Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review

Close
Closed with a modification of Kumioko's community ban to a 6-month block, as an implementation of the standard offer. At Kumioko's request this was implemented on an alternate account, User:Reguyla, as Kumioko states he has lost access to other accounts. Protonk and The Land
 * Summary

Protonk's comments
I won't much improve on fluffernutter's summary of the dispute, so editors looking for some background should read that (and the linked AN and AN/I discussions). A quick rundown is in order, however.
 * Kumioko repeatedly evaded a community ban, using multiple accounts and IP addresses to (primarily) post message to editors or noticeboards regarding the propriety of the original ban or the conduct of admins. Some of the comments were general, others were directed at specific users or announced a desire to disrupt the project if Kumioko did not get their way. The latest of these comments came days before this discussion.
 * The original ban discussion was problematic. We can't turn back time, so I have no idea if a longer discussion or one more focused on a broad look at Kumioko's behavior would've ended differently but it was probably closed far too early and was focused on venial sins (in my opinion).
 * A lot of the original ban discussion focused on admins (and arbcom members) vs the community. This was recapitulated in this discussion by both sides. In short, Kumioko felt frustrated by the admin system (among other things) and felt unfairly targeted by admins.

My biases
As I mentioned on the discussion subpage, I have not interacted with Kumioko in the past (or if I have I don't remember it). I was not party to the original ban discussion or any discussions leading up to it. If I've missed any interaction please let me know.

However, I feel it is helpful to signpost my priors going in to a decision like this.


 * A community ban is not a prison sentence. In general I do not favor long term, non-indefinite bans as the use of such pushes us to treat them like sentences. We use phrases like "time served" or argue over arithmetic to determine if 6 months or 9 months or whatever is an appropriate length for a perceived "crime". In my opinion such characterizations are corrosive, leading us away from treating blocks and bans as preventative. That's perhaps a little naive, but there it is.
 * Everybody thinks they're Galileo. I'm willing to grant a lot of credence to arguments that an editor is unfairly targeted and I fully believe that we grant leeway to admins and vested contributors beyond what is practical, but nearly every banned long term editor claims that they were speaking truth to power or that the subset or editors who supported their ban is illegitimate by some accounting. That's not so say that I can't or won't consider this in the course of the discussion, but such arguments especially when they don't speak to the matter at hand are less convincing to me.
 * That said, while community bans are (in practice) usually a measure of who you pissed off and how many of them show up, we should note that pissing people off isn't itself a violation of our editing principles.
 * In an ideal world, ban discussions should focus on the particulars at hand, not the "message" the outcome would send to unrelated editors. As such, if the community feels that the original ban was unjust or that an unbanning is warranted, we shouldn't get too focused on maintaining a united front against hypothetical bad behavior from other editors. Consensus can change and we at least pay lip service to the notion that precedent doesn't exist on wikipedia, so I'd prefer that the outcome here respect that.
 * I try not to weigh content contributions too heavily one way or another. It's hard to completely avoid doing so and especially hard to say that the community does or doesn't weigh contributions when discussing behavior, but I feel that succumbing to editcountitis when trying to determine whether an editor should be banned or not is dangerous. This cuts both ways. I don't think we should weigh previous GAs/FAs in favor of an editor but I also don't like the practice of trotting out an edit summary tool to note that an editor's mainspace contributions decreased at some point, therefore they're "no longer here to build the encyclopedia".
 * Finally, harassing editors and building out a stable of new accounts/IPs to troll messageboards or herald your notoriety is BULLSHIT. I see from Kumioko's statements that they recognize this in part, but I don't want to understate my opinions on the matter.

I'm listing the above to point out my thoughts coming into the discussion. I'm going to try to make an effort to ameliorate these biases where I feel they would get in the way of judging consensus, but it's only fair to put them out for everyone to see.

Rough summary
Taking a rough headcount, the support for lifting the ban is about 50/50. See here for a breakdown. As I noted there and on this page, counting heads isn't the end of discussion but it's a necessary element of any dispute involving this many editors.

I'll try and put the arguments of both sides in my own words. The list below isn't an endorsement of any given argument. They're not in any particular order (i.e. persuasiveness or popularity).

Among the editors who wanted the ban lifted, the principal arguments were these (paraphrasing and condensing as necessary):
 * Blocks are cheap. If we rescind the ban and the behavior continues, the ban can always be reinstated.
 * All the ban is really accomplishing is preventing Kumioko from contributing normally. It's obviously not preventing them from editing at will.
 * The ban discussion itself was illegitimate.
 * It was closed early
 * It involved a number of involved admins or editors and in concert with the first point, this allowed the discussion to be shaped by a small subset of the community whom Kumioko had pissed off. Specifically this is problematic because Kumioko's focus was on the corruption in the admin/arbcom system.
 * The merits of the original ban were slim. As Cas Liber and others noted, the discussion was heavily weighted by small infractions snowballed into a larger case. As such, it's possible to simultaneously make the case that Kumioko was some sort of menace AND that the alleged disruption was invented by stringing together disparate actions.
 * Kumioko's contributions prior to the ban were strongly in the "net positive" column and they are clearly interested in Wikipedia (for good or ill).
 * The alternate accounts used after the ban resulted in only minimal disruption and weren't "socks" per se.

Among the editors who want the ban maintained, the principal arguments were these:
 * Kumioko went to considerable lengths to evade the ban and leave obnoxious or provocative notes on user talk pages and noticeboards. This included harassing individual contributors and took place over a period of months (not equivalent to an editor venting on their talk page when blocked).
 * Kumioko's transition from productive editor to provocateur occurred a while ago; either in 2010 (see Diannaa's links) or 2011 (Binksternet's links). This transition was not merely moving from content to project space but from editor to warrior against perceived admin/community corruption.
 * Kumioko is "playing the [MMO]", appropriating discontent about admins and vested contributors to justify actions which would normally result in a ban.
 * Blocks are not cheap if the reason we're having this discussion is ~6 months of constant block evasion. Trusting Kumioko's word that they'll refrain from problematic edits is difficult given the history of block evasion.
 * We should not reward block evasion, trolling or harassment by unblocking an editor because they promised to stop a torrent of evasive edits and trolling that they started.
 * The standard offer is preferable to immediately unbanning and exists for a reason.

Opposing the ban
The most common argument to rescind the ban was a combination of the notions that blocks are cheap and that Kumioko is still very interested in Wikipedia--unblocking them would result in bringing a productive contributor back into the fold. This argument works regardless of the merits of the original ban. It also works (to a point) if we believe that Kumioko proved themselves to be some sort of inveterate evildoer through their actions after the ban. In my opinion we should take this argument very seriously. It is espoused by both sides of the discussion, explicitly or implicitly. The arguments for an unban with specific restrictions, an unconditional unban or an unban following some period of quiescence all flow from the notion that we can unblock an editor and allow for them to try again with little or no permanent damage. It is, after all, impossible to break the wiki. Supporters of the ban note a few problems. First, Kumioko's behavior during the community ban has shown that blocks are, in fact, not cheap. The determining factor in whether or not a second community ban would function well is Kumioko's willingness to make it so. Second (and intertwined with the first), many editors argued the constant block evasion serves as evidence that we can't trust Kumioko's word.

The next most common argument was, generally, the feeling that the original ban was improper; specifically the incipient events were mischaracterized as a pattern of disruption, that they were run out of the community by admins or non-content editors and the discussion was not reflective of the wider community sentiment. There is also small but nonneglibible support for the idea that the ban itself was totally illegitimate (not just problematic or premised on unfortunate mistakes) and that Kumioko was punished for speaking truth to power, which could be considered a stronger version of the above claim. I will note that there's a good deal of support for the claim that a major proximate cause for Kumioko's ban was likely blown out of proportion. See Neotarf's comment on "actively discouraging a new editor". I don't think Kumioko said anything that another admin or editor wouldn't've have said in the same situation.

Again, I'm inclined to give some of these arguments serious consideration. Once an editor on wikipedia ends up on a shit list, each following interaction can be held indefinitely as evidence against their character or framed as a larger problem. Likewise, getting frustrated about content or interactions with other editors can lead to a spiral where more and more of an editors interactions revolve around the locus of frustration. Doing so can cause former allies to bemoan how an editor just isn't focusing on content anymore or give admins (who may spend a lot of time reading and policing noticeboards) the impression that someone is a bad egg because they see the same name come up over and over again. This by itself can cause considerable frustration for any editor. Once a particularly bad event sparks a ban discussion, we can get off to the races without really considering the consequences.

Like the first argument, there are a few problems with the above narrative. Some were noted by participants in the discussion, some are my observations. First, while merely pissing people off (or criticizing parts of the project) aren't grounds for a ban, they aren't exculpatory. Second, the above framing is mostly in the passive voice. Rich Farmbrough's short narrative is emblematic. "A number of fairly objectionable events occurred which wore down his patience" and "He got banned on the basis that he was complaining about those events, and this was causing disruption" are both potentially true statements which downplay Kumioko's agency considerably. Third, multiple editors have noted that Kumioko's behavior post ban justifies the framing that they were the source of the disruption rather than a particularly vocal but relatively normal editor. See AndyTheGrump's original statement supporting the ban continuation for an elucidation of this point. Finally, we all have a deep and abiding faith in our own righteousness. See Jayron32's comment or Floquenbeam's comment for some color on this. Most contentious bans are both comments on editor content and proxy fights over some important feature of the project. Just as we shouldn't punish an editor for taking the "wrong" stance on a fraught issue, fighting the good fight isn't by itself cause to disregard disruption.

The remaining arguments point to Kumioko's prodigious output as a content editor or their obvious interest in Wikipedia. As I noted above, I'm not sympathetic to the first argument but generally (although not explicitly) such considerations are weighed in ban discussions. Both Binksternet and Diannaa point out these content contributions fell off considerably once Kumioko became frustrated with Wikipedia and shifted to working in project space or criticizing the admin/arbcom system. A particularly vociferous refutation of the edit count argument can be found in Resolute's statement. If I may, I'd suggest that we try to avoid wowing ourselves with Kumioko's edit count and simultaneously try not to read too much into the tea leaves of project/mainspace edit splits in the past few years.

Supporting the ban
On the side of editors supporting a continued ban, the overwhelming focus was on Kumioko's behavior between february and now. Arguments generally supported two claims (not mutually exclusive). First, Kumioko has spent the entirety of their ban evading it and this should inform our judgment on them specifically. Second, overturning a ban on someone who threatens disruption while they remain banned is a terrible general precedent. Some editors (Neotarf, for example) have noted that these aren't exactly arguments for the original ban. I think he's right, in a way.

In a general sense, this is another form of the bad behavior ratchet we have on wikipedia. Someone is blocked, they act out in response to that block and the community piles on. In a much more specific sense, this is inapplicable. It's completely understandable that editors would see this behavior and come to the conclusion that they don't want Kumioko to be a member of the community regardless of the original ban. Further, we're not talking about mere ban evasion. It is simply not the case that Kumioko evaded the ban because the ban was an impediment to editing. They evaded the ban to hassle and taunt other editors ostensibly as a form of protest against the ban. As multiple editors have noted (e.g. Beeblebrox, MarnetteD, Hasteur, etc.) we are not looking at a momentary outburst or some invective on a talk page. We are looking at hundreds of messages left with dozens of alternate accounts on wikipedia and over email. They included trenchant criticism of Wikipedias power structure, childish name calling, harassment and boasts about disrupting wikipedia until Kumioko got their way. Arguments attempting to diminish the significance of these messages are completely unconvincing to me. First, the semantic difference between an account/IP address used to evade a block and a "sock" is pretty unimportant. Kumioko identified themselves clearly when saying "Babybrox you are nothing but a corrupt, vile piece of trash." or "If you want me to stop, just unblock me. Nothing else has worked and my bahn will never be effective so if you want me to quit posting you might want to give it a try." or "as long as there are mindless and abusive editors like you, Wikipedia will continue to be a septic cesspool of assholery. Keep up the bad work knucklehead. So what do you think the FU means huh?", so it's somehow better? Never mind that socking would work against Kumioko's self-identified ends because the purpose of the messages were to threaten that disruption and nonsense would continue until they were unblocked. Second, the messages themselves were incessant and noisome. Beeblebrox's note on arb emails (although I can't review the actual email content) gets right to the point. To put things plainly, if all these messages were left before Kumioko was banned, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Among supporters of a continued ban (or those extending the standard offer), the sentiment that unbanning Kumioko would set a precedent for past or future editors to troll their way back to the community is widespread and clear. As I mentioned, I hold a dim view of claims to precedent but it's hard to disregard that view when the text (not the subtext) of many of the messages from Kumioko were "I'm going to cause trouble until you unblock me". In a practical sense (as I'll discuss below), blocks and bans--especially indefinite ones--are subject to some form of agreement from the blocked editor. Most of our indefinite bans are for vandalism only accounts. Very little stops a vandal from registering a new account and continuing to disrupt articles. What eventually stops many of them is mere boredom. The human on the other end says "fuck it, this isn't worth it" and leaves. Sometimes this doesn't happen. Take a gander at WP:LTA for some examples of where it fails miserably. In all cases, signalling that the disruption they caused just wasn't sufficient to get invited back is probably a pretty terrible idea.

addendum
I wrote the bulk of this close prior the posting of this response from Kumioko. I don't think the statement materially changes my opinion of the discussion, but I'd like to address some parts of it.

The points about the standard offer and socking policy are not persuasive, to put it mildly. As noted above, the semantic distinction between socking and generating a stable of alternate accounts to evade a ban is not important. Twisting this distinction without a diference to claim that the spirit of the standard offer has been followed in the past six months is dissapointing pettifoggery.

I suspect the wording of Kumioko's response will cause some editors to view them as "unrepentant", which is unfortunate. Every one of us has been in a dispute where we felt we were in the right and we were either incorrect or the "community" decided otherwise. Should we each have been forced to "repent" to all editors involved before carrying on? Who among us wouldn't feel at least a twinge of frustration if asked to not only put an apology in writing but make it sound convincing to the most skeptical of our peers? What function would such an apology serve except to validate the opinions of editors on the other side of the dispute? We do ourselves no favors by adding the indignity of a forced apology to ban discussions like this.

In general, these reactions illustrate a problem we have with our framing of blocks and bans as preventative. We wish to prevent future disruption and so for editors who are indefinitely banned this often manifests itself in a demand that the banned editor recant their sins and promise to not continue the behavior. In some narrow cases this is appropriate. In many other cases it is a superfluous and unreasonable demand. It is impossible to extract an apology by force and often demanding such an apology serves mainly to injure the pride of the editor in question. Likewise, promises to avoid future disruption are implied in any unbanning and are only judged by the actions of the editor. We are not a court of law and we cannot establish a consent decree so the statement "you promised to avoid disruption then continued to disrupt Wikipedia" is fundamentally no different from "you continued to disrupt Wikipedia".

brass tacks
There is no consensus to unban Kumioko at this time. There's no reading of the discussion which finds a preponderance of editors supporting an immediate unban and even discounting the arguments of those who have been invested in previous ban discussions I don't see anything approaching a strong consensus to reverse the ban at this time. If we assume that editors who support an immediate unban would also support extending the standard offer, then we do see a relatively strong consensus to do so with Kumioko.

There is some disagreement over the length of time we might place on such an offer. Proposal 2 basically suggests doing so on a 4 month timeline and multiple editors have suggested a 12 month timeline. I'm unclear on why 12 months is preferable to 6 or indeed why 4 months is similarly more fair or better for the wiki. Cas Liber makes a good point, noting "I am not of the opinion that six months's sitting on the sideline is going to change his (or our) world view on all this". Ordinarily I'd agree, but I feel this situation demands a different approach.

I said above that bans are essentially subject to agreement from the banned editor. One thing is clear and agreed upon by both sides: we do not have the capabilities to bar Kumioko entirely from editing the encyclopedia or hassling editors. The only thing which will resolve this in the long term is Kumioko accepting that it isn't worth the effort to evade the ban or the community accepting them back into the fold. That doesn't make the decision a fait accompli--both options are open to us. It also doesn't change the fundamental power imbalance. The community holds the keys to Kumioko's return. We could demand additional concessions: restrictions on topics, establishment of some sort of hair trigger response for future "disruption" or an extension of the ban to 12 months or more. But it is also within our power to simply say "here is the standard offer, no more no less." This won't defuse tensions surrounding the original block. It also won't allow us to express the frustration that some editors feel at Kumioko's behavior after the block. What it will do is allow us to offer a clear and unambiguous path back to the community without rewarding ban evasion. It will also de-escalate the stakes involved--rather than treating this as a special case (either due to admin malfeasance or prolonged trolling) it simply becomes about another banned editor asking for a review. If, rather than extending the standard offer we attach all sorts of provisos and restrictions, we're back to the original problem of setting up another power imbalance where if Kumioko messes up in a mundane way (that is to say, does something another editor or an admin could likely get away with) we have another series of threads leading to the same conclusion. Finally (apologies for being paternalistic), the standard offer works on the other end too. It is entirely possible that Kumioko will decide during that six month period that Wikipedia isn't worth the trouble. I'm not fond of the way we talk about long blocks allowing for "distance" but here I think it may be valuable.

Just as the standard offer operates as a path for a banned editor to return to the community, we should think hard about what kind of community they'll be returning to. If at the end of 6 months without disruption we find ourselves in another discussion like this we have failed. If we demand that Kumioko's special brand of disruption requires 12 months away or manifold restrictions upon return we have also failed. Let's not do that. Instead let's say "here is an offer any editor in your position would receive" and when Kumioko makes good on their end, we should make good on ours and bring them back into the community. Accordingly, the block on should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance. Protonk (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from The Land
Massive thanks to Fluffernutter for taking the initiative to try to resolve this thorny issue. Thanks also to everyone who has taken part in the discussion. In particular I'm grateful to Collect and GoodDay for their proposed compromise solutions.

There is no consensus to overturn the current ban right away. Numerically the debate is balanced towards maintaining the ban, and the debate is fairly polarised. Given that Kumioko has very recently been engaging in disruptive behaviour, it might be considered unusual that he has received so much support. I believe this is because many people are taking his commitment to turn a new leaf seriously and want to extend an olive branch in return.

However, it is also clear that there is a consensus around extending the standard offer to Kumioko. The option of banning him 'forever' has been explicitly rejected. Collect suggested that Kumioko's ban be converted into a fixed-duration block. A significant number of editors who are against overturning the block said that they would be willing to agree with this course of action. As a result, this option has the clearest consensus around it. In addition to the rationales stated above during the discussion, this serves as a positive response to Kumioko's undertaking to respect the results of this debate and illustrates our collective commitment to the standard offer.

I agree with Protonk that no-one has clearly made a case why 3, 4.5 or 12 months would be preferable in this case to the standard 6 months.

Accordingly I will modify the block on the User:Reguyla account to have a duration of 6 months from today, and unprotected the talk page. (Kumioko has indicated in his statements that he no longer has access to Kumioko or KumiokoCleanStart and that Reguyla is his preferred account for any return to editing. I see no reason not to acknowledge this preference.)

I would encourage Kumioko to live by the undertaking he has made to respect the outcome of this debate. I have certainly seen other editors who have been banned in the past return to productive participation and I believe Kumioko can too. I am encouraged by much of what Kumioko has said in his statements.

In the unhappy event that Kumioko continues to behave in a disruptive or abusive manner (including attempts to evade the block), anyone can and should bring the matter back here or refer it to the Arbitration Committee. No-one should be in any doubt that in those circumstances Kumioko will almost inevitably be faced with a renewed and longer site-ban. (It has been suggested that this resolution is more open to wikilawyering than alternatives, but I can't see how this is more the case than in any regular community unban discussion. )

Yours, The Land (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal #1 -- proposal for Kumioko to be banned or unbanned in exchange for his promise to abide by the result of this discussion
I'm sure most regulars around here are familiar with (aka  and a number of other usernames, before and after his ban/block). His history is extremely complex because it's spread out over a huge number of accounts and IPs, and I'm not even sure I've got everything quite nailed down, but the best summary I can give after researching is this:

Long disillusioned with the project and prone to hopping among a number of accounts and IPs as the mood took him (see historical summary and list of IPs and accounts provided at the beginning of this ANI), he was blocked as "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: Banned by the community per discussion at WP:AN" following this discussion in February, 2014. Kumioko has repeatedly declared that he feels this ban was invalid and the result of a small number of users trying to get him banned over and over until something finally stuck. As a result of what he feels was his mistreatment, he has committed to evading his ban as often as possible in order to point out that the "ban" was invalid and to prove that he cannot be restrained by a ban anyway; he appears to have access to sufficient IP addresses and/or technical expertise to do this indefinitely. This sockpuppet category has a selection of his activity since then, though he states that "only about 2/3" of those accounts/IPs listed are him. This is the most recent sock account I'm aware of, though that by no means ensures that it is actually the most recent one; this is the sort of edit he tends to make while socking.

Because this constant evasion has taken up a significant amount of community, administrator, and checkuser time, I have made a deal with him via IRC in the hopes of mitigating the timesink: we agreed that I would open a new discussion regarding whether he should be banned or unbanned (or blocked, or unblocked, or restricted in some way, or whatever the community desires), in exchange for his promise to abide by the result of that discussion, no matter what it comes out to be. I believe his hope is that a wider cross-section of users will participate this time around, to ensure overall neutrality; my hope is that this situation is resolved one way or another and the constant back-and-forth can stop. While this discussion is pending, he has promised that he will not evade his ban, email Arbcom, submit UTRS requests, or enter IRC. He states that he wishes to return to working on referencing and adding Wikiproject banners to articles if he is unbanned.

Kumioko has declined to give me a statement to paste here for the moment, and I haven't restored his talk page access, but someone may wish to do so if it's agreed that that's a good idea, so that he can have input into this discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was involved in the discussion with Kumioko which led to this thread. I'll make my own comment about the merits of the ban further down the page, but I would ask that the closing administrator allows the discussion to run for a sensible period of time, and considers a group closure involving more than one uninvolved administrator, to ensure the outcome of the discussion is unambiguous. Nick (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

*What immediately concerns me over this is not only did he refuse to make a comment (so as to suggest he understands what he did wrong and apologize for it), he had to have a "deal" made in order for him to stop the inappropriate behavior - which indicates, to me, that he would continue. Support continued site ban.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 22:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support continuation of siteban. When (and only when) he faithfully serves his siteban for an entire year (i.e 12 months without evading and/or socking), I'll change my position. Actions speak louder then words. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of siteban - I'm sorry, but it comes across as saying "if a stalker keeps putting a lot of effort into being with someone, that person should quit complaining about imprisonment and rape." If he had been evading his ban by just contributing to the encyclopedia in good faith without egotistically drawing attention to his previous account, that'd be a different matter (and he'd probably be continuing to edit under the new account and we wouldn't be having this conversation). But instead, he's dedicated downright psychotic amounts of time and effort to causing trouble. Heck, I'd take evading the entire ban with only a good-faith clean start account as evidence that the ban was unnecessary, but that's the opposite of what happened. Even if the ban was initially completely unjustified and in bad-faith against a completely blameless editor (I mean, a literal saint being banned by the actual forces of Hell kind of hypothetical situation here), his actions since demonstrate that he needs help, not justification. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban given the following restrictions are met: He has to come back as a fresh clean start account, not a old one, the account must not be named "Kumioko" or anything containing it, and he cannot run for adminship for at least a 12 month duration. Give him rope. If during this time, he commits any serious violations or is evaluated by the community to not be reforming himself, he will be blocked with no more second chances.  Konveyor   Belt  22:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of ban Less than 75 days ago items like this and this were occurring too often. No more rope is needed. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per GoodDay. If you're sitebanned, you've pissed off a lot of editors and evaporated entire oceans of AGF. If and When the user serves the user serves the full siteban of 12 months no discernable editing and isn't sniping semi-anonymously from the peanut gallery will I consider modifications to the siteban. Until then this is just more attention that Kumioko has demonstrated time and time again that he craves instead of improving the project. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm probably one of the only administrators on this site who hasn't ever interacted with Kumioko in any way, shape, or form before. Having looked over the various links provided by Fluffernutter, I see an editor who is obviously pissed off at the project, for what he sees as a few individuals managing to get him banned. To be perfectly honest, I can see where he's coming from with this, although I may not agree with it myself, from the evidence Nick presents above. At this point, I'm just not seeing what the site ban is accomplishing beyond the formally keeping him off the site. I don't see what there is to lose by at least giving him one more chance here; if he doesn't change his behavior, then it's simple enough to reinstate the ban at a later date. It appears that when not disillusion with the site, Kumioko can be a great content creator, and having the chance to gain this back would be great for the site. In short, I support overturning the ban at this time, with no prejudice towards reinstating the ban at a later date if he continues his behavior from while he was banned. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There were two ban discussions in February, and another shortly before that, which would certainly leave an editor feeling that a group of users were intent on banning him. The later discussion, which resulted in his ban, was poorly conducted; it was closed early and the closure changed, most irregular. (as I mentioned above) The administrator who closes this discussion should think about drafting in a couple of other uninvolved administrators and doing a group closure, and not until we've let the discussion run for a good length of time, so there can be no ambiguity as to the appropriateness of the closure this time.
 * On the actual subject of blocking or unblocking Kumioko, I'd be happy to give him a second chance, despite his pretty dubious behaviour (which has essentially been canvassing anybody and everybody to unblock him). He seems to be reasonably open to stopping whatever it is he's doing, when asked, and he has made some good contributions during the time he has been blocked, has been helpful at times on IRC, instructing users on how to edit templates, and he has brought to the attention of other editors vandalism and unfortunate edits which should be removed or changed. He appears, from my chats with him, to have a deep seated interest and passion for the project, and is that, rather than malice which has resulted in him being in the position he's in today. I think he is still redeemable and can be returned to being a productive, useful, good faith editor. Nick (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban: Frankly should have never been comm banned in the first place. p  b  p  23:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support continuation of ban. At this point, in my opinion, whether the ban was right or wrong in the first place is unimportant.  To reverse the ban would be to say that socking is an acceptable response to a ban or indefinite block.  Are those who argue that the original ban was wrong really saying that socking has no consequences?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban with one-account restriction - I'm not endorsing/excusing the socking, nor am I sayig the original decision to ban was wrong. Not everything Kumioko does is good, but I believe the positive outweighs the ranting. Anyways, we can't keep him away from the project; we might as well channel his obvious dedication into something productive. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A simple question. What are Kumioko's intentions should the ban be lifted? From previous off-Wikipedia comments, he has given the strong impression that he has no interest in actually returning to productive editing, and instead wants the ban lifted as a matter of principle. If that is the case, I can see no benefit to Wikipedia in lifting the ban, particularly since it might very well give the strong impression that it was being lifted merely to put an end to his relentless socking. If it is his intention to become a productive contributor, and if he provides a prior assurance that regardless of the outcome of this debate he will stop socking, I for one could support unblocking - but otherwise, what exactly is Wikipedia supposed to gain through this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fluffernutter mentioned referencing and Wikiproject banners, but I sincerely hope if he is unblocked there will not be an active effort to stop him from taking part in discussions.  Konveyor   Belt  23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, but the WPUS banner incident (strong arming many semi-inactive projects into joining the WPUS ultra-mega-super-project and deprecate their individual project banners in favor of the  banner) is foremost in my mind as a contributing reason for why Kumioko was dis-invited from the community in the first place in addition to the multiple messes now left behind in trying to un-merge the template and the "I'll take my toys and go home" attitude when a wide base of consensus arose in opposition to the aims of WPUS. Hasteur (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I was not really around then. I was just repeating what Fluffernutter mentioned above. If that is what got him into hot water in the first place, then that is problematic.  Konveyor   Belt  00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it really this easy to troll Wikipedia? (rhetorical question) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support continuation -- harassment is too much. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)  I will add that the Febuary discussion complied with CBAN, and there was no forum shopping, as it occurred on the same forum, this board, if you contend that's forum shopping than this opened by Fluffernutter is forum shopping, also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support siteban - If we were to overturn the ban we'd basically be saying "Sock puppetry is fine" .... Despite the numerous block reviews & whatnot he won't ever learn and thus I probably won't ever support the ban overturn in my lifetime!. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban, per StringTheory11. I haven't followed what happened closely, but it seems to have started as one minor thing after another, rather than anything major. He was by all accounts a good contributor, so if he wants to try again I think we should give him that chance. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support siteban for at least a one year period of zero socking or disruption. If Kumioko makes a statement at that time admitting that his socking and disruption was wrong, and pledges never to engage in such behavior again, I will happily reconsider. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Kumioko was socking within the last two days, and got blocked by me. I don't think this request is made at a good time.  If Kumioko wants to quietly start a new account and behave nicely, nobody will notice or care.  If they return to past patterns of unconstructive behavior, they will be identified and blocked.  If Kumioko wants to get the original account unblocked, they should follow the Standard offer.  Jehochman Talk 00:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC Kumioko scrambled the email and revealed the password on both the original and "CleanStart" accounts thereby require Meta-WMF to hard lock the account on account of it being potentially explotable. Kumioko has had more than enough opportunities to quietly start a new account completely unconnected, but just like an addict, they can't resist the temptation to make their presence as Kumioko known. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support site ban . No reward for socking.  Let's see a decent period of no disruption first, then consider unbanning. SpinningSpark 01:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have struck my support because I found Kumioko's response to Dusti's question quite convincing that he now recognises how problematic his behaviour has been. I now support Collect's suggestion for a posdated overturn as I indicated under Collect's post. SpinningSpark 00:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban - Kumioko was well-intentioned but became frustrated and little things snowballed into bigger things. I don't get the impression he is malicious as such and as such I am prepared to contemplate some Way Back. I am not of the opinion that six months's sitting on the sideline is going to change his (or our) world view on all this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ban. I saw Kumioko in action after he assumed leadership of the WikiProject United States in October 2010, demonstrating after a few months that his attitude was not collegial: it was more like 'my way or the highway'. He was getting some push-back with regard to his idea that all the various US state wikiprojects (many of which were moribund) should be folded into the US project. A WikiCup competitor, Racepacket, began challenging him on many issues, which Kumioko handled badly. I thought at the time that Kumioko was an absolutist rather than the kind of person willing to work on a compromise solution. After that, Kumioko got into some trouble for using AWB to make thousands of edits that did not meet everybody's idea of what AWB should do. Kumioko was willing to discuss the issue but he refused to stop his AWB activity in the meantime. By the end of February 2011 Kumioko said he was 'retired', leaving Wikipedia over the course of several days, removing his name from membership lists, setting a retire status, thanking his well-wishers, etc. At the beginning of March 2011 he changed his retired status to semi-retired. Another change of heart brought him to ask for his account to be blocked, but people said it was an overly dramatic exit tactic. Kumioko said he had scrambled his password on March 5, 2011, but then on March 9 he was back editing. At this point Kumioko was pissed off at resistance to his AWB work and to his US Wikiproject initiatives. He continued to contribute but he was brought to various noticeboards. From here the story is familiar to more editors, with increasingly Kumioko stomping angrily around discussions of policy, suggesting fixes, but also suggesting that Wikipedia should be allowed to crash and burn (as he predicted would happen) so that someone such as himself could come in and remake it but in a better form. Now my opinion of him is that he is a frustrated demagogue. Once he was community banned (a process that could have been conducted better, but would have had the same outcome regardless) he demonstrated through massive disruption that he was never, ever going to be re-admitted to Wikipedia. There is nothing in the world that would make me !vote to restore editing privileges to someone who showed such immaturity and vengefulness. I agree with Ian.thomson that Kumioko must not have his ban lifted. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ban continuation - my reasoning behind this is that given his disruptive actions and sock puppetry over the past few years, there are no more chances. His actions demonstrate that cannot waste any more time on this individual. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban. We need to stop running off our own contributors. If he wants to help, let him help. I'm not convinced there was any good reason for this ban to begin with, and even if there was, we've got to be willing to put things behind us after a while and just move on. Furthermore, if he edits under a known account he will be easy to monitor and can easily be blocked if he does cause problems. Everyking (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ban continuation per this statement in the OP's synopsis: "he has committed to evading his ban as often as possible in order to point out that the "ban" was invalid and to prove that he cannot be restrained by a ban anyway". If so, he is treating wikipedia like a game of "Catch me if you can" and not an encyclopedia, and thus, even if he thinks his initial ban was invalid (and let's be fair, the proportion of banned users who think their ban is invalid must be actually OVER 100%), all he done since his ban is to prove the exact ban rationale true.  He's not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to "prove" things or to entertain himself by seeing how much he can dodge his ban, or whatever motivates him.  Contributing to an encyclopedia does not seem to be on his list of things to do... -- Jayron  32  02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Undecided, but leaning strongly toward supporting the site ban. User talk:Fluffernutter, thank you so much for the hard work of community outreach that you have done in talking out this deal. Things like this are not easy and I appreciate you willingness to put in the time in your attempts to save the Project from the labor entailed in dealing with the present situation. That being said, it sounds too much like we are being blackmailed into something. I am a huge proponent of second chances, this user clearly has technical skill and I like to think that there is still a positive role here for him, but Wikipedia cannot be seen to be negotiating. What ever deal is reached (if any) cannot be any better than would be offered to a sitebanned editor who had not edited until their appeal. I am open to something, but it cannot be something that we, as a community, are being pushed into. Juno (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I would be willing, and probably several others, to reconsider my(our) positions if he were to make a public statement and list all accounts he has used to evade his ban.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything along those lines would need to include individual apologies to the numerous editors whose talk pages were trolled. I only linked to two of the egregious cases from the past June. There were a great many more then that. Perhaps this could be done while compiling the list of the sock accounts. This is just one item and there are others in the WP:STANDARDOFFER that should be fulfilled as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the "no negotiations" thing involves thinking of a Wikipedia contributor as some kind of terrorist, and I really wish we wouldn't do that. It's all right to make reasonable agreements that can get people back to editing and doing good work. We're all just people contributing our time to a volunteer project, and we need to acknowledge and respect Kumioko's continued willingness to contribute here. Everyking (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Everyking I'm a strong proponent of second chances, I want to see this discussion end with and agreement that allows for the maximum level of community restoration and good editing. That being said, the deal the Kumioko gets (if any) must not be different than an editor who was not holding the project under duress would get. Juno (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of site ban. Anyone who wants an overview of the editing history should look in order at the editing history of Kumioko (renamed) (2007 to Feb 2012); Kumioko (April 2012 to March 2013]; and KumiokoCleanStart (March 2013 to January 2014). What I see is a user who used to make hundreds of productive edits to an article such as Smedley Butler and List of Medal of Honor recipients deteriorate into a user who from December 2010 has made only about 5% of his edits to article space. (The three accounts had edits to article space of 45.6%, 6.5%, and 4.3.%.) The vast majority of his edits were to add unwanted WikiProject USA templates to articles, files, templates, and categories. Well over 90% of his edits were made using AWB (85%, 99%, and 95% for the three user accounts), not substantial improvements to article space like he did do in the long-ago. Edits to public areas were of the Wiki-is-broken-everything-sucks variety, not worthwhile suggestions . In my opinion the benefits to the encyclopedia are far outweighed by the disruption and negativity he generates. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ban continuation The ban seems to be serving its purpose well. This whole thing seems like extortion, reconsider the ban or I will continue socking. Chillum 04:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I support an overturn of the ban if a few conditions are met. First of all, though, let me say that I'm well aware of Kumioko's widespread and just totally silly and tirritating disruption--I blocked a couple of his socks and IPs, and I think he knows how I think about his commentary. I think Hasteur mentioned the US templating, and that was ridiculous, so a return to that behavior is unacceptable. Second, I think this should only follow a statement by Kumioko hisself, not necessarily for an admission of guilt (though I wonder if he knows that far from a gadfly he has been nothing more than a complete and utter timesink) but for an indication of what he will and won't do. Third, coupled with that, I would like to see restrictions which would include a ban on posting on Jimbo's talk page and on ArbCom pages, and perhaps others where he's had to have his opinion heard. Cause that's the thing--no one cared for those opinions, and if he is to come back, it will have to be because he's done article work or other useful stuff, and because he can do useful work in the future. I'm all for second, and third, and fourth chances, but always with a ROPE attached. One shitty post on Jimbo's talk page and it's over, again. I appreciate Floq and Jayron and others who are saying that enough's enough, and those that say we're giving in to a kind of blackmail may have a point--but as an old-fashioned liberal I prefer to see the glass as half-full. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban. Kumioko has a half a million edits, a dozen featured content, a couple dozen GA's, hundreds of articles created, and has done a lot of work with templates and reverting vandalism.


 * He has also annoyed some people by complaining, but the ban was overkill. True, he continues to leave messages on arbitrators' talk pages asking for a lifting of the ban, but these are always quickly reverted by talk page stalkers. By rights, if someone is banned, the admins are supposed to delete and WP:DENY recognition, this is what WP:RBI was invented for.  But Kumioko has been continuously poked and prodded by people who should have left him alone, including a notorious incident where an admin publicly threatened to contact his employer, followed by someone actually contacting his employer.


 * Much has been made of Kumioko "socking" but his edits have always been signed, even after some admins designed an edit filter to prevent him from signing his posts. Every time they re-configured the edit filter that prevented Kumioko from signing his name, Kumioko kept figuring out how to circumvent it.  Throughout this whole episode, Kumioko has not turned mean or vicious, but has kept his sense of humor. This signature is actually pretty funny.


 * It would be nice if Kumioko would post a reasonable request after staying away for a while, but all his talk page access is blocked. It would also be nice, and seem less whiny, if instead of just complaining, he would give some concrete examples with diffs.


 * Sooner or later, the community is going to have him back. Why not make it now. —Neotarf (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced. The block evasions shows a disrespect to the community consensus, and not respecting community consensus is how this all started. Just because he signs his name does not make it better.


 * Why do we have to have him back sooner or later? Because he will keep being stubborn of we don't? Chillum 05:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Kumioko used to be a valuable contributor, but somehow, something went very wrong. This is a chance to turn that around. I would endorse Worm's proposal as a way forward that would encourage constructive edits.


 * Kumioko is not the type to grovel. It is unlikely that anyone can make him lick someone's boots. In fact, I believe he is in the habit of emailing various arbs and telling them they suck, at the same time he requests unbanning.  What can I say.  Some of them do suck.


 * The time to do this is now. Justice delayed is ______ (fill in the blank). Kumioko's posts about abusive admins on external sites stopped some time ago, but if he hasn't stopped posting on the arbs' talk pages by now, he is unlikely to ever do so. He believes he was wronged, and he is the type to speak from the heart.  Revisiting this in six months or a year is unlikely to change anything.  It will just make it harder to deal with. —Neotarf (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A straw man argument if I ever saw one. Nobody is asking for groveling or boot-licking, to characterize it as such merely re-frames the debate into something easier to defend. We are asking for respect of the community consensus and to not engage in block evasion. The same thing we ask of every user here. Chillum</b> 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Respect cannot be demanded, it has to be earned. Kumioko has said from the beginning that the ban discussion was out-of-process. Now that I have examined it myself in the light of WP:CBAN, I agree.  But now you seem to be saying that even if he was criminalized unfairly, he has to stay in jail since he has complained about the prison food. BTW, Chillum, aren't you an admin?  I don't see anything on your user page that identifies you as an admin.  —Neotarf (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion is giving the ban all the attention is deserves and the "multi-admin closure" is an exceptional step to make sure this is not out of process. Those concerns are being addressed, though I do not agree with them. Yes I am an admin since Nov 2006. My talk page is the correct place to discuss that, you are always welcome. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:red">Chillum</b> 18:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support ban. Any editor who wages war with the community in this manner is simply a diva (using the very best assumption of good faith). There's no need to "negotiate" with this individual. Doc   talk  05:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral I really can't make up my mind about this, and I comment here so as to disqualify myself from closing or participating in the closing of this discussion. Kumioko did many good things for Wikipedia, yes, but he threw everything out of the window when he decided to go rogue. If he's going to come back, and I wish he does, he has to change his practices and make a true commitment to change. The current socking is not a good indication that this is the case, so I can't really support overturning the ban. However, I can't support continuation of the ban either.  → Call me  Hahc  21  05:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban. Kumioko's original crime was to voice constructive criticism of the deeply flawed admin and arbcom system. We all know now that these systems are terminally under the control of legacy admins and their enablers. Kumioko, along with other crushed voices for rational change, presents no realistic threat whatever to the life long privileges and asymmetric power enjoyed by the legacy admins. Legacy admins should simply relax and savour their rout of the content builders who are not admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban, not as a reward for bad behavior, as an act of clemency for the 100s of thousands of well behaved edits Kumioko made prior to becoming disgruntled. Also, it is worthy of mention to note that Kumioko was often prodded and poked by the other kind of troll, and the worst of his rants were reactions, not planned disruptions. Also worth noting, while Kumioko did disrupt some talk page discussions, he never vandalized an article in Wikipedia—even during periods of his greatest agitation. And as well, while Kumioko did evade his block on multiple occasions, he never deceived or mislead other editors regarding his identity. Instead, Kumioko identified himself right away in every example I am aware of. All in all, this is enough mitigation for me to set the past aside to look towards a better future—potentially the best of times.—John Cline (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn with strict namespace restriction - Let him put his money where his mouth is. Allow him back, but can only edit article space and associated talk pages for an indefinite period - of no less than 6 months. If keeping him banned is "harming the encyclopedia" this should be a good compromise. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 06:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban per Epipelagic. Writegeist (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of ban per Binksternet and Diannaa, with standard offer. His current tactic is: "I was banned for being disruptive and a time-sink, so to show that ban was wrong I will be even more of a disruptive time-sink and will make all the arbs' lives hell until you let me back." That is blackmail, and to fall for it would set a disastrous precedent. Kumioko's whole history shows someone who must have his own way, and throws his toys out of the pram when he does not get it. His history make me doubt whether he has the temperament to work in a collaborative project, but six months without making a nuisance of himself is one way he could demonstrate self-control, and is the least we should ask. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support continuation of ban: the way to show you'll behave well in the future is to behave well now. The ongoing disruption and socking does not bode well should he be re-admitted, and overturning the ban would be a dangerous precedent. I don't believe I can add to all the above editors who reject this request as blackmail, so I'll just note that I concur with them. BethNaught (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban. The bottom line is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and should do things that help to build the encyclopedia and avoid things that hinder building the encyclopedia. Kumioko editing (under any name) has the net effect of helping the encyclopedia. bd2412  T 13:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of ban He has continually flaunted it and socked. I see nothing that makes me think he won't continue the inappropriate behavior which got him banned in the first place. He is completely incapable of playing well with others. As such this ban is necessary to prevent disruption to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of ban The level of block evasion here combined with the tantrums doesn't give me any reason to invite him back.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban, with close monitoring. Kumioko, as he admits, has socked since his ban, but he has not, as far as I can tell, done so with the intention of misleading other editors.. in fact, he seems to have gone to extremes to do the opposite. He has never, from what I have seen, do anything to damage content, and has in fact done the opposite, including coming to IRC specifically to point out edits that obviously need to be made. It is my feeling that, if anything, Kumioko should merely have been topic banned from certain project boards in the first place, and encouraged to work on the encyclopedia itself. This ban seems, IMO, to have been the result of people that didn't like him forum shopping until they got the result they wanted. Blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive, and I see no way in which this site ban (as opposed to some relevant topic ban) is preventing anything other than Kumioko making positive contributions to the encyclopedia itself.  Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 13:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're sweeping statement about "like" has no basis and is factually incorrect. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC) \
 * It was specifically stated as my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, but I doubt you can personally speak for the other people I was referring to. Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 08:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support ban. I am sorry, but allowing a user to harass his way back onto the project sets a seriously dangerous precedent that many of the overturn votes are ignoring.  Beyond that, the one thing Kumioko needs most is to disengage from the project for a time, and his statement reinforces this, particularly given his continuing efforts to play the victim.  Kumioko was not targeted, nor did he face attempts to ban him "over and over".  There were two ban discussions in quick succession, yes. But despite the fact that he was very clearly WP:NOTHERE, the first closed in opposition to a ban because his constant complaining on various drama boards was not viewed as worthy of such a measure.  The second discussion happened shortly after because Kumioko began going to the talk pages of new users to push the same complaints and was actively hampering the ability of others to guide such new users.  That is when his disruption began to have a real impact, and that is why the second vote went the way it did.   Also, Kumioko is completely full of shit when he claims his ban is having a negative impact on the project.  He has not been a "high volume editor" for a while, and his activities at the end pretty much related only to his own overzealous whining about the project.  Wikipedia lost nothing by banning him.   However, despite this criticism, I do believe Wikipedia can gain something if he chooses to return as a productive editor.  But given what has happened, there is no way I could support an unban right now.  The deal Kumioko deserves is the same one we WP:OFFER other banned users.  Take a break.  Come back in six months of no socking, no harassment, no disruption.  After those six months, I will support an unban. Resolute 14:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ' Support continuation of ban  - based on Kumioko's comments below. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, if he made it clear that he intended to stop socking regardless of the results of this discussion, but he has made no such assurance. Furthermore, his suggestion that the fact that his socking has caused damage to the project (through block filters) should be taken into account as a reason to end the block can only be read, regardless of his claims to the contrary, as blackmail. If he wishes to stop damaging the project, all he needs to do is stop socking. His attempt to shift the blame for all this onto other people can only reinforce the impression that any benefit Wikipedia might gain from him being allowed to contribute one more would be entirely outbalanced by his continued insistence that 'abusive admins' are responsible for anything and everything, that he is some sort of martyr to a cause, and that his disruptive behaviour is somehow justified. Unblocking Kumioko in such circumstances looks a sure and certain recipe for further disruption, given his refusal to take responsibility for his own actions. Giving in to blackmail is seldom a wise course, and to do so in circumstances where the net result is likely to be further disruption down the line is untenable. And frankly, given Kumioko's apparent inability to behave in a rational manner over this, I would have to suggest that it would be better for him personally if he were to drop his obsession with all this, to walk away from Wikipedia, and to find another outlet for his talents where he has less emotional involvement. There are plenty of other projects out there that need help, and I'm sure he could find one that suited his temperament better... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the light of Kumioko's statement below that he will "will abide by the result of this ban regardless of its result", I am striking my support for a continuation of the ban, and instead will support its lifting - though I think it needs to be made clear to Kumioko that he is going to be under close scrutiny, that he isn't going to be permitted to continue with the behaviour that led to the ban in the first place, and that we aren't interested in further complaints about 'abusive admins' and the rest. If there are problems with admin actions (which I'm sure there have been in the past, and I'm sure we will see again, given human fallibility), he needs to leave it to others to sort out, and just carry on adding encyclopaedic content. Any proposals for reforms (which I personally think may well be needed) are better coming from people with less direct involvement with the negative side of things. Which probably means that I'm not best placed to propose them either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban. Much of the agitation has been in response to what the subject regards as the unfairness of the original ban, so much like we allow blocked users a little WP:NPA leeway to"blow off steam" on their own talk page following a block, consider it the same here. This project has allowed and continued to allow some egregiously horrid editors to remain in the project just because they are "good content contributors".  Kumioko's "crime" of coming back repeatedly while blocked is a drop in the ocean compared to what the "vested contributors" get away with in the project these days. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "a little WP:NPA leeway to blow off steam on their own talk page" is one thing, but a torrent of messages like this, continuing for over five months, is quite another. Note that one was only two days ago - hardly a diplomatic way to ask to return. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 22 August (UTC)


 * Partial remission of ban Suggest that (noting that the supports would not have formed a "solid consensus to ban" at 21 to 14 to 2 if my count is remotely accurate here),  but that there is certainly no consensus to simply overturn the ban, that the ban be reset to expire on a "date certain" at this point, noting that a future discussion might impose a future ban.   I would further suggest 1 January 2015 be a reasonable time for such a reset, and subject to zero interference from Kumioko in the intervening time.   I further suggest my caveat about behaviour should cover most of the "support"  !votes content.  Collect (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I could support a postdated overturn provided that there is a strict interpretation of any breach of the ban. That is, any sockpuppetry, any vitriolic e-mail to arbcom, any editing at all no matter how innocuous, results in the automatic and immediate end of the postdated overturn and the reapplication of the original indefinite ban. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * any editing at all no matter how innocuous You lost me. Is this innocuous editing prior to, or subsequent to the putative ban lift? Or something else? Sorry, genuinely confused here. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to unbanning and prior to the postdated ban obviously. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry - yes, it's obvious, once I read it again, properly. Actually not a bad idea, either. I'll pay more attention next time. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Support continuation of ban. With respect to those suggesting an unblock with conditions to provide one more chance, Kumioko has honored no conditions (e.g., no ban evasion) set so far. Why can anyone expect his behavior to be different now? Ultimately, we'll be back here again, with more claims that contributors are [paraphrasing] "liars out to get him". JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban per Salvidrim and SlimVirgin. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of ban - I really cannot believe this is even being proposed right now. And I am disappointed in those who I usually respect in their support for overturning the site ban. Let Kumioko go the 12 months and then apply. The disruption to the project and the temper tantrums were just too much to overlook. It's unbelievable that this is even being considered right now. It's an embarrassment. Dave Dial (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support allowing Kumioko to return to contributing. Kumioko has a number of insights into Wikipedia's problems; being banned from editing has largely limited him to expressing these thoughts in unsalubrious off-wiki venues. For example, in April this year he said that many admins only use their tools to harass other editors and win POV discussions or to support their favorite WikiProject or the articles they "own". Most of the admins on the site got hte tools as a popularity contest and most couldn't tell you how to use them ; and only last month he raised issues with Arbcom, The Arbcom has become the refuge for abusive admins and editors and have (sic) become completely incompetent and impotent in being of any benefit to Wikipedia . He has a number of ideas for dealing with these issues, including that Adminship should not be harder to take away than it is too (sic) get. If the community can be trusted to grant access to the tools they can take them away, and that I more stringent policy system is needed. One where all editors are held to the same standard, not a seperate (sic) one for editors and a different lower standard for admins because they can block editors they don't like and delete content they feel doesn't meet their personal standards of notability . There is currently intense debate over steps the Foundation has taken to rein in what they see as the excesses of some admins, and it may well be that Kumioko's viewpoints could help in enriching and enlivening the discussion about admin behaviour and how to deal with problematic admins. I don't believe we should discard the possible benefits of such input merely on the grounds that we believe past performance (massive sockpuppetry, discouragement of new editors, threats of extensive vandalism) to be a guide to likely future behaviour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ban - I cannot believe we are considering his. What a horrendous precedent to set: don't like your ban? Well feel free to engage in on-site abuse and harass other users via email and make threats against their employment until the community surrenders to the fact that you have to keep your enemies close! Simple! We can't allow people to bully the community into doing whatever they want. I think it also bears mentioning that, though Kumioko has done a lot of good work in the past, his more recent history (before he was banned) has been dominated by disruptive moaning about how the community treats him and how corrupt the admin corps is. That pretty much summarises all of his activity on this site over the last year and that's all we'd be getting if he was unbanned now. This probably condemns me to an abusive email storm but hey ho. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban Kumioko was a productive editor. While his statements below are problematic in some points he makes, he does acknowledge past problematic behavior and he does promise to return to constructive editing. I am One of Many (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban per Salvidrim and others, it is a trivial matter to press a button and reblock if Kumioko does not hold to his promises. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove ban per commitment below to return to productive editing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn I support overturning the ban to allow Kumioko to return as a productive editor. I do not know all the details that led to the original ban, and have mixed feelings due to the possible precedent. I recall the movie Rambo, in which a character is set upon unfairly, and things go seriously downhill. I don't want to suggest that the analogy is perfect, but it does illustrate how things can go pear-shaped in an unfortunate way. I do understand that a return may come with some conditions. I want to tread carefully, we are in a position of power, and ought to be careful not to abuse it. I support a prohibition on posting to Jimbo's talk page, but I do not support a prohibition on posting to Arbcom or other drama boards. Those boards exist for a reason, and if Kumioko is wronged, he should not be deprived of the ability to make a case. I could support a throttle, open to details. I do not support a time limit on RfA. If he runs too early, it will be a sign his judgement is questionable.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 prohibition on posting to Jimbo's talkpage. —Neotarf (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * -1. Jimbo has a clear open door policy, and in fact these is a pending ArbCom case related to that and those who defy it. The only way to get him not to post on his user talk is if a full IBAN is pursued.  Konveyor   Belt  21:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo does feed some banned users true, but not this one, I seem to remember him making a specific statement about it. But perhaps it's not fair to spell those things out as a condition of unbanning, as being unnecessarily inflexible. —Neotarf (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Maintain ban since there is no way that we should reward someone who vowed "be the most prolific vandal, troll and sockmaster in Wikipedia history". Doing so would be grossly unfair to banned editors who follow the rules and wait for a period of time before asking to come back, undermine the purpose of the banning policy, and set a terrible precedent. Community bans are usually slow to materialize, and happen after sustained misconduct. I see no significant acknowledgement of the misconduct in the statement posted on Kumioko's behalf. I would need to see evidence that Kumioko is willing to abide by normal behavioral policies, and that starts by demonstrating that he can abide by the terms of the community ban for six months before applying for reentry. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, so we're not treating this like trolling? That's ... crazy.  Why in the world are we even considering welcoming back someone this irrational and dishonest?  What possible benefit would that bring?  He's trying to ride the wave of discontent about admins/ArbCom/The Man, but he is the least rational symbol for this movement I can imagine; to consider him a poster child for the "content" side of the "content vs. admins" divide is to take all meaning away from the word "content".  He's been playing the MMORPG for the last 2 years, at least, and is hoping people cannot differentiate between "non-MMORPG players" and "MMORPG players who lost the game they chose to play". He doesn't think adminship is bad; he originally got pissed off because he wanted to be one and the community wouldn't let him.  His definition of "corrupt system" is a system that would not let him be an admin.  If you want to unban an actual banned content creator as a stick in the eye to Those In Power, I can think of about a dozen banned editors right off the top of my head who would be more useful to building an encyclopedia than Kumioko. A large number of people upset by the status quo are being manipulated, and in the end, it is going to hurt their cause. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What's up with all the insults? This isn't helpful. Everyking (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * someone this irrational and dishonest Does status "banned" make someone fair game for personal attacks? (Or what.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Commenting on a persons behavior has never been considered a personal attack. A subtle distinction, but that is why us admins get paid the big bucks. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:SteelBlue">Chillum</b> 13:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is a personal attack. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ban continuation Although the early incidents were before my time here, the more recent stuff would leave a terrible taste in my mouth about overturning the ban. I don't understand why this editor can't accept the standard offer; even this discussion is a massive timesink.  Mini  apolis  22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban Italick (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason or argument? This is not a vote after all. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:SteelBlue">Chillum</b> 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that bad faith was assumed when Kumioko was banned. He was banned for WP:NOTHERE and shouldn't have been.  Harshly criticizing the Wikipedia governance is not WP:NOTHERE.  I don't think that his controversial remarks were really a problem. Italick (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support ban largely per . I could go into this more, but I feel too out of step considering those (many editors I respect too) who want to unban him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban. I have had positive interaction with this editor on IRC, the ban was instated by clear forum-shopping, and the the total edit count of the editors who participated in the discussion(not saying this is an objective standard, just trying to slightly emphasize my point) may well be under Kumioko's editcount, and I also agree with many of the comments above supporting unban. Cheers, Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 00:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Suspend ban...Kumioko deserves this one last chance.--MONGO 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ban continuation. Yes, Kumioko made a truckload of good edits, and I thank him for that.  He was also engaged in a pattern of disruptive behaviour over a period of time, which was the reason he was banned in the first place.  I do not subscribe to the view that a certain amount of positive work in one area can excuse problematic behaviour in others.  Now, if he can knock off the socking for an extended period (say, six months), I'd be happy to consider this, but not right now.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
 * presenting some further evidence regarding his behavior since the ban. I would note that I am not even one of his favorite targets. He has Harrassed other arbs far more than me with almost daily trolling emails. Here are just some of his posts to my talk page while evading his ban:


 * you are a vile piece of trash
 * f you
 * let me back or I will make things worse/you are a poopoo head
 * taking the gloves off
 * you are a disgrace
 * if you want me to stop, just unblock me
 * glad to be a sockmaster and vandal
 * you created a monster
 * you can't stop me
 * proud to be a vandal
 * you are stupid and abusive
 * I am never coming back to this shitty community
 * intent to sock
 * I want to stop
 * ban will never work
 * your fault I have to sock every day
 * more of the same
 * it takes me three minutes to create a new sock
 * you are acting like a dick
 * I want to stop but you won't let me
 * And here's a brief excerpt of an email I got from an acknowledged sock of his about three weeks ago: I did more for this project than you or any of the clowns who voted to ban me from the project and since its obvious at this point I will never be allowed back thanks to you and your fellow assholes and arbitraitors, you deserve every word of the term. FUCK You!
 * There's more, lots of it, just from my talk page but as you can see it is extremely repetitive. I would estimate that in combination with all the emails he has sent to the committee and to individual arbs and other users that this list represents less than 1% of the block evasion and trolling that he has engaged in since the ban was enacted. I would ask the community to consider whether a person who behaves like this could possibly turn around on a dime and become a productive, non drama-mongering member of the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no question Kumioko reacted badly to the ban (and I think AGK and NYB's talk pages suffered even more than yours.) But no one is saying very much about the original dispute, and whether it merited perma-banning. —Neotarf (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Kumioko is a grown man, supposedly a responsible member of society. His reaction was so bad, so sulky, so disruptive, so much like a two-yeear-old's temper tantrum that I would never trust him again, not anywhere on Wikipedia, not on any task. And the disruption was not excusable as a brief event spoiling an otherwise fine career. No, the disruption was prolonged over weeks and months. I say goodbye and good riddance, with no possibility of returning. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny that you are able to list all these comments and yet you say "I haven't actually read a single word of the sock nonsense going on here". Oh well. RF 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That was the truth. I didn't read any of this garbage until yesterday when I saw that this discussion was going on. It took me about an hour to go through all of it and assemble that list of diffs. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds true enough. As someone who's had all the arbs watchlisted for some time as part of writing the Arbitration Report, I've never seen any of the arbs revert their own vandalism.  It seems they either watchlist each others' pages, or have minions who do it for them. —Neotarf (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban under very significant restrictions something along the line of Worm above. If he wants to edit templates initially he can have one or two user space pages to develop them which would be deleted or blanked after proposed edits are made. I could also see perhaps allowing some edits in wikiproject space to perhaps develop lists like those in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles if prior permission from either admins or ArbCom is given perhaps particularly for US related projects. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ban until 12 months after the last sockpuppet edit was made, and not a single day sooner. Kumioko may say that he's decided to turn over a new leaf, but he has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort proving that he views this community with contempt, and I see absolutely no reason to believe that he's changed a bit. If anyone has shown themselves undeserving of even a single iota of lenience, it is Kumioko. So no deals, no compromise, no exceptions, he sits out the full year. Period. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">cont 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support continued ban. I've been flipping back and forth on this issue. I don't like the extortion aspect. It would be nice if one used a single name. There was productivity. There are huge mood swings. Two things tip me. First, he has not identified his evading accounts. He says he doesn't know all of them. That's fine, but I'm not going to play in the sandbox where we lift the ban and then he identifies the accounts. It should be the other way around. Second, there seems to be a fair amount of pride in his ability to evade. Too much does not feel right. Glrx (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support current indefinite ban. It's been only three days since this user's last round of name-calling and attempts at harassment (and that throwaway sockpuppet's remarks were quite mild compared to some of the nonsense that Kumioko has spouted recently). What on Earth have they done to merit un-blocking or -banning? What kind of message would it send out to all the other blocked/banned ex-contributors with their various axes to grind? That if you disagree with the community's wishes, all you have to do is complain, abuse, intimidate and harass with sockpuppet after sockpuppet until the community gives in and gives you what you want? No, that isn't how things work.  Super Mario  Man  ( talk ) 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might send the message that if you come forward with a reasonable request, we will let you have a shovel and do some volunteer labor. Maybe other people would come forward and we could give them shovels too. There's plenty of digging to do. Everyking (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Provided that the hole dug up isn't immediately filled in again with a resumption of the battleground behaviours that caused the user to be banned in the first place, that would be a productive approach. I see nothing in the statement below to convince me that Kumioko has moved beyond that counter-productive mentality.  Super Mario  Man  ( talk ) 02:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support continuation of ban Given that he or she is still socking, this is a no-brainer. Happy to consider this once the WP:STANDARDOFFER conditions are met, but not now. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban. says that  if we unban, we are making  a statement that  socking  is fine. By  the same token, this Wikipedia has a history  of unblocking  editors who  have a long and pronounced reputation  of not playing  by  the pillars. Thing is, such  users have histories of being  valuable editors. I've always maintained that  being  a valuable and/or prolific editor should not be a get-out-of-jail-free ticket, but  in  a couple of instances it  has worked.


 * I'm not sure whether Kumioko  wants the ban lifting  simply  as a matter of principle, or to be able to  return to  regular  editing, but contributing to an encyclopedia does seem to be on his list of things to do. He  is not one of those disruptive adolescents we have to  deal  with  who  won't  take 'no' to  their unblock  requests for an answer; Kumioko  is a mature individual whom I've met in RL and who strikes me as being dedicated to the project.


 * I feel sure that  if allowed to  return Kumioko would do  some  serious editing and stop  making  such  a drama about himself (he will  never be able to  compete with  Wikipedia's other soap  operas anyway). He also  needs to  take a back seat at  WT:RfA, one of his favourite pastures where his 'edits to public areas' were indeed of  'the Wiki-is-broken-everything-sucks variety'  , because a) he'll  never be an admin, and b) he's not really  a member of the anti-admin mob either.   'He doesn't think adminship is bad; he originally got pissed off because he wanted to be one and the community wouldn't let him. His definition of "corrupt system" is a system that would not let him be an admin. '


 * I fully undertand the comment by   whose opinions I  greatly  respect, and while it  is of great  concern, I am sure that  arbs and thier committee are always going  to  be the target  of discontent  from  banned/blocked users - at least that's what I have been told in  confidence by  several  arbcom  members whom I  know personally.


 * So, bottom line is, I'm more amenable to  lifting  the ban on Kumioko that  I  would be, say, on  a prolific quality  editor  who  can't  resist  going  round the site making  unprovoked attacks on people (and even behind their backs), and wallowing  in  the unrestrained use of expletives without impunity.  I'm with , , and  on  this ban overturn, and if Kumioko is allowed back but does not  STFU, I for one would feel very badly let down. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but "one of those disruptive adolescents... who won't take 'no' to their unblock requests for an answer" seems to me an all-too-accurate description of Kumioko's behaviour. Can someone who writes "Your just a big poopoo head for being mean to me. I demand you let me come back NOW" really be treated as a mature individual? JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , actually, looking at it  from  a different  angle, it's the kind  of thing  I  might  say  myself, but from the intelligence of its licence as a literary device. Knowing  Kumioko  personally, I  can certainly  vouch  for the fact  that  he is not  a child and gernally  does not  talk  like one any  more than I  do - or do  I? ;)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of ban Frankly I'm never likely to support an unban where an editor has shown such a continued blatant disregard for the ban. This isn't because we should punish people who evade bans, but rather because we cannot trust such an editor. In fact, despite Kumioko not hiding who they are, this still seems to be a classic example of that where the statements suggest they either think they are so important it doesn't matter what other editors think of their contributions or behaviour or alternatively they aren't really here to improve wikipedia. Either way, they should expect to be unwelcome as long as they have that attitude. The suggestion an unblock is fine because Kumioko can easily be reblocked if problems persist is IMO a little naïve. History has shown that what tends to happen is one of two possibilities. Either there will be a large number of heated discussions, perhaps with multiple blocks and unblocks while supporters and opponents argue over whether the edits have cross the line and whether supporters are enablers or opponents are trying to ensure the unblock is doomed to fail. Or alternatively the unblock is really doomed to fail since the editor cannot possibly comply with the very strict requirements (which isn't surprising when they can't even keep away). Also, a number of editors have noted the unfairness to other editors who are or have been willing to follow resonable limitations, of unblocking Kumioko. While bans should never be intended to punish per se, we should consider the message we're sending. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As to where we should go from here, I'm fine with people ignoring Kumioko's provocations when they aren't causing problems. I recognise this probably isn't going to change much since there's often disagreement on whether something is causing problems and it's problematic for admins to ignore something if there is a complaint from someone. Note that even if we are a little more lenient, this isn't an unblock in all but name since Kumioko's contributions can and probably often will still be reverted at any time and there should be not debate over that (editors can still choose to take over the edits, as they always can). Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support continuation of ban. The standard offer is available: after six months with no socking (including IPs) and no harassing e-mails, I'd be prepared to consider an appeal. And I don't personally consider IRC part of Wikipedia, so if he can't stay away from that, that's fine by me. But count me among those who remember Kumioko's WikiProject USA activity not as improvement to the encyclopedia, but as a debacle that left us with numerous other editors hurt and alienated and a huge mess to clean up. I thought in fact that being able to help clean up that mess a bit faster was the plain-speech explanation for the mysterious technical stuff given in his last RfA? I have never seen any regret for causing that mess, here I see it simply denied as a lie, and then there is the obstructive negativity and harassment. I don't trust this editor, nor do I see us as having such a desperate need for technical whizzes that we should overlook the disruption and view him as indispensable. Six months of giving it a total rest, and (assuming the WMF still lets us talk) I'll re-examine the issues, including the USA/States story. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban. I'm surprised to see that Kumioko was banned. I think he can get carried away in discussions about Wikipedia's governance, he then focusses too much on individual editors. But the people here who argue for continuation of the ban are in a way making the same mistake. The problem is almost never some particular person, because under slightly different circumstances that person (e.g. Kumioko), would usually never have gotten into any problems here. It is only in rare cases that we deal with truly disruptive users who are incapable of doing anything useful here. Problems like in Kumioko's case are really caused by the social dynamics aspect of Wikipedia having grown out of proportion and distracting too much from editing here. It is this social media part of Wikipedia that has to be reigned in instead of banning and keeping editors like Kumioko banned. Count Iblis (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overturn ban I have spent a considerable amount of time investigating this over the past year or so and my conclusions are
 * 1) Kumioko contributed more to Wikipedia than most of us are aware.
 * 2) A number of fairly objectionable events occurred which wore down his patience.
 * 3) He got banned on the basis that he was complaining about those events, and this was causing disruption.
 * 4) His character is not to accept unfair judgement, either for himself or others.
 * 5) He continued to protest his ban, socking around his block and emailing various parties.
 * 6) Instead of either investigating his complaints, or ignoring them (we all have spam-filters I take it?) various functionaries escalated futile attempts to technically prevent him leaving messages, thus prolonging the confrontation.  In this the reprehensible behaviour of some others was far worse than anything Kumioko had done.

Provided Kumioko wishes to concentrate on encyclopaedia building, and steer clear of the those places where drama lurks, I see no problem with his returning. On the other hand I am aware that there are editors that have treated him badly in the past, and he may need assistance if they return to those practices. Certainly I am happy to assist when I can, and I believe there are a number of others who will do likewise.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Continue ban. Regardless of what Kumioko has contributed in the past, his behavior reached the point where he was banned. As Rich Farmbrough points out above, his behavior since the ban has become worse - regardless of what others may or may have done or not have done, Kumioko's behavior and responses are the measure of what needs to be taken here. He has, speaking frankly, engaged in trolling as part and parcel of his sockpuppetry, and we need not to reward trolls and sockpuppeteers by giving them what they were trolling and sockpuppeting to get. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support ban Kumioko would be smart to disappear for six months or a year.  There is no WP:DEADLINE.  I don't agree that he/she should be forced to use a new name.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 203 Reasons to maintain the ban   .  Leaky  Caldron  18:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional information One of the other arbs took the time to count how many emails they had gotten from him since the ban. It's just over a hundred, plus a dozen or so talk page notifications. The committee did not even issue the ban, and arbs who are not even on WP:BASC were bombarded with emails and talk page messages. And because we're arbs and nobody likes the committee that makes his harassment of us ok? I don't think so. If you get unfairly fired from your job and you then spend six months harassing the human resources director and every other person in the office whether they have anything to do with the situation or not, how likely do you think it is you would get your job back? No, they would have restraining orders on you by that point.


 * If the community is foolish enough to reward this trolling with an immediate unban instead of at least following WP:OFFER then I would like it made clear that he is to leave the arbs alone. No emails, no talk page messages, no pings (he has bragged on Wikipediocracy about how his trolling caused a few arbs to turn off echo notifications) nothing, no contact at all.


 * Just so everyone is clear on this, the committee has done nothing with regard to this user. We didn't ban him, we didn't contact his ISP or his employer, (in fact we have reason to believe that the supposed report was a complete fabrication and that nobody actually contacted his ISP/employer (sorry, but the reasons involve confidential information so I can't be more specific)) all we did was refuse to overturn a community-imposed ban in response to his threats and childish trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing? There was a discussion on Jimbo's talk page |here, there have been statements by individual arbs, and there was an arbitrator's blog post here, discussing Kumioko by name, in a venue he was blocked from and unable to defend himself. The post discusses the possibility of legal actions against Kumioko in the light of CFAA, the statute that federal prosecutors went after Aaron Swartz with. There was nothing here that called for any more than WP:RBI and DDFTT.  This was not ArbCom's finest hour. —Neotarf (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Statements from Kumioko
Kumioko emailed this to me last night and asked for it to be posted here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Further Kumioko comments in this section were also copied here by me, for the record. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"I want to thank Fluffernutter and those so far who are supporting my return. I solumnly apreciate it. I want to clarify that I wanted to wait for this discussion to get going before I made a statement, not that I refused to make a statement. Now that it has started I want to respond to a few concerns. I also want to apologize for my conduct. At times i reacted poorly when I felt I was being unfairly attacked. It pissed me off and I felt betrayed but I could have done things differently.

''It has been noted that the Kumioko account is locked and inaccessible. That is true. If allowed to return I request and recommend I be allowed to use the Reguyla account. That is my account name in Wikia and other Wikimedia projects and for those that know my real name it should be clear its me.''

''I also want to clarify that comments that I have been socking for years are being grossly exaggerated. I hadn't socked prior to my ban in February. I did have multiple account renames, a bot and edited from some IP's as well as an ill received attempt to start new, but I never socked prior to my ban. Since my ban, I have gone out of my way to identify the accounts I used as being me. Even when edit Filter 608 was created preventing the use of Kumioko by an unconfirmed account, I made it clear who I was. The point of the socking policy is to prevent editors from attempting to mislead the community as to their identity and prevent things like voting multiple times so I beleive I followed the spirit of that.''

''A couple of editors (Hasteur and Binksternet) have mentioned WikiProject United States and how I tried to strong arm other projects. This is utterly false and frankly is just hyperbole and lies. I did ask every US project and some said no. I had no problem with that and moved on. Several other projects agreed and other still were completely defunct or inactive. In every case I gave the opportunity for discussion on the projects talk page and this is easily verifiable for anyone who wants to take the time to look. In fact, whenever a project wanted out, I assisted them in doing so even creating and or expanding their WikiProject banners and helping them do maintenance on their projects afterword. Again, this is all easily erifiable. Its also interesting that Binksternet is so desperate for a justification he mentions Racepacket who has bee banned for years due to his conduct on the project. So I challenge both Hasteur and Binksternet with providing some proof of my misconduct with relation to WikiProject US. WikiProject US has absolutely nothing to do with my ban and Hasteur is just making that up. Some projects and editors have severe article ownership issues and took my tagging "their" articles with the WPUS banner as a hostile takeover.''

''My intentions if allowed to return are to return to some editing. It is exceedingly unlikely I will return to high output again any time soon but there are plenty of things that need to be done and articles that need to be created. Most likely I will do things like categorization and stuff relating to Medal of Honor recipients and perhaps some tasks around WikiProject United States and probably template work.''

''Now setting aside my return, my ban is also having negative effects on this project and its users and editors in some obvious and not so obvious ways. First, I was a very high output editor with a lot of experience in technical areas. Secondly, multiple edit filters were created to keep me out and they all failed to do anything except block others and slow the project. Every edit made has to go through the filters, so that means every edit made goes through the multiple filters put in place to futily keep me out. All they, and the rangeblocks that were put in place do is keep out other editors from contributing. This also adds work for other people, for example as [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman] stated above I did some positive edits yesterday and he reverted them blindly leaving multiple articles without references or a template saying they were unreferenced for no other reason than I am banned.''

''I also notice that several editors have likening this to blackmail. I obviously disagree with this. I have contended all along that my ban was done in an abusive way to manipulate the outcome in their favor. They did that because 2 previous attempts to get what they wanted failed. So they continued resubmitting with shorter duration to ensure that only those few who wanted me out of the project would comment. Additionally, banning a long term editor for making a snide comment on a users talk page is just a weak excuse to justify another ban request.''

I will continue to follow the discussion and provide input when requested orto clarify misunderstandings or false statements." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs)

Further comment from Kumioko: "I am trying not to respond to too many comments but I wanted to clarify a serious accusation that Basalisk made: In response to a comment made by Basalisk. It was not me, who threatened a users employement. It was in fact AGK of the Arbcom who did that and some unnamed editor posing as a member of Arbcom who sent a letter to my employer identifying my real life identity and notifying them that I used my work computer to edit Wikipedia. I have never and would never threaten a users employment nor would I out them, let alone to their employer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs)

Final comment from Kumioko: ''"As I read the comments in this discussion a lot of users seem very focused on my conduct after the ban was initiated and I have already admitted I overreacted and apologized. I want to mention however that the whole reason we are even having this discussion is because I refused to just lie down and take what I knew was a manipulation of Wikipedia's banning policy. Wikipedia loses too many editors because a handful of others run them out of the project and and they simply take the abuse. I have seen it many times and I am certain most or all of those voting in this discussion has as well. Some have even admitted they were on the receiving end. Its certainly understandable that people are concerned over my reaction to my ban, but if the original ban would have been handled appropriately, as this one has been, then I would not have had any cause to rebel at all. I had been asking that my ban be reviewed and or revoked from day one and thanks to Fluffernutter and all those who voted here either way, that has happened. So regardless of what the outcome is here for my ban, I sincerely hope that there is some future discussion about how to handle bans of editors in the future and some standard procedures are implemented so that all editors are treated fairly on this site and a handful of involved editors cannot simply band together and force someone they don't like out claiming a community consensus. I would contend this should be even more necessary for someone with a long history of contributions to the project."'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs)

Comments
Sadly, this reinforces many of the "Support ban" items above. Claiming that other editors are telling lies and asserting that the ban is having a "negative effect" on the project demonstrate that K just doesn't get it. The claim that the socking has been minimal is laughable and there is no contrition at all for the personal attacks that those socks performed over and over again. This statement will not be changing my opinion of the need to maintain the ban. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You could have done things better? What? You are using Wikipedia for WP:Battle. I even recall one of your sock's comment on NE Ent, merely because they changed their mind about your behavior, and proposed the ban. It appears you are convinced that everyone who disagrees with your behavior and its consequences is your enemy for which you seek retribution -- but no one is here, or wants to be here, for that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That the user denies that they went on a proactive campaign of forcing projects that were semi-inactive to join with WPUS against the advice of several similar projects (see USROADS venomous rejection of the WPUS scope) and the level of scope that caused many projects to unite in a "NEVER" consensus only to have the user sneak around behind the scenes and force their interpertation of the policies through suggests that there is cause for their sitebanning. That he uses deliberately charged language that implies intent in their denial of the charges instead of other language (lies vs. mistaken in their assertions) shows that their temperment has not mellowed since they were last up for consideration. Add to that (IIRC) 2 candidacies for RfA that demonstrated the same "I'm taking my toys and going home" mentality that they demonstrated in WPUS and the numerous "The Wikipedia community is corrupt for banning me" messages that were sent semi-anonymously. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This quote "multiple edit filters were created to keep me out and they all failed to do anything except block others and slow the project. Every edit made has to go through the filters, so that means every edit made goes through the multiple filters put in place to futily keep me out" confirms my suspicion that this request for unbanning is essentially extortion. Unban me because I am causing shit here and it will stop if you unban me. "futily keep me out" speaks volumes as to his opinion. If anything this increases the resolve of my opinion that this user should not be welcome back. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course creating such an edit filter was doomed to failure. What was more ridiculous was that the only unambiguously good thing about Kumioko's socking was that he always identified himself. Had the filters been successful,  they would have denied him this honourable action.
 * Moreover Kumioko is perfectly correct that the extra edit filter is damaging, specifically because it can cause other edit filters to not trigger, and allow vandalism through.
 * While I cannot condone Kumioko's socking, I can completely understand it. I cannot understand the mentality of those so determined to keep him from the site, that they made it personal, made it a battle, and by escalating it intensified the conflict.
 * I'm not sure if the more egregious slurs that were hurled at Kumioko during this period have been discussed here, but suffice it to say that they are soem of the worst I have seen on Wikipedia.
 * This is not just Kumioko acting in isolation, it is a case of rather unsettling persecution by people who should know better, to no good effect and with predictable results, precisely the opposite of those the community might have hoped for.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

There are two issues here - one of which is K's iterated problematic behaviour concerning the site ban (which is not likely to impress a majority of editors opining here), and the second is the question as to whether some specific rules ought to be made to prevent small groups of editors (under twenty, as a suggestion) from making decisions without a broad discussion over an moderately extended period (certainly more than 48 hours). While this is not the proper venue for such a change, I fear, I would hope someone would propose in a proper venue that "site bans on editors shall be discussed for no less than 5 days, and be addressed by no fewer than 36 editors" in order to prevent any future assertions that such bans are either placed by any small group of editors, or placed without a full discussion (noting that many editors do not actually live on their computers). Collect (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a problem with letting Kumioko back without a proper demonstration that past behavior won't be repeated. If Kumioko did X amount of good work and could do more in the future, we need to consider the opportunity cost, the 50X or 500X good work that could be lost because other editors leave or don't join because they are frustrated by his uncooperative behavior. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Exaggerations do not improve arguments. If Kumioko is clean for the next 4+ months, I suggest that the "we will lose 500 editors (or whatever)" type of argument holds no water.  I would note the initial ban was done with 48 hours total discussion, and involved a relative handful of people compared with this discussion,  thus it is reasonable to state that any consensus here has more weight Wikipedia-wise than did the prior discussion.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Allowing Kumioko back on a "split decision" risks a revolving door situation where the prior issues persist, and he just gets re-blocked or re-banned. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is commonly accepted that there needs to be a clear consensus to overturn a community ban. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Olive">Chillum</b> 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CBAN, there should have been a "a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" for the original ban, and the discussion should have been closed by "an uninvolved administrator". The closing administrator is supposed to "assess the strength and quality of the arguments made", not just flush the toilet. Kumioko was told he could come back in 6 months, and he has. If the closing admins decide to reinstate his ban, they should be very clear about the arguments for banning him in the first place, and not just the the fact that he has objected to an out-of-process ban discussion. —Neotarf (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The core crimes Kumioko committed in the eyes of many of his detractors was providing rational and constructive criticism of the admin system. The subsequent sockpuppet imbroglio is a side show that arose from a natural sense of injustice and frustration at not being heard. The real issue here is whether the admin system is open to rational change, or at least rational debate. The answer is that it is not, and that Kumioko's ban will not be lifted while legacy admins are included in the voting process. The "editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" and don't have a conflict of interest are the editors who are not also legacy admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The irony of this attempted well poisoning is that a large part of Kumioko's descent into madness stems from his rejection at RFA. He wanted to be exactly what he claims to hate so badly that he tried four times with a generally worsening attitude after each failure. These are not the actions of someone offering "rational and constructive criticism", but that of someone holding a grudge against the system. Resolute 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The well has long been irremediably poisoned. Though I agree Kumioko's desire to be an administrator under the current regime was bizarre. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, administrators or the Byzantine way they're chosen is beyond criticism. I myself labour under an ArbCom ban that prevents me from being critical of RfA, or even effectively taking part in one. Eric   Corbett  20:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to, "The core crimes Kumioko committed in the eyes of many of his detractors was providing rational and constructive criticism of the admin system." Eh, no. That's crap. I am a detractor, though I suggested above that we lift the ban (though after their high-handed comments I am less certain of that), but I never thought that Kumioko offered anything rational and constructive. The ongoing criticism of ArbCom and poor old Beeblebrox and abusive admins and blah blah blah is nothing but a figleaf for trolling. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * C'mon now, you have never, to my knowledge, acknowledged even one of numerous rational and constructive criticism that have repeatedly been made of the admin system. Kumioko frequently voiced many of these concerns in rational and constructive ways. Are you seriously claiming that you are unable to recognise the validity of any of these? You refer to "their high-handed comments". Your their is unspecified. What high-handed comments are you referring to? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am referring to comments Kumioko made apparently in response to this discussion, which have a pretty high NOTTHEM content. I'll gladly accept criticism of the system, and I have plenty to spare, but I won't take it from Kumioko (and not from a couple of other regular critics with no leg to stand on). But that's beside the point in this discussion. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Kumioko's downward spiral originated with admins flatly refusing to acknowledge legitimate issues around the way the admin system operates. This unclean strategy is now the main way admins deflect legitimate criticism, and is the core reason Kumioko ended up in meltdown. Is that what you are calling "crap"? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies not only hasn't acknowledged numerous rational and constructive criticisms that have repeatedly been made of the admin system, he is frequent apologist for rogue/abusive admin behaviors:
 * For the record, I think Todd [...] is a fine admin. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 &bull;
 * Eric, Kevin is one of the good guys. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2014 &bull;
 * Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with Kumioko? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all. Perhaps IHTS is cruising for yet another IBAN with yet another editor? I can't imagine why, but the bitterness does not seem to be abating. Meh. Doc   talk  07:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

, although I certainly concur with  you  that  Kumioko  should be allowed to return, from  past  experience with  your  editing  history, forgive me for wondering  whether your presence on this discussion has more to  do  with  your  clear antipathy  towards all  things admin than the actual  matter in  hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No . I understand why you might feel that way, but that's not right at all. The antipathy I have is towards dysfunctional admin systems. There's an important difference between admin systems and the admins themselves. I have often argued for a well structured admin system that would provide better support for both admins and content builders who are not admins. I have given probably more barnstars to individual admins I felt deserved them than to non admins, and have often supported individual admins I felt were being unfairly treated. I can easily document this. However, this has nothing to do with Kumioko, and your comments do not belong here. Please take the matter somewhere else if you want to pursue it. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , as so  aptly stated:  I'll gladly accept criticism of the system, and I have plenty to spare, but I won't take it from Kumioko (and not from a couple of other regular critics with no leg to stand on). But that's beside the point in this discussion..


 * I did say  'all things admin'  so thank you  for admitting  so  inadvertently  that  you are at  least partly using  this discussion  as yet  another  platform for criticising the  admin system (which  in  fact directly criticises the admins themselves, because they are the system). So the comments of how kind you are to admins  are nothing to  do with Kumioko and do not belong here either. 'Nuff said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I don't belong here and you want to ban me for criticising the system. This is the start of your new campaign. Well I certainly understand why you are so angry, but this is really not the place. You say somewhat grandly that "the admins themselves... are the system". No, they are not. They are merely members of the admin system, a small but dysfunctional addon. The members of the system are predominantly content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Question for  - Do you agree, and admit, that behavior since the ban was inappropriate? Are you also willing to identify every account that was created (regardless if they were used to edit or not) so they can be properly identified and blocked?  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 16:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, relaying what he's emailed me here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "In response to Dusti's Question under comments. Yes, I agree that I reacted poorly and should have been more calm and not acted as rashly as I did. I also agree that I did a great many things since my ban that were counter to policy. As noted I always attempted to make clear who I was though so there should be no indication that I tried to mislead anyone, although I am guilty of ban evasion because I did not honor the ban that was in place. Just because others are allowed to violate policy doesn't mean I should. Two wrongs don't make a right. On the account identification question that is a bit harder. I can give you most, with some research, but no one was tracking them including me. I honestly do not know all of the ones I created partially because some that were blocked were not me, just innocent editors caught in the dragnet and I didn't write them down or keep track of them. Once they were blocked I just forgot about them and moved on. Additionally some were IP's, several of which were in public places and not accounts. Again, my intent was not to deceive anyone as to whom I was. I also want to clarify that I will abide by the result of this ban regardless of its result. I did not and do not recognize the previous discussion as a representation of the communities will for reasons I and others have already discussed above. This discussion however has what would be considered a high turnout and I will not refute the result regardless of what that might be. If the result of this discussion is that I go away then that is what I will do." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for replying to me . I appreciate your honesty, and it goes a long way towards showing your intentions and your current thought process. Should you be unblocked, and should there be restrictions put into place (in accordance with your recent behavior) - would you abide by those? I'm of course referring to any topic bans, account restrictions, editing restrictions, etc. that may be put into place. I would also like to point out that I've striken my !vote above as the concerns I intially raised are no longer valid.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC
 * On the plus side, the "socking" wasn't egregious because he signed the posts "Kumi" so no deception was involved. It was simple ban evasion.  As a compromise I propose that Kumi quietly starts a new account and edits without needless conflict.  If after 6 months there have been no serious problems and he wants to come back here to get the ban officially lifted, I'd support that. Jehochman Talk 19:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A perusal of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kumioko shows that the bulk of them did not have "Kumi" as part of their name. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Kumi" was in the sig, not the name; Kumioko has also claimed that a good number of the blocked accounts were not him, we all know checkuser is imperfect. —Neotarf (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Quietly"? That's been tried before, which is one reason Kumioko has some extra accounts people keep needling him about. The fact is, Kumioko's writing style is pretty unique and identifiable. And somewhere upthread someone is claiming that you have already deleted some IP edits he made "without needless conflict".  So it seems that if Kumioko attempts another clean start, the people who were involved with his ban the last time around are just going to revert him on sight, as soon as they recognize him. —Neotarf (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Question for : You admitted in IRC that while ban evading two days before this request you were making requests at WP:FFU including one for Files_for_upload which, at the time had not been handled. You've also stated in IRC and in this discussion (through an intermediary) that you were not going to ban evade/sock through this discussion. However, the request at WP:FFU was just updated with the FUR that I requested by an IP editor with only one other edit. This very much looks like your MO. So my question is did you ban evade during this discussion or is this perhaps a major highly-unlikely coincidence?  TLSuda  (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Response from : "In response to the question about files for upload from TLSuda. I said many things in IRC but I do not believe I ever mentioned files for upload. I did attempt to give an editor some help with regard to editing some images and suggested some venues that might be helpful but that was it on the topic of files. I stopped doing anything with files long ago for multiple reasons not the least of which is the Wikimedia Foundations failure to establish an appropriate method of filtering porn from children. So I think you might have me confused with someone else, or it was another example of someone Joe jobbing my username. I also want to clarify while I am here, something that several editors have brought up on the issue of me not being here to build an encyclopedia. I started editing in about 2007, amassed hundreds of thousands of edits, created hundreds of articles, featured/good content, tried to restart multiple WikiProjects, created a Newsletter, restarted the US Collaboration of the Month and on and on and on. That all becomes relevant because if I were not here to build up the project it would have been evident somewhere before I did, or at least attempted to do, all that. In fact it occurs to me that if more editors were here to build an encyclopedia more of those tasks might have succeeded. My disgust for the Arbcom, a handful of abusive admins and the increasingly toxic editing environment of Wikipedia should not be confused with not caring about the project. So although there are valid arguments about me mentioned by editors here in this discussion, me not being here to build an encyclopedia is not one of them. Those comments are nothing more than some editors attempting to convince people that don't know better because anyone who takes the time to actually look or ask, will quickly see that." as usual, copied here by A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what, you are correct. I very inappropriately had you confused with Russavia. I deeply apologize for confusing the two. Both of you have been on my brain for very different reasons, and it seems that I've fallen into another barrel with respect to Russavia. I will do better at verifying before making such allegations. My apologizes,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Another question for  in this message on 15 June you said "Even today, I made about 200 contributions, mostly vandalism and fictitious page moves and most haven't been undone." Was that true? Have you done other "vandalism and fictitious page moves"? Do you have a record of them, so that they can be put right? JohnCD (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from ban proposer NE Ent
I encourage editors to review the prior ban discussions.
 * I did not propose the ban because K criticized admins. (Those familiar with my contribution history will be aware of how ridiculous a statement that is). I proposed ban because K was actively discouraging a new editor [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACowhen1966&diff=597111653&oldid=596997571], who subsequently ceased editing [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cowhen1966]. I'm certainly not claiming that was because of K's action -- post hoc ergo propter hoc remaining a logical fallacy -- but his dragging other editors into his drama does not improve the climate of Wikipedia.
 * There's nothing wrong with passion and advocacy for a point of view, but working in a collaborative environment requires not only arguing your point, but being willing to maturely accept when things don't go your way.
 * Rewarding a persistent ban violator engaged in a series of personal attacks against their perceived opponents is a really bad policy.
 * The discussion here should be a wake-up call for admins. I've been around a long time, and this editor vs. admin vibe is getting worse. It is possible to do your jobs -- protecting editors from disruptive folks -- without being overly aggressive and rude about it, as many of the better admins routinely demonstrate. But too often ya'll are silent when your less skillful colleagues are mucking things up, and too often you say "admin" when you should be saying "editor".
 * K is entirely right about the edit filters -- they don't work, they consume some resources, and provide recognition of a ban evader. Someone please delete them. NE Ent 10:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I for one did read the prior discussions before commenting. I tried very hard to identify the original cause of Kumioko's ban.  One discussion referred to another and I ended up going round in circles.  It looked like Kumioko had been caught in some kind of Kafkaesque trap, he must be guilty of something or there wouldn't have been all these previous ban discussions.  I had, in fact, seen the post NE Ent identifies as the reason for the original ban proposal, but had assumed it was just a small part of a much larger problem.  For the record, this was Kumioko's post.
 * I hope you learned your lesson. Never go to ANI and complain about bullying because once you name names, then its a personal attack and blockable. This is endemnic of the problems on Wikipedia. People are bullied and no one does anything. Then when they get completely frustrated by the lack of action they take it to ANI hoping it will be dealt with and they get blocked for the trouble. Its better just to stop editing and find something else to do with your time.
 * If that post really is the original reason for banning it is the lamest ban reason I have ever seen on Wikipedia and I'm not surprised he went rogue. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself. Many folks supported the ban (and many opposed it), for the reasons they listed in the prior discussion. If actively discouraging a new editor from participating in Wikipedia is a lame reason, then I am proud to be lame. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia first and foremost. Paraphrasing Neo's response to the query, What do you need? Besides a miracle  -- Editors. Lots of editors Clip from The Matrix NE Ent 12:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying he did not deserve a warning for that, or possibly a short block, But an indefinite ban? Really?? And in answer to your obscure Nemo question, Kumioko is an editor too, and at one time a highly productive one. If you think we need editors then you should think we need him. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who thinks Kumioko should be banned for "actively discouraging a new editor", why not take a look at this user's record. For anyone who thinks Kumioko should be permabanned for his comment to this user, I challenge you to read even ten minutes worth of this individual's walls of text, endless accusations against anyone who disagrees with him, paralyzing grammar and syntax, and ALL CAPS SHOUTING. It is only natural to sympathize with anyone making claims of harassment, given Wikipedia's climate of abuse, which is fostered daily by some admins. But in this case, I have examined every thread this user was involved in, and in every dealing with this user, the admins' halos remained untarnished. The WP:Competence is required essay exists for a reason. The advice Kumioko gave to this user was the most humane thing that could have been said to him. —Neotarf (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cowhen1966 claims at ANI that he is being hounded and has been given medication to help him sleep. The thread was closed without any examples of hounding being discovered.
 * A deletion discussion for Cowhen1966's article about a tele-evangelist. The article was deleted. Note that in this comment Cowhen1966 calls another user's comment "libellous at best and defamatory".
 * Deletion request for a photo of a tele-evangelist. The file was uploaded by Cowhen1966, who claimed he owned the copyright to it, but he denied any COI with the subject. No copyright was established and the photo was deleted.
 * ANI thread initiated by Cowhen1966, a wall of text claiming "Persistent bullying, harassment and endless threats". (For some reason this discussion is not searchable, but I can't figure out why.) As a result of the discussion, Cowhen1966 was blocked for a week.

Resolving the unresolveable
Splits in the community like this will endlessly recycle until the underlying reason for them is properly examined and dealt with. In the long term permanently banning Kumioko will achieve nothing. Nor will allowing Kumioko to return. Either approach will leave us with the same recurring issue.

This issue is to do with what has become the great taboo on Wikipedia: mentioning systemic dysfunctions of the administration system. Admins currently deal with this by ignoring it whenever it arises. There seems to be a strong belief that if you pretend hard enough that dysfunctions are not there, then they won't be there. Kumioko clearly articulated many of the systemic problems with the Wikipedia administration. He eventually went into meltdown because he couldn't cope with the current admin strategy of totally ignoring any constructive criticism unless it enhances admin privileges. I agree Kumioko was irritatingly self-absorbed and dedicated to being the centre of attention. But those are not reasons to ban him.

and have presented exceptionally censorious positions. Binksternet is a would-be admin who tends to oppose moves that might detract from the power of admins. His uncompromising opposition to Kumioko is based on the premise that only children can change. Because Kumioko is an adult and has behaved in a certain way in the past, he cannot now behave in any other way. I think you just made that up Binksternet. I'm decades older than you, and I still change (if mostly for the worse).

Beeblebrox has highlighted with the very best of his indignation the very worst of Kumioko's behaviour. But Beeblebrox himself had a mini version of Kumioko's meltdown when he experienced a small taste of the frustration Kumioko experienced (he was blocked on Commons). He exhibited many of the same behaviours he now complains of in Kumioko. I wouldn't behave that way myself, but I think Beeblebrox's behaviour was understandable and acceptable so long as it doesn't keep happening. The same applies to Kumioko.

is an admin who works tirelessly in his attempts to champion admins and sanitise Wikipedia from any critical comment. But Kudpung often works in paradoxical ways, pretending on the one hand to champion justice for content builders, but always cracking down hard on any positions that fail to preserve or enhance the privileges of admins. He is behaving the same way here, voting in what seems a liberal way for Kumioko's return. But at the same time he is cracking down on any notion that non-admins should dare criticise the admin system. According to Kudpung, "criticising the admin system... directly criticises the admins themselves, because they are the system". He is currently calling for a further crackdown on dissidents. Users who criticise or objectively analyze the system are "disruptive to the collaborative spirit of developing this encyclopedia".

Problems of the Kumioko type will persist unabated until the systemic problems with the admin system are definitively addressed at a community level in rational and constructive ways, and legitimate analysis of the system is not misrepresented by Kudpung and others as attacks on the admins themselves. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You have your facts wrong. I have never been blocked on Commons.


 * I was blocked by an extremely abusive admin on Meta, and that admin soon after was not an admin anymore. He trolled me, I called him an abusive dick, and he indef blocked me himself, without talk page access.


 * I did not respond to that abusive admin by going on a prolonged campaign of harassment, I simply appealed in the normal manner and was quickly unblocked because they were so obviously wrong. I don't have a problem with second chances. K has already had his. I should expect that at the very least we should point to WP:OFFER as his following those simple terms would be a sign that he is able to control  himself and curtail his campaign of harassment and trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Epipelagic, you called me a "would-be admin", as if that's a bad thing. (Kumioko was a would-be admin four times, as you know.) Actually, I'm satisfied taking a sous-admin position on Wikipedia, performing lots of cleanup, straightening out problems with a bit of muscle, and initiating discussions about disputes. As a non-admin I have more leeway to say what's on my mind, which I've done here. I don't, however, have any call to cause the sort of mammoth disruption that Kumioko engaged in, forever losing the community's trust in the process. Not, as you say, for the reason that Kumioko lacks the ability to change, since he's an adult. No, I don't trust Kumioko anymore because he has demonstrated how egregiously disruptive he can be. The problem for him is that his ability to be productive or be disruptive—on a whim—is now part of his record. The problem is that he is too changeable, rather than being incapable of change as an adult. Kumioko has shown us his incredibly bad side, and I don't think it will ever be useful to have him back. I would much rather see editors here who are good at plugging along steadily with maybe a couple of bumps. Not an editor whose titanic failures outweigh his achievements, however large they may be. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal #2 -- Proposal for "postdated overturn" of site ban
Proposed
 * That the site ban be ended on 1 January 2015 subject to Kumioko understanding that any disruptive acts before that date will negate this proposal.

Commentary on Proposal 2

 * Support as covering any concerns that any disruption has been too recent for an instant overturn, and also that the initial process may have been flawed compared with this already-longer discussion with more participants. Collect (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)   I find nothing to indicate a site ban which had all of 27 to 21 support in 48 hours was a clear community consensus, nor that 12 months is a sacred amount of time, nor that 4 1/2 months is far less than 6 months.   And I note "socking" where a person makes less than zero attempt to hide the fact is the same as WP:SOCK where a person attempts to make himself appear as separate people.  This proposal is not an exoneration of anyone - it is an attempt to actually find a reasonable course of action here. Collect (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What he was doing was not sockpuppetry, agreed, but it was block evasion. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, site ban should be ended 12 months from the day he stops evading. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree that 12 months from the last day of socking need to elapse. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would support 6 months, prefer 12 months. This guy has to demonstrate a willingness to not engage in evasion for a significant amount of time. Then I will welcome back with open arms. Allowing him back sooner would be an insult to every banned user who did not engage in block evasion before being allowed back. It would justify block evasion for others as well. I find those pointing out that he signed his posts and thus the socking was not that bad to be missing the point. Even if sock puppetry is not used to evade scrutiny it is still evading blocks and still sock puppetry. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Olive">Chillum</b> 13:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal (and ban as mentioned above) I think he should be allowed back without any conditions concerning block evasion. Nobody here could prove or disprove that a single edit during the block originated from Kumioko.  Therefore, adopting this proposal looks like a pretext for keeping Kumioko banned permanently.  He received and continues to have an unfair ban.  Italick (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , the above comment should read Oppose ban since the comment supports his return. RWCasinoKid (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I already posted my opposition to the ban somewhere above this. In this place, I oppose the proposal. Italick (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This is reasonably long enough to judge if the user has really reformed. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the ban could be converted into a block of limited duration, with an offer to end the block sooner if Kumioko avoids block evasion. Such an outcome would not be a pretext to keep him banned permanently.  Still I think it prolongs an unfair block. Italick (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, as one of the strongest critics of the idea to overturn the ban immediately. If he can serve out the ban for four months and days without a single ban evasion, it will in my opinion be a reasonable compromise.  Strongly disagree with the idea that he should be allowed back without conditions.  Understand the idea that he should serve a full twelve months, but note that this is a special case with issues about the propriety of the ban closure, and note that this does call for four months and days.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, for several reasons. First, it is not clear that this ban wasn't the concerted effort of a few who actively sought a target and wanted to "show him" just how powerful they were.  Second, the entire scenario of his "post-ban" behavior reminds me a bit of a catch-22.  While I don't support the strong language or personal insults, the way I'm reading the above indicates that some of the commenters here want to use Kumioko's resistance to unfair treatment as justification for furthering the unfair treatment.  Lastly, I agree with the comment above about running off the contributors.  Trust me, I've submitted users for blocks due to vandalism, and do support administrative oversight and sanctions in reaction to misbehavior, but this seems a bit over the top for this particular editor.  I agree with the conditions being proposed, and it's imperative that Kumioko follow the rules.  As one commenter put it, give him rope.  He'll either use it to the project's advantage or you can use it to exclude him forever.   Vertium '' When all is said and done 17:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Overturn ban and give the user due process. It's a classic case of a sanction gone wrong.  I could care less if this user edits, let alone over 80% of the community who devote their time to articles.  Which is the lesser of the two evils: a potentially good editor making more and more new accounts, or giving this person a conditional fresh start?  I always believe that people can change, if you give them a chance.  Kumioko has to promise not to communicate with any users he was involived with, aside from sticking to that name for at least 1 year. RWCasinoKid (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing the terms: Either Banned Means Banned and Kumioko should stop evading the ban for 6 months ~ 12 months and then we'll consider. Not after a recent attempt at socking/evasion of the ban. Hasteur (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing the terms. This seems like a case of moving the goalposts. Should you feel that he needs to demonstrate an absence from disruption, you should note that in your opposing comments that you would support lifting the ban in X months from now. In addition, the proposal leaves some ambiguity to what's considered disruption. If this were to pass, I'm more than certain that another discussion would occur to see if the terms were met. It's a bit too bureaucratic for my taste. Mike V  •  Talk  19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice. Proposal #1 is first choice. —Neotarf (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, I see no reason why the standard-offer six months should be shortened as a reward for egregiously bad behaviour including personal attacks and harassment, though I would accept four-and-a-bit months in preference to immediate return. Second, "no disruptive acts" is not strong enough, and is an invitation to wikilawyering about what is or is not "disruptive". The requirement should be no contact of any kind: no new block-evading accounts, no edits of any kind from accounts or IPs, no emails, nothing. Kumioko's problems seem to me mainly to result from lack of self-control, and absolute restraint for six months would be the best way to show that he is able to control himself. I think it very likely that he would also find it had a refreshing effect on himself, and would help to put things in perspective. It's only a web-site, there are other things in life. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So isn't that "support"? Why are these explanations not matching the votes? —Neotarf (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you. This section is about Proposal #2: "lift site ban on 1 January 2015 if no disruptive acts before that date". I oppose that, for the reasons stated. JohnCD (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You say " I would accept four-and-a-bit months in preference to immediate return". So it should say you "oppose four-and-a-bit months in preference to immediate return"? Your first choice is immediate return and your second choice is conditional return in January? —Neotarf (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have got me exactly backwards. I don't usually have such difficulty making my meaning clear. To spell it out: three of the options being discussed are: A: immediate unban; B: unban on 1 Jan 2015; C: the standard offer, unban after six months. B and C have conditions about behaviour meantime. My order of preference, most preferred first, is: C, B, A. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Changes indefinite into definite. We're asking for grief in six months about interpreting the conditions. If K is not unbanned now, then K can apply again on or after 1 January. Glrx (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why is January different than now? The only difference I can see is that unbanning him sooner would give him more time to make good edits. It's not a prison term, or at least it shouldn't be. There's no good reason for that, except to satisfy an authoritarian mindset that we should not have. Everyking (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the concept, Oppose the date. Twelve months from the day the discussion is closed, with a provision that any block evasion or personal attacks will reset the clock, seems appropriate.  I'm delighted that Kumioko states that he's learned what he's done was not appropriate and that he wants to go straight, but talk is cheap, and I'll believe it when I see that borne out in his actions.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Support as second choice. Proposal #1 is first choice.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose on principle. If the standard offer is six months, and there's been so much abuse up to a few days ago, the standard offer is already lenient enough, reducing the time to four months is simply unwarranted. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Second choice to proposal one passing. Cheers, Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 18:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice. Proposal #1 is first choice. Kumi did get a bit carried away with the socking, and I can understand why people might want this. I personally trust him to put his big boy pants back on and behave again if unblocked right now, because I think that unblock removes the "sense of injustice" that has developed. I'd say one other thing, to Kumi - if either of these pass, realise that a substantial number of folks (including me) believe that you acted like an utter dickhead, and please never do so again. You won't find people queuing up in support columns like this next time. Begoon &thinsp; talk  19:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as as second choice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Oppose for two reasons:
 * I am concerned we'll end up debating the meaning of "disruptive acts", e.g., "ban evasion? Oh no, he always identified himself and had to post in response to those abusive admins".
 * Assuming he fails to fulfill these conditions (and his past behavior says he will), then what? Are we back to debating the next step?
 * JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose No need to plan an unblock, as it is not timely to discuss the next step.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Slightly better than unblocking right now, but given the massive sockpuppetry and harassment documented by Beeblebrox, I see no good reason to be more lenient than the standard offer which is to wait six months before reapplying. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think Kumioko should ever be brought back to Wikipedia after his displays of childish petulance, irresponsibility and vengefulness. (I am counting myself as 'involved' because I have weighed in against Kumioko in other fora.) Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: No reason to consider any kind of early return program.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nope don't see this as being a good option. He does need to just walk away for awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal #3 -- Un-ban with different conditions for returning
If Kumioko doesn't sock or evade from this time 'til August 2015, then we should reinstate him? Any thoughts? GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay: So Kumioko was told he could have a review to come back after 6 months, but now you want to change it to a year? Your ban was for a year, right? So how would you have felt if you had waited a year, and then they said you had to wait two years? —Neotarf (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't sock or evade during my site-ban. I'm considering all those editors who have or are currently serving their bans faithfully. Anyways, in this situation, the cummunity will decide. I'm content with what it chooses. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true, you didn't. But I looked back at your situation and it was a little different.  You had an RFCU that lasted 12 days, you had official mentors, you had a topic ban, and finally a full arbitration case that lasted 16 days. Kumioko didn't have any of that.  He got banned at ANI in something like 48 hours. —Neotarf (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The cummunity will decide Kumioko's status. It's unfortunate that he didn't restrain himself these last 6 months. Had he done so, reinstatement would've likely occured months ago. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support this and 6 month version This is basically the standard offer. I take it as a given that this includes not sending any abusive e-mails out. I would not hesitate to welcome this person back if they demonstrate they can go a significant amount of time without being abusive or violating expected behavior. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Green">Chillum</b> 18:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As second best proposal, I support rescinding the ban while simultaneously converting it into a plain block for 6 months, which would hopefully run its course with Kumioko being allowed back automatically. I don't approve of inviting lawyering or impersonation of Kumioko by insisting that he show that he has not evaded the block a single time.  If Kumioko is engaging in serious abuse of the website during the 6 months, the topic of lengthening the block could be visited at this noticeboard later on.  I suggest if this is done that Kumioko's user pages be restored to their condition before the banning.  I am not suggesting that talk page access be granted during a continued block. Italick (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I would accept six months, but the terms must be absolutely clear, with no wiggle-room: no edits of any kind, from old accounts or new accounts or IPs; no emails; nothing. Six months completely away from Wikipedia. That would (a) show that he can control himself, and (b) give him space to detach himself, let his obsession fade, realise that there is more in life than this one website, and so (we can hope) come back in a more relaxed and co-operative frame of mind. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support making the block expire six months or January 1st, whichever is agreed upon. RWCasinoKid (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for same reasons as prior proposal. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Kumioko's terrible disruptions made me lose all faith in his ever being able to edit constructively. I do not see good behavior conducted over the course of the next year as sufficient to erase the extended disruption of which he is capable. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose (With comments): Untill Kumioko spends 6~12 months away from wikipedia with no detectable interaction (including throwaway sock accounts, throwaway IP addresses, emails to percieved reasonable admins, IRC sniping, etc.) they only lay the groundwork for other editors who have nearly followed the requirements for the StandardOffer but are short a month to start grousing loudly that if Kumioko can be an active irritant/disruptive force and get allowed back in, why shouldn't they. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Kumioko would be smart to disappear for six months or a year, then his/her good work would start to re-appear.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal #4 -- Perma-ban with no possibility of ever returning

 * Support. Far too much prolonged disruption to make a point, occurring over the course of months. I'm repeating myself when I say that Kumioko's response to his community ban was childish, petulant, vengeful, and a demonstration of his unworthiness. I no longer trust him for any task whatsoever. He's not a youngster who might eventually grow out of an asocial phase; instead he's a mature adult who is set in his ways. I see no way that he will ever be allowed to return. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How does this differ from the current indefinite ban that is in place now? I think that this proposal as it stands is not in line with current policy.  Regards, Crazynast 04:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as I don't believe anyone should be banned for life, unless they're uttering and/or attempting to carry out threats on others. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose life sentences on Wikipedia. There should be a path back for banned users, even if it is long and laborious. People can mature and change their outlook over the years, so "no possibility of ever returning" is too harsh. Furthermore, we should not pretend that we have authority over the community that is here five years from now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, again people can change. If there are signs of "evasion" after a long dormancy then let that count as time served, IAR, and give a conditional welcome.  RWCasinoKid (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The omens are not good, but I think there is a possibility that if Kumioko took six months completely away from Wikipedia that could (a) demonstrate that he is capable of self-control, and (b) help him get over what can only be described as his obsession and return to productive editing in a calmer and more co-operative frame of mind. We should not close the door on that possibility. JohnCD (talk)
 * Oppose for all the reasons given in  my  !vote to  unban. Moreover, I'm not  convinced he should have been banned in  the first  place. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Inappropriate rigidity (for anyone) and attempting to enforce it on anyone would be a pointless time sink. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't have the authority to ban someone forever, consensus can always change. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Orange">Chillum</b> 18:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose- WP:CCC Cheers, Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 18:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Wikipedia should not have the equivalent of a death penalty. People change quite a bit over the years. bd2412  T 22:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and support snow close of this POINTy section. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to snow close this section

 *  Support Oppose snow close. With the request that it be done by an uninvolved admin. This was proposed by NE Ent, but on second thought I can't support it.  If someone doesn't like these proposals, let them get consensus for something else, instead of trying to shut it down prematurely.  We already have consensus to let have a closure by a group of  uninvolved admins and to let it run for a long enough period of time so there is no question of the outcome.  The whole reason we are back here now is that the original ban discussion was shut down prematurely and the outcome was not seen as legitimate.  And now we see the same people trying to do the same thing here. —Neotarf (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was not proposed by NE Ent. This was done by NE Ent, then it was reverted by you, then it was proposed by you, then it was supported by you, then it was opposed by you. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Green">Chillum</b> 23:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have every seen a separate debate for a snow close. When the outcome is incredibly obvious then that is when a snow close should be done. It was done and you reversed it. Why would you reverse a snow close and then support it?<P>In case it is not obvious yes I support a snow close. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at greater length on Ent's talk page, as you well know. The consensus is for the closure to be done by a group of uninvolved admins. Ent is not an admin, and was WP:INVOLVED in the original dispute. —Neotarf (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get what a snowball close is. This is truly a meaningless proposal and it is just adding noise to the debate. Let it be closed. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 23:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think voting on a snow close kind of misses the point of a snow close. I certainly don't care because this is a meaningless proposal -- nothing we do today can prevent a Wikipedia of the future from deciding to revisit any editors ban. NE Ent 23:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the "proposal to snow close this section" need to be closed before we can snow close the section? Perhaps we need a "proposal to close the proposal to snow close this section". Might as well, this section could not get any sillier than it already is. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was NE Ent's proposal and I just put it up here because I reverted his close. Ent was involved in the original dispute, so I don't know why he is suddenly closing stuff here. —Neotarf (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is your proposal. NE Ent did a snow close which is a lot different that proposing a snow close, in that it makes a lot more sense. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Blue">Chillum</b> 23:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand now, it is so much more important to stick rigidly to some arbitrary rules that have only just been invented in this debate and are still under discussion than to actually use some WP:COMMON sense. You're right, let's carry on pointlessly debating this. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Or we could just repeat the same stuff that led to this whole mess to begin with. —Neotarf (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal #5, restore user-talkpage privillages
If Kumioko would use his talkpage for only attempting to get reinstated, I would be acceptable of his user-talk page privllages being restored. I know from personal experience, how frustrating it is to be muzzled, when wishing to plead your case. Indeeed, if others (like Russavia) would use their user-talkpage for only getting reinstatement, I'd support their user:talkpage restoration aswell. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, no reason not to do that. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Striking. Talk page access is not, in fact, blocked on the main account. It is on the sock User talk:KumiokoCleanStart to which the page redirects, but not on the main account itself. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I will then point out that I don't think using the talk page in regards to this unban discussion would be a violation of the existing ban. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 00:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, with the understanding that it is removed again in the event the ban is not overturned. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Green">Chillum</b> 23:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from Kumioko: "I saw the discussion about unblocking the talk page for my Kumioko account. Here is the problem, the Kumioko account is globally blocked. So that won't work, additionally, I removed the email address and scrambled the passwords for the KumiokoCleanStart account. So even if that account is unlocked, I wouldn't be able to log into it anyway. I would also note that the KumiokoCleanStart account is not a sock as has been mentioned but was a renamed account. There is a significant difference that I think is important in this discussion. If I may present a possibility. One of the accounts that is blocked as a "sock", Reguyla is actually an account that I created as a legitimate account because I use that on some of the other Wikimedia sites and at Wikia as well as others). So I created it to ensure someone else didn't. It is a global account on all Wikimedia Wiki's and for those that know my real name, you will notice the association. Of course its up to you all whether you want to unlock it or not, but i present that as a suggestion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs) as before, copied here by A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Lining up closers
As Nick wisely suggested above, this thread should be open for a sufficient amount of time, perhaps even seven days, and then closed by a team of uninvolved administrators. I am opening this section to see if any admins are willing to volunteer to be part of such a team, which will give the community time to verify their "uninvolvedness", to make sure the closers have credibility.  Go  Phightins  !  15:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's helpful I can volunteer to work on this. I am to the best of my knowledge completely uninvolved in the situation. In no small part this is because I have scarcely been active on this noticeboard for years, which in normal circumstances wouldn't be a recommendation but might well be for this one. The Land (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Who are you? I don't think I've ever seen you before.  :-)  Jehochman Talk 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've only been here ten years. :P The Land (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Does everyone agree that Mr. Jehochman is WP:INVOLVED, and not close or vote in this discussion? —Neotarf (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we all have our say due to us and that this is not a vote. Nobody has suggested he close it as far as I can see. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 20:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Premptively attempting to Disqualify admins from being involved in the close? That seems like White Knight proxying for Kumioko...  Neotarf, perhaps you'd do yourself (and the user you're advocating for) a favor in stopping your white knight proxying. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to advocate for Jehochman at all, I am advocating for a process that, unlike the last ban discussion, will be seen as legitimate. If you don't understand why the last one was not seen as legitimate, you should review it, especially the diffs, and the close. The community has already seen six months of turmoil as a result, and the Wikipedia community's reputation for fairness has been tarnished quite a bit in the offsite venues as well. Someone needs to look at that original banning discussion and see if the reasons for the ban, if anyone can figure out what they are, still apply here. Look at WP:CBAN  It specifically says that:
 * "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute."
 * "Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors..."
 * It is not an act of Knighthood to read the policy and expect that individuals who are WP:INVOLVED should be identified as such.—Neotarf (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC) bolding added —Neotarf (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is however a personal attack to premptively assert that users could not be impartial and respect Involved as an explicit lack of AGF. If Jehochman participated in the closing then we could remind them that they really shouldn't since they imposed the original Siteban, but to DSQ them in your manner only suggests a disqualifying opponents entirely which I have to say speaks louder of an organized attempt to overturn Wikipedia consensus by from an outside community. Hasteur (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh please do point out where I have preemptived or DSQed anyone; either show me the diffs or stop making personal attacks by accusing me of personal attacks, and not AGFing by accusing me of not AGFing. Then try addressing the original issue--the legitimacy of the proceedings. —Neotarf (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment of August 22nd 2014 at 20:04 that is the root of this entire subthread. Does everyone agree that Mr. Jehochman is WP:INVOLVED, and not close or vote in this discussion?  You're explicitly implying that Jehochman couldn't know better to not be involved in this close after they were the one enacting the block the last time. Hasteur (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So I take that as a "yes, I agree Jehochman is WP:INVOLVED". And no, I'm not aware of any block. —Neotarf (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help close this. I don't think I've ever been involved w/ Kumioko. Ping me on my talk page when the discussion winds down. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's too soon to start thinking about closing this, for two reasons. First, because one of the original complaints was that it only took 48h of discussion to ban them - we have numerous processes that typically last a week or a month - the insistence that a site ban discussion takes longer than 48h is valid even if made with unclean hands. Secondly, I don't think this current discussion has been really productive, because I only ever saw a single suggestion that the site ban is replaced with a topic ban, and it was not elaborated. Given how often I've seen topic bans used for other users, it really seems necessary to exhaust any possibility of using that in this case. This should all be done to avoid any impression of impropriety. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How can that objection be valid? CBAN says 24 hours so 48 doubles it, and so is per policy more than valid. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It says normally at least 24h. It costs us nothing to prolong these; if there's ongoing disruption, that's resolved with a block, not a ban. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * None of that is responsive. No one is proposing to close this in 24 or even 48, but that the prior was closed in 48 is not per policy a valid objection, and since the policy says 24, that is enough time to decide a ban, not a block, per policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This policy section prescribes a lower limit, but if there's objections about there not having been enough time to gather a decent sample of consensus, it would have been perfectly reasonable to prolong that time, if anything, as a demonstration of lenience. Not having done so just opened the door to this avenue of complaint. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, anyone can object on any basis and they do. That does not make it valid.  And no, the policy does not in fact "prescribe a lower limit", it describes a usual time. So, if one is closing, one checks, 'well, the usual time has passed, so what else is there to consider?' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree to run this debate more than the normal amount of time. That being said the prior ban does not seem to be incorrect due to it lasting 48 hours. I don't given any credence to the idea that the previous ban was rushed or unfair in any way. I support running this discussion longer if only to give extra credibility to an editor who just can't seem to believe that the community wants him banned. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 15:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

To recap, as near as I can tell, there are no objections to and.  Go  Phightins  !  02:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to 's question  above,  I  firmly  believe that  this issue is too complex to  be assessed by  any  one individual, so if there is to  be any  question  of selecting  a closing 'jury', I  would oppose  being on it. I  also  believe that this should allowed to  run  for a full  7 days and the closing  team should include a majority of admins, plus other users known for their integrity and skills in  adjudicating. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jehochman has already indicated he does not wish to close. There were three admins for the closure of Hillary's BLP, and that seemed to work out okay. I don't know anything about the two individuals who have come forward, but if there is a third person (and it doesn't look like Kudpung wants to be the third one), and no objections to the other two, then why complicate things any further. —Neotarf (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a very good idea. Four admins, three non-admins?  Go  Phightins  !  13:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The community banning policy is pretty clear about admins closing these things. This is not such a special case that we need a special admin/non-admin jury. I think more than 3 people would be overly confusing, the close should not be debate #2 after all. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 13:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what creating a team of 7 editors and admins will accomplish here. I'm all for adding non admins to craft the close, but I think we're getting ahead of ourselves creating an ad hoc mechanism rather than just treating this like a (very well attended) ban review. If we feel that the discussion is impossible to close under our normal mechanisms then arb com is the answer, not a mini arb com created on the spot. Protonk (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair point. IT sounded like Kudpung envisioned a larger jury, which in a special case, could be an appropriate application of IAR. I am fine with whatever.  Go  Phightins  !  16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Best to involve a senior editor
Many would-be closers are quite young, under 30 for example. Perhaps it would be best to involve a more senior editor, like User:Kudpung. He has mentioned on his own talkpage that he "did some heavy lobbying in the secret chambers of the Wiki senate", and subsequently he was "lobbying in London with some of the major movers and shakers of Wikipedia/Wikimedia" so obviously he is quite highly placed. In his own words, "I did my bit in getting the new Draft namespace approved, and again in getting some criteria of competency for reviewers established". He sounds like someone with quality on his mind! I think it would be great to get someone like this involved. Certainly those of us who are a little younger, can see the advantages of having someone with Kudpung's experience advising us about all these different aspects of lobbying that he knows about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will gladly vouch for 's old age. He makes me look young and handsome, which is one of many reasons I like him so much. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you  both  for your  kind words. However, although  I  am not  'involved', I  have sufficient  knowledge of Kumioko and his history to  prefer to reserve my space on this discussion to place a !vote and other comments instead, rather than being  part  of the closing 'jury'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who "many would-be closers" are ;-) So far as I can see only two people have actually said they would be interested in closing this discussion, myself and User:Protonk. Most of the material in the "lining up closers" section isn't actually addressing the issue. I have no idea how old Protonk and I'm 33, though I'm slightly surprised that anyone raises it as an isse.... The Land (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would be sufficient to request that the closers be experienced editors. Their personal age not relevant.  If the editors have track record of good judgment, that's enough. Jehochman Talk 16:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Age is wholly irrelevant, hard to believe this was suggested. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Blue">Chillum</b> 16:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome  onto  a jury, and having  met  him in  RL I  can vouch that he is certainly  more than old enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Waaay too complicated. Simply post a request to WP:BN for a close after the seven days; by definition, bureaucrats are those editors we most trust to neutrally assess a consensus. In addition, I gotta think that if it comes down to a close vote it's probably headed to arbcom anyway. NE Ent 22:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to say anything, since I didn't see NE Ent participate in the discussion, but at this point it should be mentioned that NE Ent was involved in the original dispute. —Neotarf (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Admin(s) are fine. 'Crats aren't super-admins, anyway. I think the solution to "waaay too complicated" is to dial it back and treat it like a contentious but normal ban review, not to up the ante. Protonk (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of closing in the usual way, it's better to let a closer read all the comments and understand what the sentiments of the community are and then let that closer discuss privately with Kumioko based on his/her reading of that sentiment. Based on these discussions that closer may or may not get the confidence that Kumioko can edit constructively here. This is how diplomacy works in the real world, it's far more likely to resolve the issue with Kumioko becoming once again a productive editor here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Subpage?
This section is getting long, and it is clearly going to get longer. I suggest we create a subpage for it. This will result in WP:AN being more accessible, the ban review being more accessible and most importantly will provide this unban discussion with a talk page.

Things like lining up the closers and pointing out who is involved and not can be done on the talk page instead of cluttering up the discussion.

Just an idea, anyone agree or disagree? <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:red">Chillum</b> 14:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I've never had any intention of closing this discussion, so don't worry further about that.  It's better to let somebody fresh have a look through it.  My opinions have already been stated and should be considered same as any others.  Jehochman Talk 17:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course Jehochman's opinion is important. But even though I would say he had good reasons for doing what he did at the time, it is also true that he was involved in the original dispute. —Neotarf (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comment from Kumioko
I'm sorry to just sort of plop this here, but it seems more likely to be read by adding it to the bottom than to the middle, where I put his other comments. Feel free to rearrange or rejigger the formatting if it helps the discussion move along. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs) copied here by A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comment from Kumioko Responses
You yourself admit that our sock policy prohibits alternate accounts for "Circumventing policies or sanctions". You did use such accounts to circumvent our block policies and to circumvent a sanction. So the standard offer has not been met. The standard offer may just be an essay but it is also our standard offer, we have been making this offer for years. I see no reason why we should hold you to a lower standard.

Just signing your name does not make it okay to sock, particularly when you do so to circumvent a block/sanction and to make such an aggressive comments to our editors. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 15:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Still NO!
 * Wikilawyering over what STANDARDOFFER is in the hierarchy of Pillars/Rules/Policies/Guidelines/Essays only shows that Kumioko is willing to do anything necessary to gain further attention from the enWP community.
 * Looking over the 3 conditions of the offer: wait 6 months without sockpuppetry: Failed as of 3 days before this new "appeal", Promise to avoid the behavior that lead to the block/ban: Uncertain, Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return: Hrm... (Mailstorming Admins, Mailstorming Arbitrators, causing people to have to turn off the echo pings because of your disruption, causing a edit filter to have to be put in place to prevent disruption, vowing to become the most prolific sockpuppeteer, vowing to get entire netranges blocked to cause collateral damage).  I thin you've creates such a maelstrom of extraordinary reasons that your standard offer clock for point 1 can start once you start legitamtately sitting out the 6 months (or doing some good work on other projects)
 * Reviewing the "Variations" section On the other hand, if the indefinitely blocked/banned user continues to be especially disruptive, or has engaged in particularly serious misconduct, then some administrators may become unwilling to consider a return for a much longer time or, quite possibly, ever. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee usually hears appeals six-monthly for the first two appeals, then every twelve months thereafter. How has your conduct been since the first ban was handed down?
 * The policy you are looking for in terms of sockpuppetry is WP:EVADE which is quite clear in it's ruling
 * So that it's on the record, there were multiple contributing justifications for your ban, but I seem to recall you being told no to using automation on your bot acct to add the WPUS banner only to turn around start running the same automation with your main (or something very similar). If you are told no, the solution is not to try and wikilawyer around that no, you build a consensus for "yes" to override the no. Hasteur (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, IMHO, you should take the standard offer & keep away from the 'pedia for atleast 6 months. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko transmission begins below... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs) copied here by A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Tally
An informal head count is being conducted on the talk page, where you can make sure your !vote was interpreted correctly. —Neotarf (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As neotarf notes, this is informal. We're not going to close the discussion by merely counting heads. It's here to provide a rough sense of where the discussion landed to inform the close. Nothing else. If I got something significantly wrong please either update it and ping me or ping me and ask me to update it. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)