 after this ANI report.

Since then he's evaded the block using a large number of sockpuppets, see the list of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets.

Checkuser confirmed use of sockpuppets for votestacking in the following AfDs about Irish republicans:


 * Martin McCaughey
 * Seamus Donnelly
 * Tony Gormley
 * Eugene Kelly
 * Patrick Kelly
 * Gerry O'Callaghan
 * Declan Arthurs

Recent examples of personal attacks are User:Vintagekits and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters, the above user and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters and/or former volunteers and User:One Night In Hackney, one of the cadre of supporters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (such as User:Vintagekits, User:Pauric, User:GiollaUidir, User:Domer48, et al). Note that the second comment is particularly virulent as "volunteer" refers to Volunteer (Irish republican) and is an accusation that editors are former members of a terrorist organisation.  One Night In Hackney 303 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been whacking this editor's sockpuppets for a few days now. It's time to deal with this firmly, calmly, and decisively.  Endorsing Hackney's proposal.  Durova Charge! 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. --ElKevbo 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to be about time to help this one find the door, endorse banning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As per the above evidence, endorse. Ben Aveling 09:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jesus, this if you got paid for on-wiki puppet shows this guy would be up there with Bill Gates by now. Endorse community ban per patent disruption, time-wasting, and non-stop sockpuppetry. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also endorse the ban. Over 200 sockpuppets, incivility taken to the next level, threats, and prejudiced comments. Clearly the user has passed the point of lesser interventions. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. I looked at the evidence presented in the RFC, at the editor's Talk page, and at the edit history of Michael Cusack. This editor has been causing plenty of trouble for over a year now, in spite of people who explained the policies to him very patiently. A terrible record. EdJohnston 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest sock drawers I've seen. Plus his handle seems to be a blatant WP:USERNAME violation.  Ban.Blueboy96 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban Should have been blocked immediately, the username is an Email address, not allowed via WP:USERNAME. Te ll y a ddi ct  19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Username is older than the no-email rule, so the "grandfather" exception applies. In any case, an email-username block (had it been issued) would not have been a reason to ban the user. -- Ben   TALK/HIST 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional Rms125a@hotmail.com Sock puppet evidence - In response to Demiurge reverting 70.19.72.158's "where apartheid schooling by creed has been the rule" post in the George Galloway article with the edit summary "rv sockpuppet POV", the newly created Sockpuppet@earthlink.net account immediately readded the deleted material. When the material was removed, 63.164.145.85 readded it. Alison removed 63.164.145.85's post with the edit summary "rv usual, daily User:Rms125a@hotmail.com sock-puppetry / POV." 70.19.40.53 reinserted the material, which Alison deleted as coming from User:Rms125a@hotmail.com's sockpuppet.. 67.101.192.69 then reinserted the material., which was deleted. Doc Glasgow then reinserted the material.. Eirelover@earthlink.net then reinserted the material.. 71.247.236.86, returned to the article a while later and inserted "a non-denominational school, which is somewhat surprising as almost all Catholics of Irish extraction, in the West of Scotland, attend "denominational" schools, which non-Catholics regard as "Irish" and "divisive" (Scottish Bishop Joseph Devine agreed that they are "divisive").". 70.18.203.33 then reinserted 71.247.236.86's deleted post.. Leaving no doubt about the connection, Rms125a@hotmail.com then added "non-denominational school, which is somewhat surprising as almost all Catholics of Irish extraction, in the West of Scotland, attend "denominational" schools, which non-Catholics regard as "Irish" and "divisive" to the article. 70.19.72.158, User:Sockpuppet@earthlink.net, 63.164.145.85, 70.19.40.53, 67.101.192.69, Doc Glasgow, Eirelover@earthlink.net, 71.247.236.86, and 70.18.203.33 are suspected sock puppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com. -- Jreferee    t / c  18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Daniel Brandt

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


 * Discussion refactored to remove voting --Random832 23:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, I don't honestly give a crap what the outcome is. But he is one example of the problem (see above) with the distinction between "old" bans (i.e. indefinite blocks that have not at present been lifted) and "new" bans (where there's a consensus, formed here or on the AN before this noticeboard existed, and documented, to ban the user) which he points out may be defamatory. The simplest way of dealing with it is to have a discussion here to either endorse or overturn the existing "ban". --Random832 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then, obviously endorse. People who deliberately try to violate other Wikipedians' privacy should not be allowed to edit. People are indefinitely blocked for even threatening to do that, so actually doing it is most certainly enough for banning. -Amarkov moo! 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone other than Brandt himself argued that he shouldn't be banned? Given that the ArbCom has endorsed the community ban, I don't see much need for a discussion at this point. I believe that such a discussion should be initiated by editors opposing the community ban (if there are any). ChazBeckett 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it's not obvious that he currently is banned, not that he shouldn't be. And avoiding random accusations of libel, stupid or not, is a good thing. -Amarkov moo! 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the ArbCom has rejected his appeal (it's at 3/7/0/0) and several arbitrators have explicity stated that they endorse the community ban. Still, if we're going to discuss it, I do endorse it. ChazBeckett 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban, as he owns and compiles information on his websites to personally attack Wikipedians and harass them in person, if possible. The only reason Brandt wants to be unbanned is because he wants to get his article deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do semi endorse the ban for everything the guys done, but, I do believe it would be in wikipedia's interests to unblock his account to let him comment on all the issues he has with his page. Maybe it would stop the wikipedia slating from his page? It's just a thought I guess Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:25, 12 April 2007(UTC)
 * Stongly endorse ban after going on his website Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read the ArbCom case, ChazBeckett, there are a lot of respected editors that support unbanning him, which is very scary. Endorse ban, I will never support someone who supports the outing of personal information, especially someone who does it regularly like he does. He hasn't even been constructive when he's used sockpuppets here... The people who want him unblocked and keep reverting people who revert his edits have totally lost their minds. He can use e-mail if he has concerns about his bio, like a lot of people do. Grand  master  ka  01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The arguments are at least coherent; "Maybe if he wasn't blocked he wouldn't be so angry" is reasonable at first sight. The only problem is, the idea that you get what you want by doing bad things is a terrible precedent to set. -Amarkov moo! 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Endorse, of course. He's done nothing but troll and fling legal threats prior to the indefban of his main account. He should email any concerns about his article to the Foundation. // PTO 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse Ban Continues to fling legal threats after the indefban, has sockpuppeted constantly. SirFozzie 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the ban. Socks, legal threats, more socks, and a clear lack of respect for fellow users and their privacy. Most users would be banned on one of those issues. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If we've got to discuss this again, thoroughly endorse it. Brandt's request to be unbanned while continuing his harassment and invasions of privacy (ironically enough by a person claiming to be concerned with online privacy) is, quite frankly, laughable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Strongly endorse ban" per Amarkov, Ryulong, and SirFozzie. Their reasons for endorsing the ban are good enough for me. Acalamari 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated at RFAR, if Brandt were willing to take down the portion of his site where he reveals the identities of pseudonymous Wikipedians then I could entertain a discussion about possible unbanning. As things stand, per arbitration precedent, the thing to do is remove any possible ambiguity about his status.  If he wishes to edit this site then he ought to make good faith gestures that demonstrate willingness to abide by policy.  This is what I ask of any banned editor who wishes to return.  Durova Charge! 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. Come back, Daniel, all is forgiven? Not after what has happened, there's too much bad blood here for Brandt's presence on Wikipedia to be anything other than disruptive. Brandt's off-wiki disruption, nasty as it is, is a far better alternative than having him back here. No way. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, per everybody. Anchoress 09:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse &mdash; Sockpuppets, legal threats, and violation of privacy; oh, my! I'm also not amused by his sad attempts to undermine Wikipedia, but that is not my rationale.  Madman bum and angel 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dare I say overturn? I've asked for, and not seen, evidence of the legal threats that originally got him banned, and, at this point, the reason he's still blocked has nothing to do with any on-wiki activity, but rather a vendetta from us to him and vice-versa.  Unlock him - if he's continually violating policy and being a nuisance, then we know the block is right.  If he edits normally, we did the right thing.  Win-win. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban per Grandmasterka and the ArbCom endorsement of the ban (particularly Morven's statement). Concerns about the article can be raised through e-mails to editors of the article. --Coredesat 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All I needed to see was the Wikipedia Watch page that details the real names of editors. Nuke him.  Blueboy96 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. not a chance. --Fredrick day 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban - mostly about privacy concerns. Addhoc 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban, this guy has caused a lot of trouble from what I've seen. As the umpires say: "YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!" CASCADIA Howl/Trail 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn per badlydrawnjeff. In my opinion, that "personal information" about admins is only there because of the belief that users should be accountable for what they say. I'm not entirely against that but don't mistake that for anything other than impartiality. Skult of Caro (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC) sock of banned user Nathanrdotcom.
 * Overturn per common sense. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Overturn- Brandt and I have had our dealings, and I'm on his little hit-list, but the man seems to have discovered how to use talkpages and get his point across. I was fine with the previous de facto policy of letting him post to the talkpage of his article despite being banned. With that no longer being tolerated, a lifting of the community ban to allow him to discuss things he sees that can be cleaned up, is entirely appropriate. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  20:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't just randomly stop being tolerated, it stopped being tolerated because he made the comments in a disruptive way. Unblocking him will not change that, just make it harder to remove disruptive comments. -Amarkov moo! 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest endorse possible. There's nothing to discuss with him until he removes wikipedian's personal information from his website. Period. Max S em 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would close this ridiculous discussion, but my attempt to do so was reverted by someone else. I will therefore confine myself to observing that before this discussion Daniel Brandt was banned, and afterwards he will remain banned until such time as he is unbanned.  This discussion is a complete waste of time, and such a pusillanimous show of sheep-voting can only bring Wikipedia into disrepute. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 14 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 Jaakko Sivonen
No action. This proposal has not generated a significant amount of discussion and seems unlikely to do so. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  03:09, 16 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.

Clerkish note: everyone thus far has endorsed the suggested community ban but this need more input. Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This user, currently blocked indefinitely by Dmcdevit, is asking for a review of their block, and so I'm submitting this for consideration here to "make it official", as it were.

This user has a substantial history of edit warring and tendentious editing stretching back to shortly after he arrived here in the latter part of last year. Jaakko has been blocked 10 times (not including several extensions) previously to Dmcdevit's block, for a range of reasons including three revert rule violations, move warring, incivility and making personal attacks. Jaakko has been repeatedly advised not to edit war and behave in an uncivil fashion, by a range of users (see user's talk page) but persists with the same behaviour nevertheless, even after being blocked.

For examples of revert warring, see:
 * Treaty of Nöteborg (history)
 * Karelia Suite (history)
 * Treaty of Nystad (history)
 * Porvoo (history)
 * Jaakko Sivonen's move log

For examples of incivility, see: , , , ,, , , , , ,

See previous discussions:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive60

It is clear that this user is unable to advance his position in relation to content disputes without resorting to inappropriate behaviour. It is furthermore clear that this user has not taken the opportunity to mend his ways, despite having ample opportunity to do so. I suggest that the community endorse Dmcdevit's block as a community ban. --bainer (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse community ban: the evidence clearly shows an unrepentant, disruptive POV warrior. We don't need more of those. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 11:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreschi says it well. I endorse the proposal also.  Durova Charge! 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse community ban. The editor is a net minus for the encyclopedia, and shows no sign of trying to contribute constructively. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Also endorse per lengthy block log and no improvement or even acknowledgement of edit warring concerns. Addhoc 19:41, 13 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 for sockpupeteer William Mauco
No consensus. Additionally, recommendations have been made to defer to ArbCom. This noticeboard was designed for simple cases, this does not appear to be a simple case. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have procedurally filed the Arbitration request, Requests for Arbitration. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:16, 16 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.

This user received a 2 months block after being caught using sockpuppets for edit-warring. Three sockpuppets were discovered (Pernambuco, Ştefan44, Kertu3). I consider that an indefinite ban is necesarry considering the malicious way of using sockpuppets and also the persistent pattern of edit-warring, which is proved by 4 previous blocks under the name of sockpuppeteer, other 3 previous blocks for 3RR under the name of sockpuppet Pernambuco. He had also many other breaching of 3RR which were not followed by a block, fact that I reported previously at Administrators Noticeboard - see Wikipedia's double standards?. Pernambuco also had more 3RR breaching than is showed in his block log and I didn't count the situations were no 3RR report was made as nobody suspected that William Mauco/Pernambuco/Ştefan44/Kertu3 are the same person.

When block of 2 months was imposed was not taken in consideration that the user evaded his previous blocks through his sockpuppets. For example: Evasion of the 72 hours block imposed in 9 December 2006 by Freakofnurture through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 10 days block imposed in 20 January 2007 by Robdurbar through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 24 hours block imposed to sockpuppet Pernambuco in 9 February 2007 by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington through his main account William Mauco.

For the malicious usage of sockpuppets by this user and his elaborate preparation of an "identity" for each sockpuppet, to avoid suspicions, see bellow:


 * Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)

Personages of the show

 * 1) User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006
 * 2) User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006
 * Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary, words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) and Wikipedia abreviations ("rv" instead of "revert") from his first edit.
 * 1) User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007
 * Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.
 * 1) User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

 * 1) Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni".
 * 2) In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": . According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet".
 * 3) Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"?
 * 4) Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" . "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"
 * 5) Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”
 * 6) Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"
 * 7) Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"
 * 8) Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"
 * 9) Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement". Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise"
 * 10) Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past
 * 11) Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
 * 12) Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:,
 * 13) Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.
 * 14) Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.
 * 15) Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.
 * 16) Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space . "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" . Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"
 * 17) Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson"
 * 18) Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"
 * 19) Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit"
 * 20) Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it"
 * 21) Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"
 * 22) Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"
 * 23) Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"
 * 24) Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary)
 * 25) Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say"
 * 26) Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems". "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia". "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary), "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"
 * 27) Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"
 * 28) Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"
 * 29) Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"
 * 30) Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"
 * 31) Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"
 * 32) Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: ,
 * 33) Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)
 * 34) Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Fringe theories"
 * 35) Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: . At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead
 * 36) Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you"
 * 37) Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?", "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened", "I see. That's bad news"
 * 38) Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month". Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"
 * 39) Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation"
 * 40) Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring"
 * 41) Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here
 * 42) Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" . Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"

Hiding evidence

 * 1) Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies:

Other issues

 * 1) Intimidating other editors who could be inclined to support opponent in editing disputes: "Be careful with the company you keep, DI.goe, because in the future, this will reflect badly on you", "DI.goe needs to watch his/her steps carefully"
 * 2) Asking 3 different admins for blocking opponent who expressed political beliefs in own userpage: "Please block him now", , (the request was not succesfull)
 * 3) Evasion of previous blocks: The 72 hours block imposed in 9 December 2006 by Freakofnurture evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, 10 days block imposed in 20 January 2007 by Robdurbar evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 24 hours block imposed to sockpuppet Pernambuco in 9 February 2007 by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington through his main account William Mauco.
 * 4) Many other breaching of 3RR which were not followed by a block - see Wikipedia's double standards? and . I didn't count the situations were no 3RR report was made as nobody suspected that William Mauco/Pernambuco/Ştefan44/Kertu3 are the same person.
 * 5) Attempt to disclose the real-life name of opponent: "What say you, (suspected real-life name of opponent)?". I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real-life name is correct or not.
 * Later adition: Mauco being aware about opponent's privacy concerns: "I am not sure that I am doing a good thing, as Mauco will be able to search for my e-mail address that, for privacy reasons, I chosed not to be available at Wikipedia. However, I take the risk and give here an example of forum.tiraspol.net democracy: deletion of an article that I copied from conflict.md in both English and Russian" . Note: Meantime I made available at Wikipedia an e-mail addres for Wikipedia-purposes only, however it seems Mauco made research about the e-mail used by me at forum.tiraspol.net in order to identify my real-life identity.--MariusM 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I mention also that I tried twice mediation with Mauco:,. In one case he didn't accept mediation, in the other he accepted very late (while his sockpuppet accepted more easy), but he didn't really explained during mediation his position. I tried also arbitration once, but it was rejected.

Considering the long term disruption of Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, that at least one user - Peteris Cedrins left Wikipedia because of him, that many others lost a lot of time discussing with his sockpuppets in talk pages believing that they are disscussing with real persons, the proven bad faith of this user, I consider the 2 months block is not enough and a permanent ban is necesarry.--MariusM 23:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All I needed to see was the attempt to out another editor's real name. I support this.  Durova Charge! 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Attempt to out someone's real name, whether you're right or wrong, and you're out the door, especially given his other history. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to your thorough documentation, and some of the disturbing behaviour exposed therein, I am of the view that William Mauco's time ought to be up. Biruitorul 07:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent documentation of behavior which is not acceptable here. Especially worrying is the attempt to reveal personal information; I would completely endorse a ban. ♠ P M  C ♠ 09:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My full support for indefinite ban. William Mauco have vandalized Transnistrian related articles for more than 2 years. I consider the 2 months block is a slap on a face of Wikipedian community. William Mauco should be punished. EvilAlex 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the ban. The report above is as impressive in its scope as the user is not in his flaunting of policies. And as stated by others, the attempt to out an editor isn't cool. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an editor we need. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the ban. Since I'm mentioned above, I'll comment at length. Yes, I left Wiki for a while precisely because of Mauco, who (very ironically, as it appears) falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. From the very beginning of that episode, I was completely open to investigation and any interlocution whatsoever -- but even now the matter isn't quite settled. If you Google my name, this is still the third result. So, in other words, Mauco attempted to blemish my reputation by calumny. Was there ever a decisive result? No, there wasn't. Do I care? No, not particularly. What amazed me was that the process couldn't be more simple -- I have never had a so-called sockpuppet, and I offered again and again to talk to Mauco to get him to drop his libel, something anybody can see by trawling through the histories of the talk pages where we met. But I well know that most people don't look too deeply -- oh, hey, here is x, and here he is with his sockpuppet farm, so he must have one. I finally gave up when nobody tried to resolve said situation -- only because Marius was kind enough to give me the name of an admin who would get rid of this did it ever go away. Now it turns out that my accuser is a compulsive liar with a sockpuppet farm? A ban isn't enough -- why not reveal exactly what Mauco was, and what he did? As someone who has always edited under my real identity, which is and always was physical and provable, being accused by such a phantom was humorous at first, but darkly absurd at worst. Mauco shrank back a bit, once, when I accused him of libel. Well, I do believe that Wikipedia is rather nervous regarding libel these days. Maybe we should find out who Mauco really is? --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the ban, too, but regarding an "unmasking of Mauco" or "finding out who he really is", I strongly disagree. Peteris, Wikipedia does not support revenge. Our community gains nothing if we find his exact identity. We should concentrate on other, more constructive things. bogdan 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've no desire for revenge whatsoever, Bogdan. I have grave doubts about the utility of anonymity, however, and I'm sure you've already heard some of the arguments that spring from it, pro and con. Now that Wikipedia has climbed to the top of many search results, governments are at least as interested in articles as individuals are. A non-entity accused me of lying -- now it seems that said non-entity has many an identity. It's only natural to wonder about the nature of that identity. --Pēteris Cedriņš 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Ban. Has done several things, any one of which could have earned him a ban, all of it together? Gone. SirFozzie 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the ban. While I think sockpuppetry could be forgiven, attempting to blackmail another user into backing off by being ominous over the release of personal information (that's what it looked like to me) is inexcusable.--<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> Domitius  talk  &  contribs  16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban JoshuaZ 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible endorsement. This is a slam dunk--we don't need this clown here. Blueboy96 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the ban suggestion. Like Domitius said above: suckpuppets can be forgiven, but it also depends on how they are used. Trying to manipulate things in this fashion is disgusting. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He's currently blocked for 2 months, what more harm could he possibly do? I don't see any good reason to make it indef. Maybe if there are further incidents, but so far there have been none. IMHO, this is a matter for ArbCom, because Mauco is not the only one who has engaged in edit warring. Take a look at the edit history of Transnistria and other related articles. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 06:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban per all said above. --Roamataa 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse Apart from myself being a "victim" of his sockpappetry, I find this kind of behavior extremely disruptive. KoberTalk 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban I was a victim too. All my edits was reverted because of him.Catarcostica 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit's intervention
Please stop voting. When did quickpolls come back, and why are we engaging in a pile-on witchhunt with no substantive discussion whatsoever? This is nothing more than a blatantly partisan and deceptive attempt by MariusM to get his adversary banned while he is not here to respond. I find it odd that apparently one of the strongest claims is that Mauco referred to a user named "MariusM," who has a history of adding references by an author named "Marius Mioc"    and defending their reliability vigorously, as "Marius Mioc" six months ago. Why are we taking what Marius says at face value, when it is clearly an attempt to prevail in his months-long edit wars with William Mauco. The two have been feuding forever: note Mauco's five blocks as compared to MariusM's five blocks and notice that every single one of them, dating to November 23, 2006, occur at the same time. All of each of Marius and Mauco's blocks were for warring with each other for many months. Now Marius is taking advantage of William Mauco's block to go through and tag all of his comments on talk pages from months ago , etc., and after Mauco's block he vandalized Mauco's userpage with the above  , calling it "Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries" and referring to "Personages of the show," one of which was himself, whom he referred to as "opponent, bad guy, edit warrior, black sheep." The mocking tone is unacceptable. MariusM has been warring on Transnistria even without Mauco, and continues his incivility: "We (non-Russian speakers) should know who is of bad faith on this talk page.", "have no reason for appology. You started to teach me good behaviour, who are you, are you my mother? Mom, when did you learn working with computers?". I'm not particularly fond enough of Mauco to say he should not be banned, but it is certainly time to ban MariusM as well. Dmcdevit·t 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse this, the evidence presented is enough to deserve it many times over. The nominator may need to be banned, too, but we can't just not ban someone abusive because someone else abusive suggested it. -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? I haven't suggested such a thing. Quite the opposite. I am concerned by the pile-on oting nature of this, and the uncritical way people are approaching this, without discussion, and just drive-by endorsements. This is the sort of comment I'm talking about. This is not, by the way, how bans happen. If William Mauco needs a ban, then ban him, and we'll talk about it when someone disagrees. Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... what do you want me to discuss? He's doing bad things. That is obvious. The things are bad enough to deserve a ban. That is obvious to me too. If someone disputes that, then I'm perfectly willing to discuss it, but so far as I can see, nobody has. -Amarkov moo! 03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not doing bad things, he's done bad things, which he's already blocked for. Please see my comment above. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 06:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 month block is not a punishment - is a slap on a face of Wikipedian community. EvilAlex 14:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot to mention that this thead is becomming a gathering for all of Mauco enemies to give their "drive-by endorsements" (as Dmcdevit put it). <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is a gathering for Mauco's friends, as well :-).--MariusM 09:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Dmcdevit's comments:

 * 1) This is nothing more than a blatantly partisan and deceptive attempt by MariusM to get his adversary banned while he is not here to respond. Untrue. Three hours before Dmcdevit's message I wrote right here on this discussion: "I think is fair to let Mauco to defend himself on this page". So, I supported the right of my adversary to defend himself.
 * 2) The two have been feuding forever: note Mauco's five blocks as compared to MariusM's five blocks and notice that every single one of them, dating to November 23, 2006, occur at the same time. True. I consider this a big unjustice made to me at Wikipedia. Mauco had 6 breaching of 3RR without block and after I reported this at WP:ANI all admins started to treat both of us similarly, while our behaviour was not similar. Mauco had also sockpuppets to help him in edit war, and he evaded blocks through his sockpuppets, as explained above.
 * 3) I find it odd that apparently one of the strongest claims is that Mauco referred to a user named "MariusM," who has a history of adding references by an author named "Marius Mioc". It was not the strongest claim, it was the last in the list of Mauco's abuses written by me. In my opinion the strongest case was the malicious usage of sockpuppetry. Please note that I was the person who started the article Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and I was the main contributor to it. In this article were added by me around 100 books, including 8 books written by Marius Mioc. I wonder why in an article which intend to be a complete list of books about above mentioned subject (without comments about the value of those books) exactly one author should not be mentioned. I added at that article each single book I was aware about, using best of my knowledge in service of Wikipedia. The other refferences shown by Dmcdevit are from Romanian Wikipedia, why are those discussed here?
 * 4) Marius is taking advantage of William Mauco's block to go through and tag all of his comments on talk pages from months ago  . What's wrong with adding the true fact that Pernambuco is a sockpuppet of Mauco in talk page of articles where both Pernambuco and Mauco discussed? What's wrong with the truth in Wikipedia? Other wikipedians who read that talk pages maybe are not aware about this sockpuppetry.
 * 5) After Mauco's block he vandalized Mauco's userpage with the above, calling it "Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries". I disagree with the "vandalism" label. I added at Mauco's page exactly the examples of sockpuppetries which are on this page, without deleting anything. At my last block, which occured after a 3RR violation after I fought with 2 of Mauco's sockpuppets, admin User:Crum375 who blocked me explained to me, after I tried to tell that I was fighting vandalism: "Marius, vandalism is a very carefully defined term on Wikipedia. It refers only to an act by someone intent in his/her own mind to reduce the quality of an article". I assure anybody that in my own mind putting 100% true facts about Mauco's behaviour on his userpage is increasing the quality of the userpage.
 * 6) MariusM has been warring on Transnistria even without Mauco. Wrong. Check my contributions : 13 April one single edit on Transnistria and one in Talk:Transnistria; 12 April: no edit in Transnistria; 11 April: indeed 3 edits on Transnistria but 18 edits in Talk:Transnistria; 10 April: 2 edits in Transnistria but 6 edits in Talk:Transnistria; 9 April: 3 edits in Transnistria and 3 edits in Talk:Transnistria; 8 April: 2 edits in Transnistria and 7 edits in Talk:Transnistria; 7 April: 1 edit in Transnistria and 1 in Talk:Transnistria. Not all my edits are reverts. Meantime, a person who appeared to support Mauco's views (User:Alaexis) was reported 3 times for 3RR (twice by me) but never blocked . Please note that the reason admin User:Khoikhoi didn't block Alaexis was that "he was reverting a sockpuppet of a banned user (Bonaparte)", which seems to be untrue. I received one week block for reverting sockpuppets (one was a known sockpuppet for me as I stated in edit log "rv sockpuppet", ), while my opponents are allowed to breach 3RR unpunished. And at the end is still me who receive the label of "edit-warrior".
 * 7) and continues his incivility: "We (non-Russian speakers) should know who is of bad faith on this talk page.". I had seen a lot of bad faith in editing disputes about Transnistria in Wikipedia (see above). My remark was after an other user (Alaexis) accused native Russian speaker EvilAlex of wrong translation of a Russian text. It was my way to ask Illythr, who is also a native Russian speaker but has in general opposite opinions about Transnistria than me and EvilAlex to arbitrate this dispute and tell exactly if accusation of bad faith in translation from Russian which were raised against EvilAlex are correct or not.
 * 8) I'm not particularly fond enough of Mauco to say he should not be banned, but it is certainly time to ban MariusM as well. Please start a separate request regarding my ban, I will defend my behaviour at the appropiate place, let's disscuss here only Mauco's case. Me and Mauco are separate persons and each of us should be judged separately. I am tired with admins too lazy to analyse separately me and Mauco, this happened until now in all my wikilife. Also I disagree with the idea that one single admin will decide a block for an user, this is why I submitted my report about Mauco here. Mauco had a different approach, when he wanted to block opponent EvilAlex he didn't use a noticeboard but contacted directly 3 different admins thinking that at least one of them will accept his demands - as proved above.--MariusM 03:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Why are we taking what Marius says at face value? Probabily because I brought evidence (DIFFS) for all my claims, contrary with my opponents.--MariusM 11:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is true that MariusM has been warring on Transnistria even without Mauco (I am a regular contributor to that page). I just complained about his latest behavior. Yesterday he put a lot of controversial POV edits into the page without advance discussion and didn't wait for comments from any of the other regular editors.. This is very provocative but is a typical example of his behavior. I have not reverted him yet because I want to see if he is willing to discuss this in the talk page first.
 * He edit warred as recently as April 11 (3 days ago) and the page obtained full protection afterwards. See also April 9 and many others from his log. I look at the contribution logs of both of them and they are both equal at fault. Mauco was not an edit warrior and never blocked before MariusM appeared in Wikipedia. Buffadren 13:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As you told in 13 April I made an edit at Transnistria article (my single edit on that day at that article) after around 6 hours I explained in Talk what I want to do and nobody was against. Is this edit-warring? Your comment: "My opinion is that I agree with some of your changes but not with all of them", without explaining exactly what you agree and what not from my edits, looks familiar for me. Is exactly sockpuppet Pernambuco's style: "I am against some of these edits, and I support some of them, and some of them I am neutral", without explaining exactly what he support and what not. I know RCU told that you are not Mauco/Pernambuco, I know also that Mauco used open proxies. I was just wondering how can you have such similar styles when you simulate willingness for discussion.--MariusM 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Let the other side have a say
I have observed the feud between Marius and Mauco for a while and I totally agree that it has been nasty. Not one but both sides resorted to dirty tricks (Marius' creation of the artificial history to prevail in the move war, see Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive146, the so called "AndriyK trick", see Requests for arbitration/AndriyK, first comes to mind but it was overall pretty nasty.)

I must say I was not aware of the allegations of outing someone's real name. Until the checkuser confirmed the puppetry, I was also unsuspecting on how far would Mauco go. Ironically, he tried to falsely accuse Peteris Cedrins un puppetry and at the time I also told him in clear terms to drop it. As soon as the sockpuppetry became apparent via checkuser, I left a message to Mauco.

As he kept posting the futile unblock requests to his talk page, I emailed him trying to cool him down. In an email I told him that his sockpuppetry was an inexcusable offense and the two months block for it is a well-deserved one. I advised him to stop posting unblock requests, sit out his block, or at least a good part of it, before posting anything to his talk. I told him that with proven socking he won't be able to convince anyone that the block has to be overturned. I further advised him to issue an apology as soon as he is allowed to edit for past socking and a statement of understanding that socking is wrong and his agreeing to subject himself to a socking probation, that is to a permaban if he is ever caught socking again.

Today, I received an email from Mauco that he would agree to such conditions. But in any case, I think he should serve the current two months block. While he was under block, there has been several campaigns to turn his block into a permanent one. A renowned troll permabanned through  dozens of socks tried to impersonate Mauco by creating the Mauco-like socks posting silly defences to WP:ANI and succeeded to convince some gullible admin to permaban Mauco. That ban was overturned, once it became clear that trolling was Bonaparte's not Mauco's. Now, while the block is still lasting, this here is the new attempt, while a good faith one, to turn the block into a permanent one.

However, I think if we are discussing a permaban, we should let him have a say in this discussion. Therefore, if the permaban is to be considered, I suggest the conditional unblock so that he is allowed to post to this page and this page only whatever it is he has to say. Block should be restored should he make an edit to any page other than his talk and this one. --Irpen 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think is fair to let Mauco to defend himself on this page, however I saw cases in Wikipedia when a block was transformed in a permaban without allowing the accused person to defend himself - the case coming in my mind is that of User:Greier, who had also conflicts with Mauco and received an incorrect (in my opinion) 3RR block which was transformed afterwards in permaban. Regarding the "aggresive move warring" report on the Administrators Noticeboard, this is the first time I am aware of it, nobody told me when the report was made. I saw the report is mainly about an other user - Tekleni, and only incidentally I am mentioned. Indeed Tekleni and I had content disputes with both Irpen and Mauco on List of unrecognized countries, my opinion was that correct title of article should be changed in List of secessionist teritories, as I don't consider appropiate the word "countries". There is a chapter with those discussions in the talk page of the article . My first interaction with Tekleni (Tzekai, at that time) in Wikipedia was when he reverted me on Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and I gave him a Blatantvandal template, afterwards he was part in the mediation I asked at that article. Mauco immediatelly tried to obtain Tekleni's support throwing fake accusations against me (editing anonimously - I didn't; rallying meatpuppets - in fact I asked once support from a veteran Wikipedia user, not from a meatpuppet, Mauco used this against me for many months; distorting the facts - I think Mauco was distorting the facts).--MariusM 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading again the discussions about unrecognized countries / secessionist territories, I believe Irpen overreacted with comments like "Such practices are likely to add entries to the user's block log", as having a different opinion on this problem was not something against Wikipedia policies and no consensus existed.--MariusM 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, if you're referring to these "futile unblock requests", then please note, that they were also made by an impostor: (Checkuser results). --Illythr 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Marius, this discussion is not about you but about Mauco. No one is proposing to block you here, so no need to explain yourself. Let's just discuss a narrow issue. Mauco admits puppetry and in his email to me he was forthcoming and apologetic. He is accepting his punishment for the past wrongdoings and offers to continue editing under the sockpuppetry probation I proposed. If we are discussing banning him, let's give him a chance to say what he has to say on the issue. This is the only thing I am suggesting here. --Irpen 21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I support Irpen's initiative and oppose the community ban: Mauco is a valuable contributor that has created and worked upon a large number of Transnistria-related articles, a category, that was severely under-developed before his arrival. He and user:MariusM have a long history of edit-warring with one another (due to opposing POV on the issue) as well as being blocked together to cool off.
 * Additionally, I was not aware of the severeness of punishment for real life ID fishing here on Wikipedia. In fact, I think I have myself at some point referred to Marius as "Mioc" (around the top of google search for "MariusM" at the time) and actually advised him not to post his family name in the Internet, unless he wants to become famous with it. Anyhow, I can point out similar attempts by MariusM and EvilAlex to acquire William's real identity and location (in the latter case). --Illythr 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider malicious Illythr's comment that I had a similar attempt to disclose real life identity of Mauco. I reffered to Mauco only with his wikiname "William Mauco" and the fact that he attended a conference of the "International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty" was disclosed by Mauco himself right here in Wikipedia (see ). Mauco contributed to the Wikipedia article International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty but after The Economist 5-11 August 2006 published Edward Lucas' article calling ICDISS "a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria", sockpuppet Pernambuco, in his second day of wikilife, voted for deletion of that article . Article was not deleted but redirected to Astroturfing. My guess: voting for deletion of the Wikipedia article International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty was the reason for creating sockpuppet Pernambuco, after evidence in "The Economist" became embarassing for this organisation and was difficult to be kept out in ICDISS article in Wikipedia. Not everything written by Edward Lucas is correct, for example he wrote that Mauco's contributions in Wikipedia predates ICDISS birthday in January 2006, which is wrong (Mauco started his wikilife in March 2006). But this is an other story - to understand the reasons which are behind this elaborated case of sockpuppetry, it is a work of profesionals, not amateurs. Fact is that this malicious usage of sockpuppetry occured. Previously admins blocked both of us for edit-warring but only one used sockpuppets, evaded blocks and disclosed real life identity of opponent. While is legitimate for an organisation like ICDISS to make webpages in support of the political regime actually in power in Transnistria, is not legitimate to use Wikipedia on this purpose. As I told, I think is fair letting Mauco to defend himself on this page, and is better to hear what himself has to say than what people who received emails from him are saying. Maybe he will start confessing the complete list of his sockpuppets.--MariusM 01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure if that counted as ID fishing, but it sure looked like an attempt to disclose real life identity of opponent (Mauco) to undermine his credibility. That last sentence is a fine example of Very Bad Faith, too, BTW. --Illythr 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I told I didn't disclosed anything which was not disclosed by Mauco himself about him, and editing Wikipedia on behalf of "a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from The Economist) is a direct violation of WP:NOT ("Wikipedia articles are not for propaganda or advocacy of any kind"). I took action to defend this Wiki policy and Wiki credibility, even if that had cost me a lot of personal attacks and blocks. I wonder if your comment is not a fine example of breaching WP:NPA. In the same time you are teaching me Wikipedia policies (in my usertalk page also). Are you still wondering why I don't take you seriously in this regard? Mauco and his sockpuppets also had the pattern of teaching me various Wikipedia policies, the "assume good faith" was repeated to me 100 times.--MariusM 10:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you ever...? Why, your userpage still contains the direct personal attack against Mauco I asked you to remove in good faith:, . It seems you are presenting as fact something that you assumed from... where? Do you have a statement from Mauco, that he edits Wikipedia on behalf of that organization? Or his contract? Otherwise, isn't this... libel? --Illythr 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Illythr this is a Barnstar that was granted by me to MariusM for his time and efforts in unmasking the key sock puppets of a puppet master William Mauco. Mauco have terrorized Transnistrian articles for more than two years. MariusM does not deserves the bulling that you and the friends of Mauco unlashed on him. MariusM wrote the true and for that true he have been bulled by you guys. If you have at lest some respect towards Wikipedian rules and polices then you should fully support community ban against Mauco. EvilAlex 19:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that Marius put this on the Romanian wikipedians noticeboard. On the other hand he has not informed anyone who happens to have the opposite view on the Transnistrian-related issues.
 * I also oppose to the indefinite ban per the reasons stated by Illythr. I think that it will not help to make Transnistrian-related articles better.
 * I understand that the most serious issue is trying to disclose the real-life name of MariusM. Could someone give a link to a the appropriate wiki-rule or wiki-policy? I'm interested in the exact definition and punishments. Alaexis 08:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not about make it better, its about make it close to reality. Catarcostica 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Send this to WP:RFAR?
Based on the "outing" post I won't undo my opinion above, but the bilateral nature of this proposal would be better suited to arbitration than to this noticeboard. Community bans are good at relieving the Committee of simpler disputes. This is not simple. Durova Charge! 08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If they should both be banned, this is pretty simple. Let's have a look first. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the permanent ban because Mauco is a worthy contributor who has a knowledge of this subject like no one else has. He just needs to work on his behavior, especially with MariusM and they both provoke each other a lot. He created and maintained an article 1989 Census in Transnistria and this was cited as an example of the unique strengths of Wikipedia in an interview with Jimmy Wales that appeared in the press today and April 9. The information about these press articles can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_coverage#April and Wikipedia will be worse off if Mauco leaves. Buffadren 14:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is written about the article initiated by Mauco: "Wikipedia's daily link called "random article," a concept Wales said they came up with "just for fun," is a more noticeable outpost of that ideal. Clicking on it is meant to distract from the task at hand, but if the information is enlightening, Wales said the distraction is worth it. One article on last Saturday, for example, gives details about the "1989 Census in Transnistria". The "unique strenght" that Mauco's article brought to Wikipedia is based on the fact that this article appeared once as a "random article".--MariusM 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a vote, and please move that comment to an appropriate location. This subheading is about a potential request for arbitration.  Durova Charge! 15:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone voting here. People are merely opining. Now, to the issue of an ArbCom, this may or may not be needed. One of the culprits is under a two-month block, which is a very serious punishment. He emailed me that he drew some lessons from his past actions and sounded overall apologetic. I proposed an temporary unblock exclusively to make possible for him to say something here. Unfortunately, my proposal was not heeded. In view of the more recent revelations, accusations of RL name outing are bogus but malicious socking is serious enough in its own right. So is a two month block for it. Should Marius have been blocked too is a separate question. Since he was not caught socking, I don't think so. He served his blocks for revert warring all right. I suggest waiting for the expiration of the block and see whether the feud resumes. If so, both should be sent to the dock. For now, it is premature. --Irpen 17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My full support for mariusM. Mauco is a cold hearted person who vandalized Wikipedia for more than two years. Mauco should be punished. It will take us many months to undo the damage that have been done by Mauco socks. EvilAlex

Stay on topic
For the benefit of those who like to compare Marius with Mauco, let me remind you that Marius wasn't the one conducting extremely abusive sockpuppetry. Does anyone know if one was to add up the total of blocks from all sock-masked 3RR violations, how much time Mauco would have been blocked for? Would it have been more than two months? Maybe someone should count and reevaluate the suitability of letting him get away with a mere two months' block after taking the aggravating elements (blatant hypocrisy etc) into account.--Domitius 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Recommend taking this to ArbCom when that two-month block expires or someone unblocks. Even, as I suspect, they'll all get banned for a year/indefinite, this is isn't absolutely cut-and-dried. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:47, 15 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 for JP
''Discussion removed. Details can be found in the history of the page. --JoanneB 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)''

Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon
A new community enforceable mediation case has opened between Commodore Sloat and Armon. Community input is welcome at this page. Durova Charge! 09:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A discussion about Asucena
Indef block upheld. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  01:31, 16 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 just indefinitely blocked and would like some further feedback from the community regarding this issue. I made my decision as follows: Hence, I have indefinitely blocked Asucena. Her attitude and succession of escalating blocks thus far indicate that she has no intention of doing anything with Wikipedia other than continuing to push her organization's viewpoint, and her continued involvement with Wikipedia will never end up being a mutually beneficial relationship. -- Cyde Weys 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Asucena had already been blocked thrice over for violations of Wikipedia's policies.
 * Her userpage indicates that she is part of a political public relations division (not exactly the kind of person we can trust editing Wikipedia).
 * She struck out another user's comment on WP:RFAR because Daniel Brandt apparently thinks such user is "in the cabal", and if a user is in the cabal, they aren't qualified to comment on any Brandt-related matters. Of course, by Brandt's definition anyone who disagrees with him is "in the cabal", and following Asucena's logic, nobody would ever be allowed to disagree with him.
 * This edit was particularly worrisome, especially the edit summary: "Under official policy of the Palestinian government your edits have been reverted..." This is simply unacceptable.  We do not abide by any organization trying to enforce their laws and rules upon us.  Whatever the Palestinian government would want Wikipedia to say has no sway here.  No government has editorial control over Wikipedia's content, and it is extremely worrisome that any would even think of such a thing being acceptable.


 * All I needed to see was that she reverted an edit according to "official" PNA policy. Ban.  Blueboy96 18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good decision. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. User was afforded multiple opportunities to edit within framework of policy and guideline. Continued refusal merits permaban. -- Avi 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen this coming for some time. I was the first sysop to block her and when I did I left a thoughtful note inviting her to communicate with me and/or seek mentorship.  She chose her trajectory very early on and never deviated from it.  If she does represent the Palestinian Authority, perhaps a ban will send the message that this type of public relations is counterproductive.  If she doesn't represent the Palestinian Authority then there is even more reason to ban.  Durova Charge! 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban Cyde, you did the right thing. --<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b> <i style="color:blue;">talk</i> 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse until we get the biggest creep-crawl apology for unacceptable conduct, ever. That edit summary...wow. Dittto striking MONGO's comments like that. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 17:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse the ban, of course. Must I reiterate what everyone else said? -Amarkov moo! 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, the editors attempt to make an edit with authority of Pakistan Palestine is very troubling. Pakistan has zero authority over any edits listed here, because I highly doubt Wikimedia Foundation servers are even in Pakistan Palestine. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">Trail 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I can definitely agree with Cyde's decision here, especially because Palestine has absolutely no editorial control whatsoever over Wikipedia content. ~Crazytales 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse What Durova said. Kla'quot 22:59, 15 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/Billy Ego-Sandstein
The arbitration case has closed. Billy Ego is banned for one year as the result of this case.

The full decision can be viewed at Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed ban of
Content dispute. Involved parties are encouraged to attempt steps outlined in dispute resolution. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  01:29, 16 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.

User has 4 previous blocks, is a proven sockpuppeteer, and places any criticism on himself (including the sockpuppet case!) on a sub-page called User_talk:Captain_scarlet/Trollbox. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Captain_scarlet/Trollbox. User seems to think community consensus procedures are a "farce". . I suggest we show this user the community is tired of him and is definitely not farcial. Nardman1 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right on some parts, but wrong on others. Firstly, I am not a sockpuppeteer and it was shown as a verdict upon judgement. My partner was accused of being a meat puppet which is hardly the same, it is an incredibly narrow minded approach since she was accused of having her own account, using it, sharing my opinions and contributing to Wikipedia. I placed the sockpuppet in my userbox since it was not removed by the admin who placed it there in the first place, it's there to remind me what a naughty person I am and how I should never ask anyone I know in the outside world what they think. My trollbox is about to be deleted so should no longer pose a problem. I have had 4 bans on minor offences and never abused my place by insulting or attacking users and have in any possible occasion been curteous, although maybe abrupt at times. I contribute fairly to Wikipedia and provide appropriate content and do no believe a ban placed upon me to be beneficial neither to me nor the community. Should it be the decision to remove me I thank all the users I've worked with in the past year and a half, cheers. <b style="color:#000000;">Captain Scarlet</b> <i style="color:#FF0000;">and the Mysterons</i> 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Following a postdated post from I must link  and cite it as a threat which could mean these proceedings were initiated for the wrong reasons. <b style="color:#000000;">Captain Scarlet</b> <i style="color:#FF0000;">and the Mysterons</i> 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The link you provide shows no date-stamp forging, as you allege. Nardman1 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, that appears to be a warning of intent. How would that illustrate bad faith? <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse Ban - with a correction to the original proposal. This user was a meatpuppeter, not a sockpuppeter, as proven by the outcome. In defence of this user, they have shown many edits that have been proven useful to the community. However (and it's a big however), the user has constantly and consistently shown an errant ignorance for clear concensus and has thus ignored repeatedly the reasoning of others (see the edit summary in that link, in particular). In a community founded on concensus (as has repeatedly been pointed out to the editor), there is a time where someone has to acknowledge they are wrong, when everyone else says so, no matter how right you think you are. This user has been given this opportunity to gracefully step back from his stance many times, however has flown in the face of opinion of the greater contributory mass and for the vast mostpart produced edits not conducive to the greater good of Wikipedia. He has also blanked comments both on Wikipedia pages and his own talk-page, in my view, to try to further his stance. It is with great regret I endorse this ban. M0RHI | Talk to me 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)It looks like take this and fear kind of warning. The tone is equally aggressive. I wouldn't accept that kind of language in real life, I don't accept it online. In response to MORHI, consensus is always a good thing to wave at people but I am accused of not obeying by it and at the same time made to accept the edits of others who do not, give me a bone. I have also not blanked any content from my talkpage of late. Maybe it is for the greater good afterall... <b style="color:#000000;">Captain Scarlet</b> <i style="color:#FF0000;">and the Mysterons</i> 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - for reference, not a fortnight ago the user blanked a trolling notice when added to his talkpage and struck out an argument in the last TfD he proposed. Also note the 'Your concensus is of no influence here' edit that I posted above, giving a passive-agressive stance of owning an article. Take this at face value on reference only, I have saved all opinions for my post above. M0RHI | Talk to me 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The community may indeed be tired of Captain Scarlet, but I do not think we ban people merely because they think or express the view that community consensus measures are a farce. By all means bang him to rights for a string of real offences, if you have evidence. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * That's not one of my reasons for proposing this ban. It was a poetic statement. Real reasons include unfounded personal attacks (no need to link, there's one right above towards me), threatening to revert against community consensus, and ignoring most efforts to civilly discuss his edits. He also has shown a cavalier attitude to being blocked and in my opinion has not reformed. Nardman1 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, "a cavalier attitude" is not a hanging offence in these parts. Your "threatening to revert against community consensus " appears to be a post by User:Ryulong. Don't get me wrong; I've looked at the Captain's edits, and they speak for themselves. I'm just not sure that you're building anything like an effective case for a ban. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Both of the user's meatpuppets/sockpuppets even had the gall to request an unblock . Nardman1 00:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Only two of these blocks occurred during the past half year. One goes all the way back to 2005. No evidence of dispute resolution having been attempted. The diff above demonstrates that this nomination was a hostile move by a party to a dispute. We don't siteban for that reason. Try mediation or a request for comment. Durova Charge! 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No Support, he come across be brusque... but that's not a bannable offense. a ban simply isn't warrented here.--Isotope23 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reasonable need or compelling evidence to suggest a ban, so I cannot support such an action. WooyiTalk, Editor review 01:16, 16 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:Mr oompapa
I request this user to be banned due to the recent events today, and in the past month. This user first started off spamming hundreds and hundreds of users with wiki-email avadible (including me). With news of a supposed "conspiracy" about Wikipedia. Which caused mild disruption, please note he was not blocked. Nothing happened for at least a month until a vandal account appeared called User:Mr oompapa which the following day, (the day I wrote this report) created about 30 sockpuppets using open proxies and then used a month old sleeper account User:The bedtime story man. To remove the WP:RFCU case so the ip range would not be blocked. This user was then blocked as a sock, and watching carefuly. I can see he put an unblock request up saying he was innocent until the admin declined the block as "Obvious abusive sockpuppet" or something to the kind. Suddenly. Mr oompapa's accounts returned, and rapidly attacked his talk page with obscence abuse including His real name. Which it is unknown where the user in particular got this from, and it continued and continued until the page was protected. Now the user has stopped, despite this report on WP:ANI. However due to WP:OVERSIGHT being used and the recovering from page move vandalism, (In which the page was moved to an insulting comment on his real name) Diffs cannot be provided. This is the userpage and he said he was fearing his contributions to Wikipedia were at risk to this. However, I do not See for any reason why this particular user should be banned. Retiono Virginian 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you mean why he SHOULDN'T be banned, but again, he is already indefblocked (and after the report at ANI, I don't think there's ANY admin who'd be willing to unblock, meaning he's already old-style banned), you have a Checkuser open to get the range that he's using to be blocked, the only thing that perhaps could be done is to ask the WP:ABUSE Folks to send his ISP a note. There isn't much else that can be done. SirFozzie 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We can add the banned tag at least, and after all this. We can go for an abuse report if it continues. Retiono Virginian 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine by me. No one in their right mind, let alone any admin, would ever unblock this chap...their are a few crazy admins, but we can ignore them :) Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was targeted by this vandal. I support a community ban on the person due to the abuse against myself and against other editors.  --Yamla 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think a formal ban is necessary in this case. He doesn't make any edits to articles, so it's just a way to employ WP:RBI.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of abuse reports, WP:ABUSE is severely backlogged, with stuff from the days of Cplot still going unattended. MER-C 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Complex vandalism by User:Anacapa
copied from WP:AN

User:Anacapa has disrupted feminism and gender studies related pages from November 2006 - Feb 2007. Signing-off with the moniker "(drop in editor)" using multiple IPs they have made spurious accusations of misconduct against "feminist" editors; pushed POV edits on gender studies pages that warp articles such as women's studies into critiques of women's studies; and multiposted an extract from a book by an antifeminist on at least 4 talk pages.
 * Project Gender studies,


 * WP:GS again,

Anacapa/(drop in editor)'s complex vandalism persisted until February 2007 when they misrepresented sources and factual information on Feminism attempting to create two criticism sections in the one article. a similar tactic was used on women's studies where the criticism section was longer the rest of the article. A few days ago I identified the same editing style and pattern, as well as 2 shared IP addresses between (drop in editor) and User:Anacapa. Since February 2007 User:Anacapa/(drop in editor) has been dormant. I am requesting a community sanction against User:Anacapa for their long term disruptive behaviour.
 * on women's studies
 * and on feminism

See also: User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles

After asking User:Durova for advice I reported the situation here.--Cailil 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cailil has done an excellent job of documenting this abuse. I urge the community to support this proposal.  Durova Charge! 00:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we asking for a community ban or a community topic ban on an editor that hasn't edited in two months? There's no sign that there is anything ongoing from this editor, either from a registered account or an IP Address? I'm just afraid any topic/site ban from the community would be closing the barn doors after the horses have already left. SirFozzie 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To expand on my sentence above, if it was ongoing, I would wholeheartedly agree that this is a PoV pushing account that needs a topic ban.. I'm just not sure that with at least 4 weeks since the latest post by this account (or IP), I'm not sure that I can fully get behind it. SirFozzie 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Based upon my experience fighting the Joan of Arc vandal and JB196, I believe it's necessary to be flexible about our time frame of response to a really long term sneaky vandal. This isn't drive-by vandalism that goes away through benign neglect.  This sort of person will change tactics or sit out a while when they sense the heat is on, then return to cause more damage.  So yes, this is a worthy exception to our usual standards about account activity.  Durova Charge! 13:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the length of time it took me to bring this here, but in all honesty I took me weeks just to complie diffs & to prove that Anacapa was the same user as (drop in editor). I also think it is more than possible that they will return.  Anacapa has taken wikibreaks before, certainly between May 2006 and October 2006 there was no activity on their account,   but when they came back they were just as active as before.  I expect Anacapa to resurface, it would be consistent with their behaviour & pattern of edits--Cailil 11:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to apologize for, Cailil, this is well researched and Durova's post above that this is a special case (that community sanctions won't become a common bludgeon to be used against an editor who's since quit his activity through either inactivity or behavior modification), I support a ban. SirFozzie 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with (drop in editor) and I have to agree that this is one of the more disruptive editors within their sphere of interests. Far more interested in starting off-topic arguments and derailing discussion than in actually building an encyclopedia. Based on their previous tendency to sit and wait, I would also expect this one to return again to the same tactics, and so I support enacting this ban now. The smoking gun imho is 209.129.49.65 signing as Anacapa, but even if they couldn't be connected I would support a ban on (drop in editor). I would suggest not advertising the list of evidence from any pages this editor frequents; if possible it would be best for them not to know what their own telltale habits are (people often are unaware of their own quirks). When they come back, better to be prepared to begin reverting and blocking, than to have a ban discussion later in the midst of the damage. Good find, Cailil. — coe l acan — 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * After quickly scanning (and if I have missed it, please throw egg on me :P) I do not see what is being asked. Topic ban, siteban, what type of sanction is being requested here? <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest a community ban is more appropriate than a topic ban for User:Anacapa. I can only show evidence of their disruption on the gender category pages but I've seen at least anecdotal evidence of issues with their behaviour in other topics.--Cailil 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't this user propose policing the use of "gender" and "sex" in all Wikipedia articles? If we attempt a topic ban it might have to stretch to the entire encyclopedia anyway. Natalie 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A full siteban is the only appropriate solution for a sneaky vandal who attempts to undermine the encyclopedia's integrity in via this many different complex strategies. Durova Charge! 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi
The Community consensus was that User:Tobias Conradi would be placed on Civility Parole, and strongly cautioned that recreating of Personal Attacks would result in an indefinite block, as well as urged to seek consensus for future page moves. An Arbitration Case has been opened against User:Tobias Conradi, so the community sanction is not in effect at this time. SirFozzie 02:31, 20 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;"> User:Tobias Conradi is placed on civility parole. 1 week block by uninvolved admin for violations: after two such blocks, the block length may escalate in accordance with administrative discretion. Recreation of personal attacks can result in a indef block. When in dispute with others, he is encouraged to remain calm and follow the usual channels of dispute resolution in order to seek an amicable resolution, rather than simply cataloging perceived wrongs. The editor is strongly urged to discuss contraversial page moves. Failure to discuss a move may result in a brief block by an uninvolved admin. The block log will state specifically that blocks placed are a result of this discussion in the block log. (This statement was after I closed the discussion, the discussion has been reopened since) <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  12:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Note: I have requested unblock on WP:AN/I as a result of this discussion. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  12:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we've all had enough of this user. A perusal of his block log and talk page will show you all we need to know. This user has been uncivil, and has been here for nearly a year, so it's not like he doesn't know better. It all has accumulated in the thread on AN. 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Too many ~s, Part Deux? :o)  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ
 * Agreed. Uncivil and Argumentative with apparently no chance at improving either. SirFozzie 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncivil and Argumentative? Why not go for a civility parole if this is case? If that's the problem there's no need to siteban outright. Lesser measures should be tried first. I could be wrong, but either way some diffs of this behaviour would be nice. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have expanded it. Constant recreation of attack materials on his userpage (see, that was actually the THIRD go-round on his material. I'd be willing to go for Civility Parole with a promise NOT to recreate that material for a fourth time, but I have a hard time thinking that he'll follow it. SirFozzie 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec x2)If I may point out from what I have seen, this user feels unjustly persecuted by members of the admin community and other members of the community at large. Request for a community ban only furthers this feeling. I believe this needs to be reviewed either by ArbCom or at minimum uninvolved editors/administrators who take into account the fact this editor has had serious concerns that were never addressed, and an attempt to catalog what he feels as abuses of power, he has been shot down and censored. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">Trail 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time buying "let's try something else first" when he's got such a huge block log. Looks like all sorts of things have already been tried.  Is there any evidence that he's here to work on an encyclopedia?  Friday (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * evidence that Tobias Conradi is here to work on an encyclopedia? Who made more edits in the mainspace, the abusive admins or Tobias Conradi? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tobias, you're on thin ice as it is, please stop the equivalent of tap dancing on it. (Yes, I know, horrible metaphor, but eh) SirFozzie 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec x5)Just to diff people up as requested - here is where people started to get annoyed on AN, then here, then this bit of clear trolling here, and here. The matter was summed up in the now archived discussion here. Time for the parting of the ways, I think.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)If I may point out, in many of the diffs/links you've added show that the user in question raised a concern and was replied with remarks to 'just move on', and even some snide and uncivil comments (such as *cough*potcallingthekettleblack*cough*). No one it appears have assumed good faith on many of this users concerns and simply either poo-pooed the discussion or inflamed the situation any more with their comments. Also, this user feels as if the community is attempting to censor his concerns over alleged admin abuse. While the editor should be requested to take those requests to arbcom, 'deleting' them and removing them only provokes the situation. Tobias is not in the clear here, but there have been issues on both ends. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">Trail 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Two options here, then.
 * 1) Tobias Conradi is placed on civility parole. If is deemed be any uninivolved adminstrator to be in violation of WP:CIVIL, he may be blocked for up to a week: after two such blocks, the block length may escalate in accordance with administrative discretion. Additionally, if he recreates material in his userspace that contains personal attacks against members of the Wikipedia community - for example, stuff like this - he may be blocked indefinitely by any adminstrator without warning. When in dispute with others, he is encouraged to remain calm and follow the usual channels of dispute resolution in order to seek an amicable resolution, rather than simply cataloging perceived wrongs. He is also strongly urged to discuss potentially controversial page-moves before making them: continual violation of this final condition may result in a brief block from an uninvolved admin: adminstrators are urged to use their brains when implementing this condition. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard.
 * 2) Or we just siteban him. I personally favour option 1: thoughts? Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does he have a long block log? Yup.  Is he being accused of trolling right now based on limited and misunderstood evidence?  Yup.  Is that probably making the situation worse?  Yup.  Make it a civility parole, and make it with admins who have been uninvolved with blocking him in the past - if he's able to reform, he will, and if he's not, we've shown we made more than a good faith effort to give him a proper hearing and listen to his concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can go with Option 1, as long as it's made utterly clear that he is exhausting the community's patience (then again, I'm pretty sure that this thread makes it clear, as well) SirFozzie 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: I just tweaked the parole conditions slightly to reflect that. This editor does seem to have a history of valuable encyclopedic work, along with the bad stuff. Methinks an editor worth trying to retain but also rein in. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone asks: yes, those conditions are maybe fairly harsh for civility parole, but this guy has a history, a lengthy block log, and has been around long enough to know better. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Better. The editor should also be advised that any further accusations of admin wrong doing need to be taken to the appropriate location. If he chooses to catalog such issues, he should do so in a text file on his PC, or a blog should he choose to do so. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">Trail 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also support option 1. I would also like it if an uninvolved admin were to drop by his talk page and discuss some of Tobias' grievances with an open mind. As he has rather a lot, I would suggest the conversation begins with just his top two or three. This might help balance things a little. --Dweller 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The concept of dealing with concerns by sanction and deletion processes does not, and will never, work. Dialog is needed. <font color="#567E3A">CASCADIA <font color="#2F4F2F">Howl/<font color="#2F4F2F">Trail 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe someone tried that last time around. --pgk 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps for option (1) rather than being specifically about recreation of certain material, it should be that if he is in dispute with others he shoud follow the proper dispute resolution channels. (That would preclude merely creating his catalog of perceived misdeeds). --pgk 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added something to that effect, but without removing the bit about the junk on his userpage. We just can't have people doing that: it's massively disruptive and strikes at the basis of assuming good faith on which this project is based. Best, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can a community sanction address the issues raised about the editor here: ? ShivaIdol 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a condition of the civility parole be that he seek consensus for all page moves before doing them? SirFozzie 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like this? Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer seek consensus for ALL page moves (reduces the chance that trouble could be caused when one side thinks it's "possibly controversial" and the other side disagrees). But I might be quibbling over details. SirFozzie 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of his page-moves have apparently been fine and unreverted: it's only some that have caused a problem. I'm wary of to what extent we should legislate over editing habits in this manner. WP:BRD does exist, and is not a bad idea, and applies to page-moves. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem concerning WP:BRD is that unlike page edits, moves often can't be reverted without the significant hassle of going through the WP:RM process, as described at WP:MOVE. This really puts the people on the receiving end of the editor’s mass page moves at a significant disadvantage. WP:MOVE says In several cases, you should list pages that you want to have renamed / moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and list several cases such as if you believe the move might be controversial. Since the editor didn't do this for any of the 100 page moves cited in April, including some FA standard pages, something needs to change (and maybe be enforced) with his editing mindset. ShivaIdol 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the whole shebang here will have rubbed in the message that this editor has almost exhausted the community's patience. With luck, Tobias Conradi will act with more care in the future in all his actions on-wiki. I don't see a need for more punitive measures, which are evil anyway. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Civility parole sounds good, but with follow-through. It's frustrating to see a talented editor get locked into this cycle of conspiracy and recrimination, and if there's something reasonable that can be done, it's worth trying. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This archived discussion, in my view, shows sufficient justification what the current state of the proposal regarding this editor - not only the page-move mess but also plenty of casual incivility en route, but the last part has to be implemented with care, otherwise we'll get a right mess. This is enough of a slam-dunk of us to be able to keep this one away from ArbCom for now. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This sort of rant is really a disruptive influence on the project. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the community civility parole was in affect right now, that would be violation #1 of WP:CIVIL right there, at least to me. SirFozzie 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If it were any other contributor I'd favour option 2, as Tobias has had a LOT of chances in the past. But he does have a lot of positive contributions, regardless of how abrasive and inconsiderate some may find his actions. So I favour option 1. However I seem to remember being near this same place (one step away from a community ban) at least once before. I still favour 1 though. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No opinion on option 1 vs. option 2, but after seeing AN and MFD recently, I'll say he's been causing enough trouble to warrant some kind of action. 69.201.182.76 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Tobias Conradi is so full of venom towards Wikipedia administrators. But I'm somewhat puzzled that people are only putting him on civility parole after he has received 23 blocks, from 9 different administrators, over a 14-month period. Does anyone know any positive precedents? I.e. people who have come back (and stopped being intensely annoying) after 23 blocks?  At one time (several months ago)  I briefly crossed paths with him, and thought of engaging him in a Talk page conversation, but after viewing his previous Talk comments I decided I'd move to a different area. At any normal rate of block escalation, 23 blocks would be over the threshold of a permanent ban. EdJohnston 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a good process for well established editors who do good work but are also a bit of a handful. I suggest that we use it.  Make a case in a new request for comments, and we'll see how it goes.  If things don't improve we can go to request for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a general comment, It looks like this editor is being given a surprising amount of lee-way because of his valued contributions to the project, but after reading the comment above, I find myself wondering if tolerating one very active editor may have cost us countless less active but equally as valued contributors along the way. You know, would we rather tolerate, through gritted teeth, one really rather unpleasant editor making 1000 edits at the expense of countless editors each making 10 edits. That perhaps is something that needs to be thought about. -- Nick  <sup style="color:blue;">t  01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tobias has just been indefblocked by ZScout (per this discussion on the block log), so I guess that's that. SirFozzie 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I specifically avoided blocking him as I thought some sort of parole or shorter block might've helped. - Mgm|(talk) 04:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it looks like the consensus was for option 1 (civility parole). Why was option 2 (indefinite community ban) the one implemented? Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have let this run a bit longer. But I won't overturn unless consensus here at Community_sanction_noticeboard seems very clear. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was very surprised at this action. It seemed unilateral. Consensus seemed to pretty firmly have been reached for option 1, before some voices with some justification began to query the rationale, but no consensus for an indef block had been reached here. Perhaps what happened is as follows: my reading of the user's talk page is that he's unrepentant and unwilling to back down at all, rendering option 1 impossible? --Dweller 11:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus to overturn this, and there is still substantial disunity on the indefinite block, I think we should take this to arbitration. By myself I would accept the block as a reasonable interpretation, but if there are a substantial number of others expressing disquiet about blocking a long-time editor in this way I think it's a classic case for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely matters can be a little simpler: overturn the indefblock and use the suggested civility parole instead? There seems to be consensus for the parole. Moreschi Talk 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Or we could, alternatively, approach Zscout370 and be nice. Then we might save ourselves a bit of a hassle.  --Iamunknown 12:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Quite possibly he knows something we don't. Moreschi Talk 12:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tony. The matter seems to warrant arbitration. Community-permaban seems to be an unfair option for a long-time very productive editor. Does he has a current misdead warranting a temporary block? I do not think his edit on Chairboy's talk warrants blocking. There was a strange software glitch on the deletion of Tobias' User page that make it look like an oversighted deletion. Indeed if the page was oversighted it would have been an abuse of oversight rights. We know that Chairboy does not have the oversight bit and the admins can look into the deleted history and see that all the revisions are there. Tobias cannot. Thus, I would discount the matter as a misunderstanding caused by a rare software bug.


 * If no other opinions I propose to unblock Tobias.


 * BTW the main grievance against him are unilateral article moves. Can we somehow adopt a community-enforced 0R on article movement on Tobias? If he moves an article and anybody find the move controversial, then he can just revert the movement, if the reversion require an admin bit any admin would help. Tobias cannot re-revert moves or would have a 24h block. It seems enforceable and solves most of the problems. If it would work the arbitration might not be needed Alex Bakharev 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I already left Zscout a message. I've found him quite reasonable and willing to explain his actions in the past, so I think once he gets a chance to respond this should all get sorted out... I'd rather not see this go to arbitration if we, the community, can avoid it... the case is perhaps simple enough. I'll say that I recall proposal of a commmunity ban at least once before and it was avoided with a pretty clear "last chance" sort of thinking/rationale, IIRC (the diffs are hard to dig up given how many ANI archives there are). CBD knows more context as well. Let's not block or unblock further till it is clear what consensus is. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Argh, so many things happening at once. An unblock request is already at ANI, Lar.  --Iamunknown 12:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think its time for part 2 to be archived yet. --Iamunknown 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, some of you are thinking why did I give him the indefinite block. The short answer is that I think we, as in Wikipedia, had enough. The long answer is the following: at the top of this statement, it says he was put on civility parole. Fine, I have no problems with that. However, it showed in statements later that he breaks the parole hours after being put on it, so this shows me that he doesn't care about what we think or saw. It doesn't bother me that the block was issued to a top editor, since it doesn't matter to me how many contributions you make, I will hold you to the same standard. And with his previous behavior, the recent MFD of his userpage and refusing to follow consensus about content on his userpages, I decided that we have better things to deal with instead of playing babysitter for him. That was my intent for the block and I would appreciate it that the block sticks until ArbCom sorts this out, assuming they take the case. If not, then let this be the final chapter in this story. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
A little under a year ago Tobias Conradi was kidding around with User:Ezhiki in e-mail and then as a joke blanked Ezhiki's user page. For this he received a vandalism block despite a long history of positive contributions, no past history of vandalism, no vandalism warnings, et cetera. He complained. Loudly. Ezhiki jumped in and said, 'no no it was just a joke'. The initial block was removed. But then new blocks were imposed to punish the incivility in his complaints about the original block... so he complained about those blocks... which led to more blocks. All the while his 'list of admin abuses' continued to grow. Somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty entries on his block log are directly derived from that page blanking and the fallout over it... and all but a few of the others are indirectly related (e.g. he was denied access to AWB because of his long block log, he complained, he got blocked, the block was found to be before he was warned - so he was unblocked, but he complained about the block so he was blocked again, et cetera). In another series he was blocked a few times for 'sockpuppetry' after two accounts showed up asking for his block to be reviewed - his talk page had been protected to prevent him from doing so himself. Checkuser later found that these were not sockpuppets, but rather friends from entirely different countries (he runs an 'international tango dancers' website of some sort) who had posted because Tobias asked them to. Somewhere along the line he called the Wikimedia foundation to complain - and according to Tobias someone there mocked, insulted, and yelled at him. He tried to complain about this on Meta and by adding it as an example of problems in articles about Wikipedia and the communication committee. More blocks. Longer 'admin abuses' list.
 * Tobias Conradi has reason to feel abused - because he has been. Yes, he 'leaves himself open' by getting mad and denouncing the "abusers" who blocked him by mistake/outside process, deleted his stub, blanked/deleted his user page, called him names, et cetera... he isn't friendly or forgiving in conflicts and the language barrier sometimes adds an extra level of difficulty to dialogs. He could be alot more patient and accepting of mistakes and disagreements, but then so could the admins and others who have been in conflict with him. Many people recently told me that it was improper to issue a 24 hour block to a long term user with thousands of positive contributions 'just' because they'd received over a dozen warnings about harassing another user and repeatedly calling them things like "moron".... meanwhile Tobias Conradi is just as long term a user with just as many positive contributions, who sometimes gets blocked if someone thinks he looked at them funny. The real difference? Tobias Conradi has fewer friends.
 * So where does this leave us? Tobias Conradi will complain harshly about what he considers unfair treatment. That's obvious from the history. Things he has perceived as unfair/abuses include those which I would call misunderstandings, legitimate disagreements, and yes many actual 'abuses'. In the world of what Wikipedia claims to be (at least when a 'popular' user is the one causing the hubub) we admins would 'be the bigger people' and accept these complaints stoically and politely work with Tobias to straighten things out. In the world of what Wikipedia actually is he will get blocked... which will lead to more complaints and more blocks. It has happened over and over again. Even here... people are talking civility parole - someone comes along and does an indefinite block instead. Think Tobias won't call that an abuse? Add it to the list? Get blocked again for complaining about it?
 * I'd like to see Tobias allowed to continue editing and his complaints dealt with patiently and fairly. I just don't see that actually happening. There is always going to be someone who is quick on the block trigger and the cycle just goes on and on. --CBD 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the rush with closing discussion that's still ongoing, reporting to ANI etc? Waiting for Zscout seems reasonable. A message to that effect could be posted at Tobias' talk page. --Dweller 12:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people are suggesting he is 'productive' and 'prolific' and thus valued. Is quantity an automatic sign of quality? In fact, it is this quantity of unilateral moves that has annoyed a number of others. It is not just about admins - but us lowly normal editors. It is only worsened as he refuses to cooperate, is overly hostile and paranoid, and consistently uncivil, while telling-off other users who disagree with his edits claiming he is 'attacked' and editors are 'xenophobic' and more often than not a list of policies that his 'attackers' have violated.

No-one disagrees this guy has a major and ongoing incivilty problem - and has been blocked and mentored before for just this - look at his talk page. Thus, one would presume his contributions to the encyclopedia must be amazing to excuse his incivilty. For me, such invaluable quality doesn't jump out of the page. From my quick perusal of this talk page, his contribs are unilateral moves, and followed by a whole of disambigging to the new locations. Not a team player. Perhaps I am wrong (really) and missed what is so valuable about his contributions. Maybe there is value - but could they be pointed out? Merbabu 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any fundamental objections to the solution consensus [and closing summary] of the above closed discussion? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If one accepts that the earlier blocked (now revoked) didn't actually happen then the 'solution consensus' it's a step foward to managing the issue. I would be more satisfied if Tobias' 'valuable' contributions are pointed out, ie the ones referred to above that apparently excuse such persistant incivility and disruption. But, yes solution is fine with me for now. Merbabu 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume good faith on both the indef, and the unblock, I know Z will do the same after s/he reads the above discussion. I don't like edits like overturn, revoke.  The editor was unblocked. :P What I am looking for is substantial objections to the above solution and summary.  In order for me to undo the closure, there would have to be a stronger consensus or no consensus above.  If the only objections to the closure, are process objections, not the consensus for solution objections, I do not see much good in unclosing this already closed discussion.  I am not averse to more discussion, but I would prefer that if there are objections, they regard to the summary and not the process.  If the process is messed up, we should take it to the talk page of this project.  With best regards, <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, yes. Unless I'm misreading it (possible) it doesn't reflect the status quo, which is that he's currently indefblocked. Anyway, what's the hurry? --Dweller 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

 * He's been unblocked, which I think is fair enough. I've left a gently worded message on his talk page urging him to listen to what has been said here. Hopefully, he will do so, and we can all move on. Moreschi Talk 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see this case go to arbitration as suggested by Tony Sidaway. It’s a totally fallacious argument to suggest that this editor’s gross and consistent incivility and disruption over a long period of time can be excused and overlooked for any reason. It’s unfortunate there are a number of admins who are prepared to turn a blind eye to his behavior. Sweeping these problems under this carpet again and again has been proven not to work with this editor. ShivaIdol 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To do what? Get him banned? How is that productive? If the community won't, I doubt the arbitrators will. The civility parole will mean these problems are not swept under the carpet: we should give it a chance to work. Moreschi Talk 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I refer ShivaIdol to CBD's wise and compassionate words above. I hate it when we lose committed editors. The Project would clearly benefit most from a happier and purely constructive Tobias remaining here. That might be achievable, if handled wisely. --Dweller 13:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest CBD is cheif among the apologists, willing to back this user regardless of how he behaves. Tobias will continue to game the system, and whenever he runs into trouble with his abusive and disruptive ways, run to his favorite cover excuse claiming that he is being persecuted by rouge admins. It’s a lame defence which apparently induces sympathy in some. ShivaIdol 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to shout "Hang him, Hang him" before this, which is pretty much his last chance, is given time to work? We can afford to let this go for now and busy ourselves elsewhere. He's on civility parole: he violates that, he goes. We can all go and write some articles. Moreschi Talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * AGF, by the way. That's a pretty serious accusation to make against any editor without evidence: please refrain. Moreschi Talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to shout "Hang him, Hang him". Yes. By any reasonable application of policies he should be permanently blocked. Is there anyone else with a block log this long? The editor is a dead weight, consuming massive amounts of time in response to his disruptions. His behavior reeks of attention seeking, and the disruption will continue so he can receive the attention he craves. ShivaIdol 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to edorse referral to arbitration. This is a complex case. CBD portrays this as snowballing from some bad blocks. I briefly reviewed one of Tobias' alleged admin abuses (a contested speedy deletion of something he wrote) and found his complaint to be entirely without merit. However, this is not to say that some of his complaints might not be valid, especially if CBD is right about the blocks. An arbitration case could reach a number of different findings, perhaps recognizing officially that some of Tobias' blocks were inappropriate or at least unwise (which might go a long way toward easing an apparent grudge), while also including findings that his subsequent behavior was disruptive. Also, as long as there is significant disagreement on whether to ban or parole Tobias, ArbCom is a more appropriate venue than this page. This board lacks the ability to investigate and deliberate on complex issues and often (without implying criticism of any one person) seems to function like VfB (votes for banning). Thatcher131 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have taken this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this needs to be clarified. Was the close premature, and I should strike out my comments at the very top of this discussion, or do I leave them.  I do not want to send a confusing message to the subject of this discussion.  Best, <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters. Strike out your comments if you think they give a misleading message. Leave them in if you think they're relevant. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I placed a note in parenthesis to place the comments into context. They were out of context without the close template just below them.  I will not object to any other uninvolved editor striking out the comments upon the eventual closure of this proposal in order to make room for a new summary.  Best, <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  17:03, 18 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.

Unblocking of Daniel Brandt
Moved to Community sanction noticeboard/Unblocking of Daniel Brandt. 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Netscott
No consensus for community action. Editors are strongly encouraged to pursue dispute resolution. --ElKevbo 19:48, 20 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;"> is a tendentious editor who, despite consensus and many outside opinions to the contrary, has been edit warring over multiple project pages to push his opinion and remove any and all language that discourages people from superfluous polling. This started out as a simple disagreement but has turned into a disruptive mb:forest fire over many pages.
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In short we have here an editor who (1) tendentiously pushes an point of view, (2) rejects outside opinion that disagrees with him, and (3) tries to drive others away through incivility, and shows no inclination of stopping. This is an almost textbook example of a disruptive editor. To end this disruption, I propose that we make a topical ban, barring him from editing policy- and guideline-related pages for a number of months.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is surprising that just in the last 24 hours I've actually sought to engage the mediation process relative to all of this. I would suggest that User:Radiant! look in the mirror concerning these allegations. I have been rather civil this whole time in the face of User:Radiant!'s incivility. I have done my best to work with other editors (particularly User:Radiant!) and have engaged in extensive discussions about this. The latest talk I've started here shows that there is much support for User:David Levy's idea to merge Straw polls and Polling is not a substitute for discussion into one page called Polling.  16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When I say User:Radiant! should look in the mirror I mean it. The fact that he's violated 3RR three times over these issues: 3RR vio1, 3RR vio2, 3RR vio3 is very evident of this.  Somehow he has always managed to skip out on being blocked for these violations over some sort of "technicalities".  16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be because e.g. that last report you cite is a false report, and one of the reverts isn't one. On the other hand, you have been blocked what, seven times for revert warring already.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This response from User:Seraphimblade is rather telling. 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Civility has been cited a few times in Radiant's complaint. Many of the diffs merely show a difference of opinion and noting that expressing a difference of opinion is not necessarily uncivil, are there any specific examples of incivilty? Merbabu 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Referring to edits he disagrees with as "slogans", "propaganda", "soapboxing" and "sabotage". Ignoring outside opinion. Telling people he disagrees with to stop editing a page. At any rate, the problem is not his incivility because frankly I've seen worse; the problem is his tendentious POV pushing. If you bring up an issue on six different pages and everywhere people disagree with you, it is becoming disruptive to keep pushing the issue.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even User:Proabivouac was cognizant of User:Radiant!'s edit warring and there are others User:Kafziel comes to mind. 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If a user sees something as propagandistic, sloganeering, soapboxing and says so, is this uncivil? Radiant, you are correct in saying that this is not such a bad case of incivilty which i suspect is exagerated. May i (civilly) suggest that we focus on what you think is the real issue. He's merely stating an opinion and simply being direct, an opinion you may not agree with. Although, i suggest perhaps there is no need for him to repeat his points in the edit summary. Merbabu 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any basis to institute a ban of any sorts, and the proposal strikes me as disingenuous. Please attempt resolution.--cj | talk 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further: I have not followed the issue, but flicking through the diffs and comparing them to the 'accusations' I'm suggesting the case is at least exagerated. Also, a lot of the diffs are other editors in disagreement with Netscott, rather than Netscott's edits. Having people disagree with you is hardly banning material. If so, most of our best editors would have been banned withn weeks. :) Merbabu 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try resolution as per cj. -- <font size="2px" face="Lucida Handwriting"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Radiant!'s tendentiousness has actually carried over to meta where he violated 3RR there as well: rv1, rv2, rv3, rv4. All of that without first having engaged the discussion I had started about my edits there. 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Netscott. I see that both of you have done wrong on it. Please try to calm down. -- <font size="2px" face="Lucida Handwriting"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Thanks FayssalF, I am actually calm but frankly I am disappointed in the disengenous nature of this request for a topical banning. 16:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking it to this level seems like an over-reaction. Has there been mediation, or an RfC? Tom Harrison Talk 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I submitted a request for mediation which so far User:Radiant! has refused to accept. 16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On top it says Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. So as per Tom, cj and Merbabu, this request is over-reacted especially w/ Radiant refusal to get into a mediation process. -- <font size="2px" face="Lucida Handwriting"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  17:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One last point, I think this commentary by User:David Levy is quite telling (particularly point #2):

17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not arguing that this page isn't backed by consensus. I'm arguing that its scope should be expanded to include whatever additional information about polling is also backed by consensus.
 * 2) Frankly, Radiant, you're the one who appears to be attempting to exclude information that you don't like. You say that we should have only one guideline about polling (which I agree with), but you also say that because WP:VIE came first, the guideline should only be about how "polling is evil." If I've misunderstood your stance, please say so.
 * 3) I agree that the deletion idea is absurd.
 * 4) I suggested the title Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and I believe that it reasonably describes this page. It would not, however, reasonably describe a page derived from a merger between this page and Wikipedia:Straw polls. Furthermore, I believe that we benefit from the avoidance of titles that can be parroted by people who haven't bothered to read the pages. Do you know how many times I've seen someone exclaim "avoid self-references!" without possessing even a basic understanding of that page? Wikipedia:Polling cannot be used a slogan, so it would force people to actually read the page before attempting to cite it. —David Levy 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral comment The door is open at WP:CEM. I hope these two established editors can resolve their differences.  Durova Charge! 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral comment - we have dispute resolution processes for a reason; bringing this here is invoking a "nuclear option", and it's inappropriate to the level of dispute that we see so far. I join so many others in suggesting that you go through conflict resolution.  Philippe 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Decline, take it to CEM/DR SirFozzie 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Netscott and Radiant are having an honest argument. This sucks, they could be cooperating. I don't think they should be listing each other on report pages like this. They're pulling each other down. --Kim Bruning 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with above comments - suggest dispute resolution. Addhoc 18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that no community ban will be forthcoming until all steps of dispute resolution have been taken. I would close this under WP:SNOW as a nudge to them towards that route -- except I don't know which templates to use. (And, I admit, because it might be better to wait a little longer for this to clearly fall under that Wikipedia guideline.) -- llywrch 19:40, 20 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.

Subtle vandalism by User:JJonathan and his sockpuppets...
No consensus. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I only became involved in this case recently, so I can only speak of what I've witnessed but this does appear to be a severe long-term problem. JJonathan was originally blocked for these edits and was found to be evading his block with various sockpuppets (see his user page). However, the problem seems to go much deeper than that. Given his habit of identifying himself personally on the talk page of each new account, I searched Google for other 'missed' socks, discovering the older indef-blocked account, User:Js2Jo in the process. This may or may not have been his original account. So, all this may have actually been going on unnoticed for six months or more.

Anyhow, JJonathan's main shtick seems to be the addition of false/uncited information to articles about pop music and pop singers, for example date changing, adding false information, adding numerous uncited 'vocal range' templates to articles and creating hoax articles (see the history of the now-deleted Tatyana Ali's second studio album article, its associated AFD and the Tatyana Ali article itself).

I've been pretty successful at getting his socks blocked and reverting any damage over the past couple of weeks but every time one account is blocked, he just creates another - and another, and another. He is also very subtle with his edits - he'll sandwich the vandalism between style, dab and spelling fixes. As I say, this may have been going on for a very long time, so chances are that there are lots of error-filled articles still out there.

So, in a nutshell - User:JJonathan is already indef-blocked. Is there anything further that can be done? Thanks for taking the time to read my rambling. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This guy has used an amazingly annoying amount of sockpuppets. He doesn't seem to have any intention of stopping. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to say it, but I think the user is banned under the old style definition "No Admin would consider unblocking him.", so there's not much more you can do. Having dealt with someone somewhat similar in long term vandalization of articles, the two things to remember is WP:RBI, and if you can figure out his ISP, send an abuse report to his ISP. SirFozzie 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. If you want to turn that into a formal community ban, then OK, 'cause this guy is a colossal pain in the arse, but there's not much this can help bar getting the socks probably blocked a bit quicker. Possibly contact the checkusers and get them to block his IP for a bit? Huge congrats to Kurt Shaped Box on doing a great job keeping on top of this sock attack, by the way. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the names, hmmm... Is there any correlation in behavior to another "JJ" sockuser, banned Jerry Jones aka "JJstroker" et al (confirmed, suspected)? -- Ben   TALK/HIST 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have encountered JJonathan and socks previously over a two-month period, in which he consistently deleted legitimate talk page discussion on Talk:Kylie Minogue, apparently to push through his own edit whilst ignoring the consensus reached on talk. See my report on AN/I here: and . Also, to answer the question posed by User:Ben above: no I'd say the edit behaviour of that user is very different from that of JJonathan's. The latter's M.O. seems to be: editing pages of and about teen pop idols and pop stars/starlets, a complete lack of talk page discussion, hardly any edit comments, and, in the few comments he did make, a generally poor, almost childish use of grammar. Note also that JJonathan claimed to be autistic in a few of his user page edits, which might explain his behaviour a bit. In his defense, I must add that his main user account  was blocked indefinitely as a reaction to him creating socks following a temporary block (if you get my drift&mdash;see block log). This seems to be somewhat circular reasoning: a user creates socks because his main account is temp blocked, and then the main account gets perma blocked because the user is creating socks. I don't know if that's general admin practice, so I'm just pointing it out for your information. --Plek 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, he was already indef-blocked several months previously. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Js2Jo - I just pointed this out when I discovered it. JJonathan was not actually his first account. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban
Let's just get this done right now, unambiguously, and move on. Support ban, this user has done virtually nothing (as far as I know) but introduce subtle misinformation, probably the worst kind of vandalism in my opinion. Grand master  ka  05:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BAN it is not permited to only have a handfull of editors or admin's (specially those that are not armslenght) take such action. --CyclePat 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Assides from that. Is it worth while to go through his user contributions and revert them all? --CyclePat 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not necessarily required (revert-on-sight applies only after the user is banned), but in this particular case with the subtle misinformation, it would probably be very well worth going through and reverting his old edits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is going to be a big job. I'll sit down tomorrow and take a look through for anything that's been missed. I've reverted the majority of his recent edits already... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban, per one of the largest sockdrawers I've ever seen. Blueboy96 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Makalp
Community action is for simple cases. This does not appear simple. Editors are encouraged to pursue steps listed in dispute resolution such as mediation, RFC, and Arbitration. Edits that appear vandal like are encouraged to be listed at administrators noticeboard or WP:AIV. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I request be blocked for causing edit wars blatantly. Note: This is not a dispute this is Vandalism. He is removing any text that says "Armenian Genocide" and many other things like Kurdish. 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- all evidence of disruption. Please see this with ignorance he redirects the page removing all content he has been here long enough he is doing this to stir up trouble. 6- look if this isn't vandalism I don't know what is, he doesn't even discuss it this is blatant vandalism. This is just a few of his disruptive edits, last week he removed any mention of Kurdish in more than 50 articles he doesn't dare discuss anything instead he labels it "clean up" and removes any mentions of Kurdish. Over here he reverts an admin using "undo", 7-, 8-, over here he removes Armenian 9-. On this page he insists on adding tags in which he can't even handle a debate in the talk page, he simply adds it to notify users seeing the page that this content is fake or alleged 10-, more nonsense reverts 11-. Ashkani 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This ones today, 12- Ashkani 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban - I've had some problem with this user at Choban salad but I don't think your diffs are clear-cut enough to support a ban. Sorry.  The Behnam 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I rather have admins respond to this vandalism. He removes all contents from a page and redirects it with no discussion at all removes anything that says "Armenian Genocide" or "Kurdistan". Ashkani 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand this user has some problems with this editing (kept removing the 'suggest merge' tag from Choban salad, for example), but this is the community noticeboard for community input. If you only want admins to decide you may need to take your request elsewhere.  The Behnam 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay well you obviously have ties with this user into more description third party users who are uninvolved. Ashkani 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ties? Please, AGF. I don't know why you'd think that anyway.  I've only had one experience with this user and it was negative (at Choban salad).  And sorry but I can't figure out what "into more description third party users who are uninvolved" means.  The Behnam 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to clarify? he's mass moves of pages to Turkish names is another problem with no discussion as far as I know. Since this is not Turkish Wikipedia but English wikipedia, its very disruptive. Ashkani 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do need to clarify. I mean, dude, this is a ban for a user.  It's big business.  The Behnam 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just said it like 5 times, he is doing vandalism by removing "Kurdistan" and "Armenian Genocide" from articles, adding inappropriate POV tags with no discussion when people offer him discussion he ignores it and he reverts back to the tags. He reverts many times, he says "clean up" when he removes relevant info I have enough evidence presented. He has been here long enough he knows all the rules also. I said block not ban yet.... Ashkani 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, well I definitely support an educational block as he hasn't been acting properly. However I do still think that this may be the wrong place to ask for a block, but of course I may be mistaken.  Cheers.  The Behnam 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah a further look into his disruptive edits I found this user possibly a sock or meatpuppet notice how he uses undo with the text next to it, he reverts back to makalp. Ashkani 01:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point out cases where he breaks rules with this supposed sockpuppet? I think you know that a sockpuppet isn't really a problem until it violates certain rules, which I couldn't find just looking at the contribs page. The Behnam 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support an educational block as well, 24hrs to a week, a ban is quite a big step however. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree a ban is crossing the limit he was warned for edit warring though, but he continues his minor controversial edits a block is good for a short period. In response to The Behnam, when using socks it states you cannot edit the same pages, or revert in favor or hide your identity in which he has done it all, but this is not confirmed. Ashkani 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you can't edit the same pages to violate 3RR. After all, someone on an alternate account for public computers isn't restricted from editing the same pages.  The Behnam 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK, If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action. same thing. Ashkani 05:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) As for moving the pages to the Turkish names. That's not at all disruptive behavior, I regularly do it for particular names, whereas for common ones I move them to their English ones. Many bios out there are created without taking the diacritics into account. That's no rule-breaking.
 * 2) I really doubt that User:Behnam is "tied to the user" as you said Ashkani :)
 * 3) As for socks. Well, request checkuser - we cannot speculate on what or who might be sockpuppeting to what degree - also remeber that another user (User:Artaxiad) created at least ten, and possibly more, and reverted and vandalized those pages. So also understand that it is also hard for established users to keep track of this. I am actively trying to keep track of at least three users who are constantly resurrecting themselves with numerous socks.
 * 4) As for edit warring. Well, you can file a 3RR report if he ever broke 3RR. I see what your issue is here, nevertheless it is much more a content one. It is not "vandalism". In any case, most of his edits are cleanup tasks and work on trivial articles, and I think that people have a right to make content edits as well. He might feel differently about certain events than other editors or you, but that's not "vandalism" - his English skills might not be top-notch, but that's not rule-breaking either :) He is an established user, not an anon just dropping by and attacking articles. I am sorry but I would also oppose a ban on general vague grounds - if there are specific issues with a) socks, request checkuser, b) 3RR - file a 3RR report. Baristarim 13:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply by Makalp
 * About tone and speech;
 * "blatantly", "Vandalism", "stir up trouble" ;
 * #1-All of these are obvious personal attack and violate; WP:NPA.(Attention; to whom in concern)
 * Allegations;
 * This is not a dispute this is Vandalism. He is removing any text that says "Armenian Genocide" and many other things like Kurdish.;
 * [1]; about Tehcir Law; This is abot an Ottoman Law from 1915.My edit; removing undefined tag and placing the "rebellions in the Ottoman Empire|Armenian revolt" instead of "Armenian genocide".Why; 1- an official law cannot be tagged like as before, 2- Genocide is a recent term, in 1915 there was no like a concept, aims of this law is clear in the article as replacing the Armenians of warplaces of the country.3- My edits are not original, older version of the article which reverted many times before.
 * [2]; about Denial of the Armenian Genocide; "Diff", here is a selfevidence, it is very easy to see which version is more neutral.
 * [3]; about name of Diyarbakır; There is no my Turkification here, I keep Arabish root of name, I reverted back only.
 * [4]; about Taksim; I deleted User:EOKA-Assasin's Rv back since user was blocked, and unblocked to only to make username change request, not edits. This was an obvious violation of rules. See here my talk page about this edits;User_talk:Makalp.
 * [5]; about photos; one of them belong to a living person; see my edit summary, this not a blind edit, sources&citations needed exactly.
 * he is doing this to stir up trouble.
 * [6]; about Khachkar destruction; see the history of article;edit-rv war, many bad faith redirection. I moved article to main title to cool down the editors.
 * Over here he reverts an admin using "undo"; an admin is a user firstly, He/She has no additional rights in edits.
 * [7]; about Armenians in Turkey; admin had reverted ( was more comprehensive version ) with irrelevant editsummary, I Rv back.
 * [8]; about Armenian Genocide]; admin added this expression For example, some Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.; this is "clearly, unsourced, POV" which (more important) was added before a ref. I Rv back.
 * over here he removes Armenian;
 * [9]; about Turkish coffee; user added " known as Armenian coffee" there. Name in Armenian (which is given in the text) is different than this allegation.
 * he simply adds it to notify users seeing the page that this content is fake or alleged [17] more nonsense reverts
 * [10]; about Armenian Genocide; I Rv banned User:Artaxiad's sock User:Vrastic's (also banned) edits back.
 * [11]; about Arm.rebellions in the Ott. Emp.; there was a continuos edit-rv to clean "Tehcir Law" and add "Arm.Genocide" there, check history.
 * This ones today,
 * [12]; about Kaymaklı Monastery, in Trabzon; There was misinfo in article, directed to Cappadocia. There was a little info. I added; "founded in 1424, for the honor of Jesus by Alexios IV. " and some architectural info "Monastery originally was include; church with one pentagonal abscissa at the middle, a bell tower at northwest, one small chapel at the southeast. Fresques in church (dated to 18th century) can be seen to day.It was repaired many times in its history, lastly many buildings are destroyed in a fire at 1918.". All these info deleted by [[User:Ashkani] to add "Armenian Genocide" there.No comment!.
 * About User:Ashkani;
 * Edits(Reverts mainly);
 * #2-;Pontic Greek Genocide; Reverted sourced-referenced material.
 * #3-;same articles' history; playing with 3RR rule.
 * #4-;Recep T.Erdoğan; Why reverted? any reason?
 * #5-;Serebrenica-Bosniac; Reverted "muslims". Aren't Bosniac Muslim?
 * #6-;Toumen/Teoman/Tumen; Reverted Turkic stub templates.Why?
 * #7-;Copright of an Image; removed "Fair use", tagged as "NoRightsReserved"; Is it violating the wiki rules?
 * #8-; Here some suspicions about user;
 * sock? and related talk
 * another action and related talk
 * '''User account was created at 18 April 2007. Immediately jumped to edit-rv wars in specific articles, (generally Rv), suspicious transactions in WP:RFCU. etc.
 * #9-My time, and community's time; I am dealing with this unlogical-stupity matter since last 3 hours. Also many users-admins spare their times for this transaction. Who will compensate and how? Somebody should do, I think.'''
 * Last words and brief; here my (main) contributions to see what a percantage at top position. I am trying to be reasonable in all my edits. I have a definite agenda to develop Turkey related articles, and I have no much time to waste in such a transactions.
 * There is a personal attack in #1 and all in this alleges.
 * I required compensation agaist to all for actions,from community.
 * Regards. Must . <sup style="color:blue;">T <sup style="color:blue;"> C 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can hardly understand what your saying, what does this have to do with you? Ashkani 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clear; stated by one by ,as the same order your in you allegation. Must . <sup style="color:blue;">T <sup style="color:blue;"> C 08:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what your trying to say. Stop commenting on me since this is on you. Ashkani 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, please, not the Armenia wars again. Does that set of articles ever do anything other than cause trouble? This is clearly not straightforward and not relevant to the community sanctions process either. Please take this elsewhere. If it gets intolerable, try ArbCom. Moreschi Talk 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be more descriptive, this is the conduct of an individual. Ashkani 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Try WP:RFAR. You won't get a response here. I can't even read half the unintelligible cant that's being posted here, anyway, much less see how this is suited to any sort of community sanction. If it's really blatant vandalesque disruption, try WP:ANI. Moreschi Talk 09:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * RFAR is a big step its no where near there yet. WP:ANI is near. Ashkani 09:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose ban. In my experience Makalp is not a single-purpose account and contributed a lot of non-contraversial material (while, yes, his POV is strongly pro-Turkish. If his Armenian-related edits are disruptive I would support a medum-length block (48h-1 week) Alex Bakharev 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:QuackGuru
After many, many notices at AN/I, requests on numerous articles to desist in edit warring and disruptive behaviour, leading to a previous proposed ban by Dev920 and a RfC for user conduct,  has continued-- and even expanded-- his tendentious  practices, willfully ignoring any attempts to engage him in constructive dialogue and bring him into compliance with Wikiquette -- notices about which which he regularly removes from his talk page:, ,

The RfC has been open for two weeks, yet he has not bothered to even give it a courtesy response. He has been advised of it and asked to comment -- but has chosen to delete any such requests from his talk page opting instead to use it as a platform for his ongoing POV attacks on Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia in general. In reviewing his edit history, it appears that every article he shows up on, he is regarded as a disruptive force by other editors. At this point, I see nothing positive in his continued edit warring, and propose that having tried the patience of the community, he be given a community ban-- at the least on articles dealing with Wikipedia -- as he has been warned multiple times already that his persistent disruptions would lead to sanctions. --<font size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 05:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The user's tendentious editing goes back further than the nom described. Here's how it all began - a deletion debate on an article the concerned user created. The article concerned got moved to WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts. It got MFD'd with result no consensus, but was reposted to the article space. The repost also got nominated for deletion and was speedied as a repost (I was the one who placed the speedy tag). Deletion was endorsed. Yet the complaining still continued.


 * The next forum was the conflict of interest noticeboard, where he was "whing[ing] about unfavourable resolutions of deletion debates", as I put it back then. Here's how I closed that particular discussion. Note the complete failure to understand various policies and guidelines in the discussion. One participant described it as "pure WP:BOLLOCKS". I guess my usage of a cluebat moved him on from that subject (which was his first target for POV-pushing and one of only two topics he has dealt with) and on to wiki-related topics. I'd say give him a full ban. MER-C 12:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with QuackGuru myself &mdash; sure, he can be a little domineering at times, but that's no reason to ban him. He's putting forth opinions and pushing for facts that need to be included but, for some reason, people don't think that they need to be included. If we're thinking about the same topics, the POV edits you're talking about aren't POV at all; he's simply trying to get another viewpoint put into the article &mdash; one that may not be as popular as most, but a viewpoint that he can substantiate with sources. I'm dealing with Leflyman concerning an edit on Jimmy Wales concerning Bomis, and it seems that no matter how hard I try, I can't get him to see that his viewpoint (and the viewpoint pushed by most of Wikipedia) are not the only one, and that NPOV does not mean the viewpoint that is most popular. It means what it says: Neutral Point of View. That means that all viable, non-OR, verifiable viewpoints need to be given a voice. I don't see Leflyman furthering this policy (in the times I've dealt with him, he's worked against it and been unwilling to put forth a compromise) and I just see this as him trying to stifle an opinion he doesn't agree simply because the person who holds the opinion is willing to fight for what they think should be in- or ex-cluded from Wikipedia.


 * So, in short, I don't think that QuackGuru deserves a ban by any means. I don't Leflyman deserves one either. I also don't think it's even worth mentioning that Mr. Guru didn't comment in his Request for Comment; it is a request &mdash; no obligation to respond is stated or even implied in WP:RfC. &mdash;Dookama 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there may be a case for bringing Quack to arbcom based on the rfc and they could put restrictions on his editing as they thought appropriate but a permanent ban is clearly not called for as this editor makes good edits, comes from a good faith space and hasnt been here that long (less than 4 months which makes him a newbie still). He may be a critic of wikipedia but that is not a reason to silence him nor do his edits require a community ban and I oppose this proposal strongly. I also see a need for further dispute resolution, ideally, SqueakBox 17:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely support a full community ban - the user has made the occasional, token useful edit, so this is probably the correct forum. However, his editting pattern is that of a tendentious editor. If this discussion isn't conclusive, then I would suggest giving him a block for a shorter period. By the way comparing a competent mediator plus admin to a blatant tendentious editor is a new low-point for this page. Addhoc 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Community patience ban for DavidYork71
User:DavidYork71 is henceforth banned by the community from the English Wikipedia. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 00:53, 23 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.

first block occured on the 22nd March 2007 with a 24hour block for a WP:3RR violation on Islam and slavery. The next occured for disruptive behavior by canvassing for an article to be promoted to GA, DavidYork71 was warned twice before a 24hour block was placed. To avoid this block DavidYork71 used sockpuppet at which time DavidYork71 24 hour block was extended to 48 hours. When DavidYork71 returned after the expiry of the block disruptive the behavoir continued. DavidYork71 was the block again on the 5th April since then the blocks have esculated to indefinate after the use of many sockpuppet Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DavidYork71.

What is being sort is confirmation of via consensus that DavidYork71 indefinate block by User:FayssalF stands. Also plaese note that currently a discussion is taking place at Talk:Islam and slavery about reinstating edits made by DavidYork71 and sockpuppets on the basis that WP:IAR over rides WP:BAN. The discussion also suggest that the indefinate block is only a temporary action. Gnangarra 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to investigate this fellow's full history yet, but his first edits aren't promising. He seems to have entered Wikipedia with the intention of injecting some kind of religious bias into the encyclopedia, changing the name God in the Jesus article to "Allah", adding "the capital of Israel" after "Jerusalem" in the Dome of the Rock article, and so on.  I'm neutral on this yet.  Has he really demonstrated incorrigible disruptive tendencies in a mere two months? --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to see his block log. What's the template for full user info? Anchoress 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're looking for userlinks. Here you go: .  I have no comment on the situation at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Adding it to my list. Anchoress 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this had been discussed and resolved. In his two weeks here he built an impressive block log and sock army, and FayssalF finally blocked him indefinitely. I support that. Maybe in a year or so it can be revisited, if he asks and convinces someone he is no longer looking for a soapbox and wants to help write an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I first encountered this editor editing in a strongly soapboxing fashion on Islam and slavery as well as Islam and children and heavily, heavily relying upon his own research to do so. I decided to take it upon myself to try and limit this and as I began to do so I had noticed that User:Itaqallah and User:Aminz had been making the same efforts over a fairly long amount of time. Myself and a number of other editors had repeatedly tried to reason with this editor (even editors who more or less supported his anti-Islam POV) to no avail. When others became aware of his disruptive editing they began to become involved. This editor was initially blocked for relatively short amounts of time but he proceeded to avoid his blocks with sockpuppets (which he continues to do today, see User:Badrwarrior). Then when he wasn't blocked he began a new original research push around the concepts of sodomy and yoga wherein he created an article called autosodomy and subsequently linked it to numerous yoga articles all the time claiming that "autosodomy" was a "yogic-art" while never citing any source. At this point other previously uninvolved editors became obliged to undo his disruptive edits. Given this editor's long term disruptive editing and soapboxery he most certainly merits banning for exhausting the community's patience. 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The question was asked above Has he really demonstrated incorrigible disruptive tendencies in a mere two months? - if you look at the amount of editing while banned, and the use of multiple sockpuppets while banned - the answer can only be yes. SatuSuro 14:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting any more trouble from him but it seems that folks now are dealing w/ a messy problem again w/ The picture DavidYork added. I really was very patient dealing w/ his case before blocking him indef. He showed no respect to anyone though i helped him myself in translating a text from Arabic to English and received a barnstar from him because of that ;) Now, what to do? Well, obviously i'm supporting a ban. -- <font size="2px" face="Lucida Handwriting"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, incorrigible and disruptive, and has been given every chance to improve his behaviour. SirFozzie 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. One peek at his talk page and just, wow. Not to mention the sockpuppets. We don't need this troll here. Blueboy96 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly endorse this proposal for a community ban. David has wasted too much time of too many people and continues his disruptive behaviour with various sockpuppets, as confirmed by checkuser (Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71). I feel a community ban is justified and warranted. Sarah 05:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse this proposal. Like Sarah, I became involved as an uninvolved admin in the disputes regarding the original articles - I first became aware of him out of disruption going on at Good Article Candidates, an area I occasionally monitor, and noticed he'd received a block only 9 days earlier. The main disruption involved a campaign to get autosodomy (now a deleted article) recognised as a yogic practice, even getting a porn site owner to assist him with providing images. (A later sock created an article on said porn site owner.) Several of the suspected socks, as a first or second edit, have passed or failed articles in WP:GAC, including Hezbollah, Exponentiation etc, as well as restoring contentious sections to ,  etc. There has been at least three AN/I discussions, two of which I can link two ([ ).  I feel that he's tested the community's patience to the point of no return. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban proposal. I think we all saw this coming; DavidYork is set on being disruptive.--cj | talk 08:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse ban. Sampling of edits shows deliberate provocation and disruptive editing, and the list of suspected sockpuppets speaks for himself. He is not here to write a neutral encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 12:58, 22 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.

User:Oguz1
The account User:Oguz1 seems to be a single purpose account aimed on removing references to Armenian genocide from different Turkey related articles. He was blocked 4 times, the last time by Rama's Arrow for two weeks. After the block expired he returned to exactly the same activity he was blocked for (see his contributions). I think the User deserves a longer Community Block of at least 1 month. Any thoughts? Alex Bakharev 05:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The fact that he's running through blocks so quickly is troubling. I do notice that we have another section above also related to topics of Armenian Genocide User:Makalp, and while I need more time to look at the edits (in both sections) and what they're trying to say, It is intriguing to me to see two editors be referred to us so quickly, makes me wonder if this is a pattern that would require ArbCom or other attention to knock the problem out at the knees. Alex, could you look at the section above and as someone who's involved in the situation, let us know if it's similar? SirFozzie 05:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having investigating further, I would support a longer block, as this appears to be a SPA with a POV problem, but not yet a site ban. SirFozzie 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why we should be wary of a permanent block for an editor who clearly doesn't get it and repeats the same behavior after many blocks. The evidence suggests he isn't reformable and that he isn't here to collaboratively build a neutral encyclopedia. I'll implement the block soon if no one objects, but I'm not sure why it shouldn't be indefinite. Dmcdevit·t 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would give him one last chance. If he continues after the long block then permaban Alex Bakharev 23:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Oguz1 for 1 month per discussions here Alex Bakharev 07:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gen. von Klinkerhoffen
There appears to be no substantial objection to this action. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  12:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)



I am requesting that this be "ratified" by the community. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen has surely exhausted the patience of the community both on and off the site by now. In under a month he amassed over a dozen sockpuppet accounts that have all existed to push the same agenda; censoring Wikipedia of images that he finds inappropriate.

This escalated from a single indefinite block that I placed on the original account due to the use of "For Brian Peppers" in edit summaries while removing the images on February 21 (the day that Jimbo placed an ultimatum on the discussion of the article, and the day that YTMND dubbed "Brian Peppers Day" on Wikipedia, during which we had an influx of vandalism). He has since been rules lawyering to try and get the block on any of his accounts lifted, claiming that it should have been a temporary 3RR block and not an indefinite vandalism/trolling block.

In a private conversation, when I asked him why he had used the edit summaries, he told me he couldn't give up the chance to "celebrate" "Brian Peppers Day" (paraphrasing) and he does not understand that he has been abusing the system. When his IP was blocked indefinitely by a checkuser, it was believed it was an open proxy, but it is a static IP that he is the only one to use. It was unblocked as an open proxy, and he then proceeded to create new accounts which were later blocked. It was reblocked for 3 months last month, and due to actions off site, I have extended the block to 6 months. This is not a user who is here to contribute to the project, and I believe we will not suffer from putting a "formal" community ban.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome here (and what's the point), if any of his socks get brought to checkuser I'll block and be merry. Why do we even have to discuss this? Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's to be discussed because there are some who believe that a ban must go through this process.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec x2) We're doing this because the process sticklers won't allow a formal ban to be enacted without "community discussion". Ban him, checkuser him, block all incarnations. Mazal tov. // Sean William 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of this process is known, perhaps this particular portion of the discussion should go on the talk page? <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that he's even here. Ban and RBI everything and anything this SPA tries to pull SirFozzie 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Ryu, by ratify, do you wish the community review the action, or are you asking for a ban? I do not believe a community ban via CN is needed in this case.  <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems pretty clearcut. &mdash; <font face="Centaur Festive MT Italic"> Michael Linnear   02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Community to review my banning.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Please don't bold your opinions, or, indeed, use binary buzzwords like "endorse." This is a discussion: discuss. Give a rationale for your opinion. If you are just piling-on, really, there is no need. We have an admin that used his discretion as he should, and is asking if anyone objects. If no one objects, then we have no problem, and we have no reason to could how many people agree with him. If there is an objection, then the job of those that do agree is to respond to the reasons given in the objection. Still not a numbers game. Ideally, if the objections can be addressed to the community's satisfaction, then the admin's action is fine, if not, it isn't. Dmcdevit·t 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I thought we should have kept the Brian Peppers article, but that's no excuse for a sockpuppet-driven vandalism spree. <font color="#AAF"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind you that this does not concern the article, but his sockpuppetry after he was blocked for trolling concerning WP:CENSOR— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Obviously unconstructive. He could've chosen to be useful, but instead went on his sock spree. &mdash; <font face="Centaur Festive MT Italic"> Michael Linnear   05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From my past dealings and reviewing of the blocks, endorse. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have become convinced that no amount of persuasion and policy citation will make him change his ways. Therefore, I recomment RBI should he resurface. TML 08:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Review of effective ban without community sanction.
There is no ongoing review here. Comments or etc should be taken up privately at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter  17:26, 23 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.

Please address all concerns regarding advocacy of pedophilia or actions taken with respect to such advocacy directly to the arbitration committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Fred Bauder 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could this be better elaborated? (So I know what I am looking for). Examples would be nice. -- Cat chi? 17:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Look in the history of this page, and the history of WP:ANI. The thread was removed, but not deleted from the history. DES (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to the specific debate? I do not have the slightest idea on what to look for. -- Cat chi? 17:27, 23 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:Dhimwit
Since September 2006, has done nothing but troll. It seems highly likely that this is an abusive sockpuppet account. I move that Dhimwit is banned. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See also
 * I'm worried about this. He seems to be a bit confused about Wikipedia policy, and I don't see much evidence of trolling.  There seems to be ample evidence that he is trying to improve Wikipedia but feels victimized by administrators. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at his edits, he appears to add unsourced commentary and then demand other edits find sources and gets very annoyed when the material is removed, which could be trolling or possibly confusion. His current week long block is for personal attacks, then avoiding a block to leave a grumpy message, followed by blanking his talk page, which again, could be trolling or just about plausibly, confusion. On balance, I would prefer to give another chance. Addhoc 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree to that. But it should be a last chance. If he's just going to be a pain we can afford to let him go. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir

 * This was originaly posted on ANB/I but I felt it would be more appropriate here


 * What Wikipedia is not
 * What Wikipedia is not

User had been tagging random cities with "Category:Kurdistan". When the categories were removed as per WP:V and WP:NPOV [s]he reverted them back with an edit summary "revert anti-kurd edit". 

I do not believe [s]he is a new user given the nature of the edits. Being as inactive as [s]he is, his/her ability to notice such category removals is also suspicious. Especially on articles where [s]he has no edits which may involve WP:HA.

Although registering as far back as 13 September 2006, user has fewer than 100 edits of which most seems to be voting (keepinging kurdistan), categorizing (adding Kurdistan) or reverting (restoring Kurdistan).

-- Cat chi? 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a question of community action? Is this a content dispute where dispute resolution should be attempted?  I do not understand what is being asked here.  With regards, <font color="Blue">Navou  <font color="Blue">banter  17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this looks highly odd - finding CfD about 10 edits in? - but I can't really see much of a basis for a community sanction. Do you have something for checkuser to be run against to establish if this is a sock? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be a User:Diyako sockpuppet, I am not sure. It is very hard to request a checkuser since there had been far too many people that were banned for similar reasons. User may even be a User:Moby Dick sockpuppet. -- Cat chi? 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The latter user doesn't appear to be blocked or banned, so even if this is his/her sock, there isn't a violation here, since the edits are not abusive. -- Ben   TALK/HIST 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick prohibits user "...from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues" also the clarification puts additional restrictions on harassment. -- Cat chi? 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting link, not least because it links to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive102, and here you are accusing an editor for adding Category:Kurdistan tags. -- Ben   TALK/HIST 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moby Dick was sanctioned by arbcom after such levels of stalking. I have nothing more to add more than the arbitration case. He is prohibited to even participate in any vote I am involved with. Additionally arbcom found his edits on Kurdish related topics disruptive. -- Cat chi? 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a funny place to bring this problem. There is no blocking record, and looking at the history of his talk page I see no instances of attempts to communicate with him about problematic editing on his part.  If you think there is a problem with his edits, please discuss this with him in the first instance.  Trying to get an editor who is as-yet in good standing permanently banned from Wikipedia obviously isn't going to work. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the user is far too suspicious to be treated like any random "good standing" user. -- Cat chi? 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You were already told, at WP:ANI, that this user's "actions were inline with policy and as such the sock cant be rightfully classed as abusive unless the owners been banned." Please don't forum-shop. -- Ben   TALK/HIST 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am merely looking for additional opinions. I do not believe this qualifies as "forum-shopping" since the issue discussed isn't content related. Besides I already clarified that a similar thread existed in ANB/I -- Cat chi? 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "I am merely looking for additional opinions." -- No, you don't come here to "look for additional opinions", you come here "for the discussion of community bans, including topical bans", as the top of this page states, along with "this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort." If all you'd wanted was comments, you know where WP:RFC is, you've been there before. -- Ben   TALK/HIST 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool Cat, I think this was better off where it was before, and I'd suggest you take it back there. -- Ben   TALK/HIST 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Including category:Kurdistan for some places is a legitimate edit, there are content disputes but not something to deserve a sanction. The situation can change if he is a sock used for frauding votes, 3RR violation or supporting his sockpuppeteer in talk pages.--MariusM 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you recommend a checkuser? It might be too old to check - also I do not have a real puppet master suspect. I still feel this is a disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits-- Cat chi? 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted this at Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir and found some interesting additional evidence. Please reconsider this case with that additional evidence. -- Cat chi? 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since at this time you're the only person who's posted to that page, there are no checkuser results to consider. There's just your complaint that after you'd filed an MfD on Portal:Kurdistan and CfDs on Kurdistan categories, Diyarbakir (who's been adding Category:Kurdistan tags) opposed the deletions. How is his/her consistent support of Kurdistan topics any more abusive than your consistent attempts to delete them from Wikipedia? -- Ben   TALK/HIST 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also note that you filed WP:RFARB#Category:Kurdistan earlier this month, only to have it declined as a content dispute. "Category:Kurdistan" also underlies your present complaint, forum-shopped to these two noticeboards. Please stop trying to use disciplinary procedures as leverage in your content dispute. Finally, I notice that you have never posted to User talk:Diyarbakir  (history) , either to try settling your dispute with him/her before bringing it here, or to notify him/her of your bringing this complaint. See the top of WP:ANI: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting." Here you are in the wrong, Cool Cat. Please take more care with your own behavior. -- Ben   TALK/HIST 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir = Moby Dick confirmed with the checkuser. Hence I formally request users block as per every remedy on the RFAR case on Moby Dick namely: #Moby Dick banned from certain articles, #Moby Dick prohibited from harassing Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, and #Moby Dick may be blocked for continuing to harass. Blocks shoud be logged at Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick. -- Cat chi? 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Diyarbakir is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet per the checkuser and arbitration cases (block log). --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen
User:Eagle_101 has unilaterally unblocked this community banned sockpuppeteer in violation of Wikipedia policy that states community bans are reviewed by the Arbcom. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen and previous ban. I ask the community to decide whether the ban stands, rather than letting a single admin override consensus. Nardman1 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See also related WP:ANI post. Nardman1 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong, I supported the unblock too. Give a good reason not to unblock. John Reaves (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy something, Batman. This user used 13 different socks while banned. That shows a total disregard for our policies. Nardman1 03:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do have anything substantive to say? This information was known by the unblocking admin, and blocking a user account is not going to prevent him from making socks. If by "total disregard for our policies" you mean "danger to the encyclopedia", why do you not just say that? or is that not what you mean? —Centrx→talk • 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have to show damage to the encylopedia. This user has done enough prior damage. That's the point of a WP:BAN. It means the community revokes an editor's ability to edit Wikipedia, period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nardman1 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The community has no such power as long as Wikipedia is openly editable. This person is perfectly capable of editing Wikipedia whether this user account is blocked or not. Blocking an account only severs the history of the user and the associated trust. Banning a user only means that if his sockpuppets are encountered they are blocked, but in this case any sockpuppets encountered would be ipso facto reason to ban this probationarily unblocked user. —Centrx→talk • 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even read WP:BAN? Where does it say an administrator can decide to grant them probation? Nardman1 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And what are you advocating? That we reblock because some rouge admin did it "out of process"? —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He also violated WP:BLOCK, specifically by not contacting the blocking admin first and discussing it. I am advocating the community consensus be respected, yes, considering two different policies were violated here. Any unban should be conducted only after a community decision or an arbcom ruling. Nardman1 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not answered my question. I asked what should we do now, not what should have been done. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should be formally submitted to the community whether to give this user a second chance. If the outcome is negative, then yes, reblock. I am a firm believer in consensus, I've been a lone voter at DRV several times arguing that the consensus should be respected no matter what, and I'm here now arguing the same. Nardman1 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting an answer to my question. You are giving me grandstanding ideals, not practical solutions. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your time would be better spent arguing for what would improve the encyclopedia, which is the sole purpose of consensus. Also, community bans are not done by voting. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about: he or she was banned by consensus among several members of the community. If you want to propose that the community reexamine its decision in light of new information or expressions of contrition on the part of the banned editor, please do so. But don't simply ignore or override the community ban. --ElKevbo 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A user that is not blocked is not community banned. A ban is not a result of a trial and an unban is not a result of appeals to some community tribunal. In practice, the block or unblock of a user account has no actual effect against someone who intends to harm Wikipedia, but it does if they want to improve it. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Semantic smoke. The issue is that something was submitted to the Community sanction noticeboard and now the actions of the community are being undone by a small number of administrators.  Is it any wonder that some editors distrust administrators and throw around accusations of admin abuse when administrators feel free to ignore editors' individual and collective voices, even those editors' opinions when formally asked for, offered, and accepted?
 * C'mon - just throw this back out there for the community to examine again. Assume good faith and that we'll reach the right decision instead of ignoring us or making a decision for us.  --ElKevbo 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By "community" and "us" it looks like you mean you yourself. The person who made this decision is part of the community, as are the people who agree with it, as are the people discussing it on both of these noticeboards. Wikipedia is not based on ratification processes. —Centrx→talk • 04:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion clearly isn't going anywhere and I'm withdrawing from it. If admins want to ignore the good faith actions and discussion of others on this noticeboard then there's nothing editors can do or say to stop them.  But rest assured that I won't waste my time on this noticeboard any longer.  --ElKevbo 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Throwing around the word "unilateral" is meaningless on Wikipedia. Every action is prima facie unilateral until you recognize that the action was done for some good reason and that others support it. If an action is unreasonable and ultimately unsupported, it would make no difference if it were done by committee "multilaterally". —Centrx→talk • 03:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock as well. If the project benefits, we've done the right thing. If the user returns to previous behavior, a block isn't hard to place. -  auburn pilot   talk  03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT support the unblock (considering the amount of times in a row he sent in a sockpuppet to AN/ANI to ask if we would just leave him alone so he could go back to censoring images he thought were inappropriate, but I also do not support a re-run through CN which would just neuter this board more then it's already been, because it will be very hard to find an administrator to wheel-war on the re-block. I guess the best we can hope for is that he does NOT misbehave again, or is quickly reblocked the second he steps off the beam. SirFozzie 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, well that would be exactly what would happen. Effectively, you could make any community ban decision be "stay in line perfectly or you will be blocked"; the reason the account is blocked is that a user has been shown to be incorrigible, but in this case he appears not to be. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been a prior tacit agreement that community bans were untouchable, see List_of_banned_users "a user who alienates and offends the community enough may eventually be blocked by an administrator... and no one is willing to unblock them." I am sad that Eagle_101 has ignored our traditions. Nardman1 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Traditions are made to be broken, for better or for worse. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misreading this sentence. In this case, Eagle 101 is willing to unblock him, so he has not been so offensive that "no one is willing to unblock him." The actual "tradition" is the opposite of what you mean. A community ban is a community ban only if in fact no one is willing to unblock the user. —Centrx→talk • 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC times 5) I've seen that bandied about a lot, Nardman1, but consider it this way.. read that section again. According to that, the only way a person was truly Banned if NONE of the over one thousand admins on Wikipedia thought they deserved another chance, so if Eagle thought he deserved a 2nd chance, he really wasn't "Banned", so to speak, right? I do wish that Eagle had looked at the amount of disruption that Gen had caused, and the unanimous discussion here at CN, or even discussing it here, but it's done. I'm pretty sure if he breaks the rules again, there won't be warnings or short blocks, he'll be gone, again, this time for good. He's gotten a last chance. Let's see what he does with it. SirFozzie 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sad that so much credence is placed in blind following of policy to the extent that we prevent positive contribution to the encyclopedia and immediately shun second chances. John Reaves (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Says the guy who blocked a few of those socks. Funny. I'll give on the "tradition" argument though, seems I was wrong. Nardman1 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has said anything about "shunning second chances" and I'm angry that you would misrepresent my position in such a manner. I'm sure that many, like myself, would be happy to consider a second chance for an editor blocked by the community.  But to ask us to review a block and then lift that block without even asking for our opinion is demeaning and disrespectful.
 * If this is how things are going to work, then it's clear that this noticeboard needs to be deleted as discussions here are meaningless. --ElKevbo 04:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Nardman1, he seems inflexible to offering a second chance. John Reaves (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By "offer second chance" you mean "undo community ban". Nardman1 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Although, if a community ban is something any administrator won't undo, seems like this isn't a community ban. John Reaves (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong venue A community ban is simply a ban that no one is willing to undue, it always has been. This is simply a board those can come to before hand to judge that consensus. Jimbo has even remarked on the wiki-en mailing list about these assumptions of the power of this board some users have. He was community banned, an admin was found who was willing to unblock. Thats all there is to it. --- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  04:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More formal venues require discussion and an attempt to work it out before taking the dispute there. And this is the "forum for the discussion of community bans" according to the top of the page. I think this is the perfect place to discuss this. Nardman1 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear, I have unblocked the main account, but the IP still remains with account creation disabled. Meaning that unless he has access to a second IP he cannot create anymore socks. He seems to have reformed, and understands the errors that he committed. If he returns to his prior behavior, then by all means reblock, but as long as he has only one IP the potential damage is limited only to that one account. I ask that we see if he has reformed, he has already created one article :) —— Eagle 101  Need help? 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's effectively nothing to discuss here. He's already been unblocked, apparently with a significant degree of support, so there isn't any way we can say that the will of the community is to ban him. It obviously is not. Probation is already in place, so no real need to discuss that either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, just let this guy have a second chance. BuickCenturydriver  (Honk, contribs)  00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)