Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed community bans are discussed; they are not ratified by some majority vote. If you give your opinion in a ban discussion, you are highly encouraged to include a rationale in accordance with WP:BAN. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing regarding community bans for disruption.

Contents 1 Common debate ban on Bowsy and Henchman 2000 from AN/I 2 Anon "Dodona" 3 please review ban user:Serafin 4 User:LegoAxiom1007 5 POV-pushing, personal attacks & unsigned comments 6 RfA reform

[edit] Common debate ban on Bowsy and Henchman 2000 from AN/I

Comments refactored to remove voting. Please read the top of the page, THIS IS NOT A VOTE. Viridae^Talk 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Following this thread on WP:AN/I, the consensus is unanimously in support of allegations of votestacking and unanimous-1 for a charge of Meatpuppetry. Evidence is contained in the AN/I thread and at User:AKMask/puppets. Per the discussion, I'm submitting a request for a ban on these two users from engaging in the same debate/discussion at all poll-like and consensus determining procedures on the 'pedia. -M^ask 16:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is unfair. Bowsy and I are two separate users and are entitled to two opinions, be they the same or not. We have never votestacked, as AfD IS NOT a vote and I have not always had EXACTLY the same opinion, like you are making it out to be. We are not meatpuppets and have been proven innocent on TWO occasions. We are allowed to engage in the same discussions, as is everyone as we all have the right to freely express our opinion. You are just totally biased against us for having conflicting views. Stop bullying us. Henchman 2000 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the admin who closed your sockpuppet case and warned you not to participate in the same XfD's was the one who suggested this ban. so you may want to revise that 'two times' statement -M^ask 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

You may wish to read this

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

/blockquote> This shows that we CAN participate in the same XfDs. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

This is what these discriminators have been campaigning for, and this seems to be an effort to limit opposition of some Wikipedians. This is supported by the fact that the only people keen to point this out are those with a conflicting view than that of mine and Henchman's. As you have said, there is no policy or guideline saying this should happen and it violates some. This is simple discrimination. I'll leave it at that. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support And I just know that one of them will leap in here with some barely-understood irrelevent quotation stating my vote is somehow tainted (see my talk page for evidence of bad-faith accusations of abuse and attempting subvert process by these 2.) The Kinslayer 08:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop the suggestions of idiocy, if you would be so kind. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Especially based on this diff. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support proposal. Although these may not be sockpuppets shared computer use generates a temptation for meatpuppetry at XFD discussions and there's an appearance of impropriety. I dislike the out of context quotations and accusations of persecution these editors piece together in defense: as a sysop who specializes in complex investigations that sends up red flags because when I see that it's practically guaranteed that actual shenanigans are happening. Durova^Charge! 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We have been cleared of meatpuppetry. Also, when we created our accounts, none of this had happened. It has been proven that we are two seperate individuals and we should be treated as such. Please read my first comment on this discussion. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse largely based on the fact that this is basically canvassing once you have them both on the same computer, but there must be no ban against these editors participating at XfD independently. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The way I see it, they were already given that chance and they both blew it. All AfDs they have been involved in got utterly disrupted as they spammed 3-word responses to as many peoples comments as they could. Even when just one of them participated we had the same disruption and accusations of 'abuse' based on absoutely no research (as I highlighted on Bowsys talk page). One of these participating in AfDs is almost exactly as bad as both of them participating in the same discussion. Not to mention (unlike when Bowsy accused me) actual abuse of the DRV process when the articles they created were deleted through AfD. It's plainly obvious from their comments that they were using the DRV because they disagreed with the outcome of the AfDs (which it clearly states they are not for) and their claims of 'procedural incorrectness' are some of the weakest I've seen in 2 years! The Kinslayer 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming, what spamming? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, my proposal only limits them from participating in the same XfD as each other, they are free to participate in seperate debates if this is accepted. -M^ask? 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll go with that. The Kinslayer 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after reading your comment, there may be some confusion. The proposal mentions all poll-like and consensus gathering. You seemed concerned that they would be allowed on drv in the same debates. This is not the case. I take responsibility, I use XfD as shorthand :) -M^ask? 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Having personally come across these two acting in a manner that was, to put it generously, suspiciously like sockpuppetry it's not surprising to see this popping up. While I think it's been demonstrated that they are indeed two different people, their continued collusion on XfD's and other consensus-gathering debates has been made fairly evident by the above comments, and since they have been warned about this kind of behavior I feel the requested action is appropriate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If we have the same opinions, that's that. Oh, and did you read Isotope's updated verdict I put towards the top of this debate? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Further, if being an anon is allowed in all policy making, does that not make gathering a "consensus" an increasingly difficult task to police, so to speak?

I am sure there is some policy in place, so maybe you could direct me there? Not all kids have their own computers, so how do we determine which family member(s) shall have rights and which, if any, members must be restricted? Thank you in advance for any response to my inquiry. Step 3 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

— Step_3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Simply put, at any point that you get a fellow editor whom you suspect will share your view on a debate to contribute to it, is against policy. Second, because these things are not votes, but debates, it really doesnt matter how many people you have parroting the same viewpoint as long as that view is said at least once. If its a good point, it wins. If not, it doesnt. Further more, anons are not allowed to contribute to the sorts of discussions that try to build consensus, like AfD and RfA and such. Nor usually users with very few edits, such as yourself, so I have made a note of it under your comment, don't be offended, its just so that the person closing the discussion can take it into account :) -M^ask? 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• No offense taken. When I travel to Germany, Greece or Italy and try to change their language to English, I get the identical response. At this juncture, without knowing your language, I am hardly a candidate for wielding more than an occasional opinion. I know nothing of your procedures here, as you can clearly see by my questions. Thank you. Step 3 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Step 3 has fewer than 50 edits and I strongly suspect this is somebody's sockpuppet.[1] Durova^Charge! 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Me too, but do we have any idea as to who the puppeteer is? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon "Dodona"

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

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

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

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

Here's Dodona's IPs

• 80.78.68.226 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 80.90.85.46 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 80.91.118.93 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 80.91.122.86 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 195.238.48.12 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 208.49.241.227 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 217.24.240.8 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 217.24.240.78 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 217.24.246.9 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 217.24.246.18 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 217.24.246.77 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 217.24.247.29 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
• 217.24.247.51 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

And some representative samples of his edits

Oldest contribution: 2 January. Other representative samples: [2], [3], [4]. Latest: 5 April, 5 April

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Okay. The blocks are documented on these talk pages: User_talk:80.90.85.46 (for off-topic rants such as [5]and elsewhere), User_talk:217.24.240.8 (for block evasion), and User talk:217.24.247.51 (for edits such as [6]). There has been little attempt at "dispute resolution", content-wise, for the simple reason that there was no content dispute. In fact, there never was any content to dispute, because Dodona's rants don't rise to the level of proposing any concrete, coherent claim. The "dispute" there was was purely about asking him not to abuse the talk page for off-topic debates. Such requests can be seen at [7], [8], [9]. On some occasions, one user even tried addressing Dodona in Albanian in order to get a better communication with him ([10], [11]), but the result was only that Dodona accused him of being a traitor to his own ethnicity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I could support that and I'll add another question: would a topic ban be adequate? That's a lot of IP addresses and I'd like to leave the door open a crack, particularly if some of those IPs change hands. Durova^Charge! 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, topic ban will be just as fine. Actually, I'm not asking for all those IPs to be technically blocked. We don't do IP blocks like that anyway, do we. I just want community endorsement for being allowed to roll him back when needed without further ado. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please review ban user:Serafin

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

[edit] User:LegoAxiom1007

Comments refactored to remove voting. Please read the top of the page, THIS IS NOT A VOTE.Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• And I reverted. Don't edit my comments. Nardman1 16:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Link to last request here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No-one involved had, as far as I can tell, any authority to ban him from applying for the use of automated tools. What was the problem with just letting the request be declined without a punitive block on top of that? --Random832 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban. It wasn't just using automated tools improperly, it was creating seemingly good edits that weren't good, as he's been warned not to do. [17]. He edited a template called "engeng" to remove the second "English" in it. [18]. In isolation, this might seem like an innocent mistake, but taken in context it spells either troll or someone who isn't putting the appropriate thought into his edits. That edit there would have been reason to block him again, regardless of the other things he did that were inappropriate (trying to use automated tools after abusing them, and creating useless templates after being warned not to). Nardman1 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Was he blocked for applying for an automated tool, and where is the discussion banning him from doing so? Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• • How about all the admins on record supporting his banning? I've seen comments from Newyorkbrad, Riana, Amarkov, Theresa Knott, Moreschi, and Wafulz supporting blocking this user. That isn't enough? Nardman1 16:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think my question was misunderstood. Was he blocked for applying for VP, and where is the discussion banning him from automated scripts. My opinion remains neutral. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• The block was the result of a purported ban. If there is no community support for that ban, the user should be unblocked or his block should be shortened. Applying for VP is harmless, since his application would surely fail if it was so obvious as you say that he would misuse it. --Random832 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-pushing, personal attacks & unsigned comments

Moved to WP:AN/I Navou ^banter / _contribs 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA reform

Okay. I'm going to try to push the issue a bit more. According to the top of this page, "[t]his forum was created for the discussion of issues requiring broad community approval," and this may, in fact, be the place to do it, considering the voices at WT:RFA (which is usually RfA regulars and not a broader cross-section of users) and the soon-to-be-rejected ArbCom request regarding RfA reform. As ArbCom isn't going to touch it, and Jimbo is unfortunately not going to step in, and discussion is futile at the RfA talk page, I think it's imoportant to get some discussion rolling on how to reform RfA. I guess we should see if this is even something we can tackle here first, and if it is, start trying to figure out what's best for the situation and just friggin' do it already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen first is establish what isn't going to happen. Once we've gotten out of the way things which either should not change or can not concievably get enough support to change, it will be easier to find where problems we can fix are. -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see what is wrong with the current system, I know some people don't like it, but that does not mean it is broken. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This subject is currently undergoing a rigorous and extended debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I agree with HighInBC. The current system works successfully and I have yet to see an argument against it beyond "I don't like it". Gwernol 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship has become a "big deal" in exactly the way it was once said not to be. requiring millions of edits in all areas, a perfect record, etc, before the bit can be set is not how things were supposed to be, and I don't think _anyone_ really wants it this way. --Random832 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The current system does NOT work successfully. There are perpetual backlogs, and we're all absolutely petrified to desysop anyone for fear of being unable to replace them. Requiring more than a basic level of competence and good intent to be demonstrated before it can be handed out violates WP:AGF. --Random832 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The difficulties in passing seems to be based on the supply and demand for admins. There are so many people running, why not take only the best? I passed my second RfA, and I did not have to perform any miracles, I just needed some experience. It was good I did not pass my first, I was not ready. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Completely OT, but what a cute award! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, that is a very on topic alternative solution to the perceived problem, good thinking. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about requirements for voters or something? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We'd all like to get a few more hands swabbing the deck. I just have a different approach. I've started two successful RFA nominations and am coaching about half a dozen editors who'd like to earn mops of their own. It shouldn't be too hard for one active sysop to mentor ten people in the course of a year. If enough of us make that a priority our manpower problems would be solved - and admin coaching isn't tough to do. Durova^Charge! 06:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)