Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive

De facto banned
Copied from User talk:Human, All Too Human

Note:
 * WP:BANBLOCKDIFF says In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned.
 * Given that this editor has been disruptive since at least September 2015 and indef-blocked since at least September 12, 2015 (see here) AND it's clear that at least for now, no administrator is willing to unblock, it is reasonable to consider this editor "de facto banned" and the consequences listed in Banning policy arguably apply.

I am posting this here because I've seen edits (since reverted) by other socks of this person which imply he is not banned. While I haven't seen any evidence that he has been banned by the arbitration committee, Jimbo Wales, or a community discussion, I felt it was important to point out that, barring the very unlikely event that an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is "de facto banned." For what it's worth, if any admin was willing to unblock him without waiting a substantial period of time (a year, minimum) after his last known edit, I would expect a very good reason for the un-block and/or support from multiple administrators for an un-block. This reason would not have to be public, a statement by another admin saying "a reason was posted to admin-l [or arbcom-l, or whatever] and it was accepted by at least one administrator as being good enough to unblock" is good enough for me. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  23:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

end of copied text

The since-reverted edits include this one. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  23:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor believes that he is merely blocked, not banned. Obviously, I believe otherwise (see above). In light of his post and his behavior, a formal community discussion may be in order to clarify the situation.  In particular, I recommend that he should be formally banned for an indefinite period of time, subject to review after not less than a year, and that separately, he should be formally indefinitely banned from using more than one account and banned from editing without logging in, with the latter two bans review-able 1 year after the first one is lifted.  Why one year when the "standard offer" is only 6 months?  Long-term block evasion followed by a relatively short 6 month hiatus makes any "Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban" hard to believe and, even by itself, such long-term block evasion without a year-long break creates an "extraordinary reason" that would cause me to object to a return.
 * This editor's on-wiki behavior reflects an attitude of too much "I'll do things my way" and a chronic lack of respect for community rules. Speaking from my own off-wiki experiences with some of my own past attitudes, such attitudes can change, but they rarely change in as short a time as 6 months without some extraordinary event (e.g. being fired from a job, being arrested, having your significant other walk out on you, etc.).  Even with such events, any claim of "I'm a changed person" will not be credible at first - it takes time to tell if change is genuine and long-lasting.  My "I can dream, can't I" hope is that, should I meet him in person many years from now, I will find out that 2017 was the year when he turned his attitude around.  But even if 2017 is the year he changes, it would be wise for Wikipedia to declare him persona non grata for a at least a year. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)