Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive12

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that an indefinite block is not appropriate and the checkuser request has not produced evidence of sockpuppetry. Accordingly, I am lifting the block to take into account the five days this editor has already been blocked. Sandstein 11:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Peroxisome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely by Raul654  (talk · contribs) for trolling an article talk page. Peroxisome has requested to be unblocked, arguing that what he did was merely presenting his arguments. The unblock request has gone unreviewed for nearly 24 hours. This seems to indicate that deciding whether or not this block was appropriate is a somewhat complicated matter that requires the attention of more editors. This board seems to be a good place to gather consensus on this. Please also read the blocked user's talk page for any arguments he may offer in his defence. This is a procedural post; I have no opinion (yet) on the merits of the block. Sandstein 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: like the above thread, this involves the article Steven Milloy. Sandstein 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dang. What is it about Milloy that brings out such love in people. I've never even heard of the guy (guess I need to watch more TV). Anyway, while Peroxisome focuses almost exclusively upon the Steven Milloy and John Brignell pages, I am not seeing enough strong evidence to convince me that Peroxisome is a troll. In fact, I see where issues raised by Peroxisome with regards to the article have been addressed by editors who disagree with him (such as Mastcell at [1]) and that Peroxisome appears to be part of a edit dispute over this article. While Peroxisome has made borderline legal threats[2], I'm not sure there's enough there for an indefinite block. In addition, since Raul654 has edited the Milloy article a few times, I wish he'd let someone else block Peroxisome because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. So I'd say lift the block.--Alabamaboy 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from a non-neutral editor: While Peroxisome (like NCdave) has occasionally raised very valid issues about the article, they are drowned out (particularly recently) by accusations of defamation and plain argumentativeness. This thread comes to mind; when it became clear that he hadn't actually read the source he was arguing endlessly about, he changed the subject and kept arguing. His posts and edit summaries tend to contain legal threats and accusations of dishonesty ([3], [4], [5]), and he consistently accuses editors of defamation ([6], [7]), without troubling himself to bring it up at WP:BLP/N as has been repeatedly suggested. He has the de rigeur 3RR blocks (though none recently, I should note). Would I have blocked him for his behavior, were I an uninvolved admin? Probably not. Am I sorry to see him blocked? Not at all; he seems to revel in provoking a reaction and his constructive input is far outweighed by his approach, in my opinion. Let me be clear: I welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, because without them the article tends to drift too far in one direction. But NCdave, and to a lesser extent Peroxisome, are not hapless editors being persecuted for holding a minority viewpoint. Their behavior in advancing that viewpoint is at issue. That's my 2 cents as an involved and obviously non-neutral editor; I'm glad that this is up here, though, because I would prefer to see some objective feedback about this block. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, MastCell's accusation that I have been pushing my POV is untrue. I have always sought to make the Milloy page (and every other article to which I've contributed) balanced and neutral. MastCell does not welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, he routinely deletes information that does not support his POV. In contrast, I rarely delete anything, I just try to make the article factual and balanced, and include both sides of each issue. NCdave 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unblock, I reviewed his comments on the talk page in question and it does not appear to be trolling to me, I honestly think those are his thoughts, regardless, it is a pure judgement call. Additionally, the fact that admin who blocked him was actively engaged in the discussion and editting of the article is I believe a clear violation of the rules and calls for an immediate unblock. Don't they de-admin people for that? --Theblog 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block. Like the above two editors, I am involved in the dispute and non-neutral. I was a bit surprised to see an indefinite block dropped on him (though I'm still a newbie, and maybe this is standard practice in cases like these). I support a temporary block to allow him another chance, but I do think that it should be some sort of longish block. I agree that in the past he made some useful contributions to the article, but as of late he's been nothing but tendentious. Arguing ad nauseum that 1 + 1 does not, in fact, equal 2—as he was doing in this thread—is not useful, doesn't help the project, and is only disruptive. Action against such behaviour is called for, though perhaps not as strong the one that was doled out. Yilloslime 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. While Peroxisome's behavior over at Steven Milloy has been less than helpful, NCdave's conduct was much worse. The fact that NCdave only got a topic ban for his bad behavior, reinforces my view that Peroxisome's full-site-forever ban is too harsh. I favor instead a topic ban like that issued for NCdave, or a shorter site-wide block. If, however, the suspicion of sockpuppetry on part of peroxisome turns out to be founded, then I would favor the indefinite site-wide ban.Yilloslime 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block. I'm also involved. I don't find Peroxisome at all helpful, and he's clearly a single-purpose campaigner (I've also encountered him on these topics outside Wikipedia). Still, I'd prefer to reserve permanent blocks as a last resort, for cases like that of NCDave.JQ 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block per Yilloslime and JQ. Unlike the case of NCDave, there is a non-negligible possibility that Peroxisome could become a constructive editor. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• I almost unblock this fellow earlier, but I couldn't get a good enough handle on the contentious article in question. I'd support making it a shorter block. --Haemo 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support indef on the basis of this post.[8] Would agree with shortening it if the editor withdraws it and pledges to stop posting legalistic arguments. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I did ask him to stop with the charges of defamation (or go to WP:BLP/N), and this was his response. Of course, maybe the community will have better luck. MastCell ^Talk 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What is your complaint about this post by Perosisome, Durova? It is a very gentle and polite explanation of one of the reasons for his article contributions. The warning tag about WP:BLP says, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Are you suggesting that it is some kind of offense to allude to that policy in polite Talk page comments? Peroxisome's measured comments are well-taken and reasonable. NCdave 08:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Given how often and opportunistically the BLP card has been played, I feel compelled to point out that WP:BLP also says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • And if it isn't it doesn't. NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Peroxisome has commented on this thread on his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note regarding abusive sockpuppetry: I asked Peroxisome directly whether he had any connection to the two brand-new accounts which commented on NCdave's proposed ban above. This was his (non-)answer. I asked him again and got another evasive response. I have filed a checkuser request. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I banned Peroxisome from commenting at my blog, and he returned using several sock puppets, so he has form here. --TimLambert 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, were I a betting man, I would bet serious money that Peroxisome has not engaged in sockpuppetry. I, too, have been falsely accused of sockpuppetry, which I've never done. It is wrong to voice mere suspicions as outright accusations. Your buddy. MastCell, is an admin, and has the ability to track down IP addresses and determine which ones are sock puppets. You should do such checks before you make potentially erroneous accusations.

MastCell says that he is doing a "checkuser request," which I presume is a check of IP addresses and user names, to identify sock puppets. I don't know how long that takes, or how it works, but I hope you will encourage him to share the results here.

Also, I note that one of of the two accounts that MastCell calls "brand-new accounts" has actually been around since 2006. How is that brand-new? NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of admins can't do a checkuser. Because of privacy concerns (among other reasons), checkuser tools are authorized for only a very small number of people. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, I don't have the ability to check IP addresses. The check will be performed by an outside editor. I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peroxisome, where the results will be visible to anyone who cares to look. Those accounts belong to an experienced user; few people are directly involved in this issue enough to care to use socks to comment; Peroxisome just happens to be blocked at the moment; and he's persistently evaded and danced around a direct question regarding the accounts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there are clearly grounds to look into the issue of sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for that information. I look forward to the answer when it arrives. Will you post it here? NCdave 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The checkuser report indicates that Peroxisome is unrelated to the two new accounts which commented on the above thread. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lift the block. Peroxisome is a careful and uniformly reasonable editor, certainly never a troll. He raised very legitimate issues about the article in question, but was routinely reverted and insulted by MastCell and others. MastCell has an axe to grind, because when MastCell did six reverts of the article on the same day, Peroxisome filed a 3RR complaint against MastCell. NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Me again? I didn't block Peroxisome, I didn't discuss his block on- or off-wiki with Raul654, and I made it explicit, in my comment here, that I am not neutral on the subject of Peroxisome. I realize that you've relied on singling me out and attacking me in your 3RR violations, your unblock requests, and your topic-ban discussion. People might give more credence to your position that Peroxisome should be unblocked if you tried a different approach here. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Action? This thread appears to be circling the drain. In the interest of a speedy and fair resolution for Peroxisome, I'll note that checkuser did not indicate he's engaged in sockpuppetry, and there appears to be a consensus, even among editors in conflict with him, to lift or shorten his block. As a side note: I'm asking any uninvolved admin who is watching this thread or considering unblocking Peroxisome to please keep an eye on the situation after doing so. There are real issues here, though an indefinite block may not be the appropriate response at this time, and I'd like some outside, uninvolved eyes on the situation going forward. MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This case fits the bill of complex. Try requests for comment or requests for arbitration. Navou ^banter 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:THF has a known and acknowledged conflict of interest in respect of Michael Moore. As far as I can tell he has voluntarily undertaken to step back from these articles. In order to damp down the dispute and put an end to the endless discussion threads I propose that we formally record that THF should not directly edit articles relating to Michael Moore or his films, that he is welcome to contribute suggestions on the relevant Talk pages, but that he should not propose links to his own writing on the subject, or discuss such links without noting that he is the author. This restriction will solve the substantive issue with THF's involvement with these topics and make it unnecessary for others to note his real identity, a technical infringement of the harassment policy even if the source of the information is THF himself.

If this is endorsed by the community and accepted by THF, I will undertake to contact the webmasters of michaelmoore.com and ask them to remove their attacks on Wikipedia editor THF. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this resolution, which gives in to intimidation tactics, and implies that Moore's initial criticism had any basis in fact. I make no requests regarding whether WP should take any sanctions against Moore, other than that Wikipedia enforce whatever policy it has evenly, and treat this situation precisely the same way one would treat it if an anti-global-warming website were to start attacking Wikipedia editors it disagreed with. With respect to WP:HARASS, I've stated my position at WP:VPP#THF, and won't repeat it here. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for THF, but as far as I know I don't believe he's volunteered to step back from the Michael Moore articles. There is an active discussion at COI/N, and there seems to be some consensus that while THF may have a POV on Moore, his POV does not necessarily translate into COI, and in fact there have been no abusive edits presented that would indicate a problem. It's still an open case though, so see the discussion for details. ATren 08:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be easier to evaluate your proposal here if you provide differential edits. Also, is THF willing to do this without the community's intervention? Navou ^banter 08:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• This issue focuses solely on the Michael Moore issues, which appear to the Achilles tendon of THF. There are two issues that have gotten THF into trouble, where he has caused massive disruption to the Wikipedia project: 1. His effort to insert into 25 Wikipedia film pages a hit piece on Michael Moore that he authored and his employer published.; and 2. his effort to have MichaelMoore.com labeled an attack site and removed from Wikipedia because it did what THF did for the last year, which was reveal who he is, that he is an outspoken public critic of Michael Moore, and that he edits all of the Michael Moore pages. This public feud THF has with Michael Moore has been brought to Wikipedia, and it has become very disruptive to the project, with talk of throwing Moore "to the dogs" not to "reward" Michael Moore by including links to his pertinent website, et. al. During the film fiasco, THF actually argued that it would be against policy not to include his hit piece. THF does not want us to talk about who he is, so he WP:GAME's the policies and guidelines. On one hand, he links to Moore's website that "outs" him and he tries to get work authored by himself and published by his employer into multiple articles; he then follows that with arguments we can't say who he is. How are we supposed to discuss THF's edits and their context when he is trying to put his own material into the project and his outside feud with Moore is relevant (relevant enough for Moore to acknowledge it)? I do not see how THF can expect WP:HARASS to apply to him when he himself continually outs himself. THF becomes the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is not what our policies and guidelines were drawn up for: we are here to protect private individuals who want to contribute, not public individuals who work for employers whose very nature is public policy disputes and issues, who go out and speak publicly on national airwaves and television programs about the issues he edits, etc. If THF is willing to speak publicly on Fox News, NPR, the Washington Post and internationally on the BBC, why are his edits on Wikipedia over the same topics supposed to conceal his identity? So that he doesn't suffer harassment off-wiki? Then why does he speak publicly with his identity revealed over those very same topics? Does anyone else see how silly this is. It would be a different story if most of us made the same edits, since our careers don't revolve around the very topics that we edit; but THF's career does. He presents himself to the public countless times on these topics, and the public has the ability to contact him about the issues he talks about in the Wall Street Journal, so why is Wikipedia a special animal for him, where we are concealing his identity? This is his job, and I don't see where any of our internal policies regarding protecting the identities of average people apply when a person is already public, exposing them to public comment and scrutiny, over the exact same issues. If User:MessedRocker edits the Rush Limbaugh pages or the Al Franken pages, it's a different case, because MessedRocker isn't writing editorials in the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek over the same issues, and his career and actions outside of Wikipedia, where he essentially remains anonymous, are irrelevant. THF's career and life outside of Wikipedia are synonymous with the edits he makes. Michael Moore was right in pointing out who THF is, since THF is already a public critic of Moore and he is simply using Wikipedia as another public platform for his criticisms. If what Moore did, which was state facts, is considered an "attack" then by logical analogy, so is what THF does to the Moore's articles. Nobody contends that either individual is reporting anything but facts, and THF is already public about his feelings on Moore and his work. So why are we concealing something that THF does not already conceal in both national and international press mediums? --David Shankbone 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what you claim? I'd like to investigate for myself the edits that are considered controversial, but I'm not about to go searching through thousands of edits to find them. ATren 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I supplied I think three or four diffs. If you want more, please let me know which issue and I will hunt them down. --David Shankbone 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David: none of those diffs are article edits (most seem to be civil talk page debates), and none raises any red flag for me. If this were an anonymous editor, there would be no problem with those diffs. Are there others? ATren 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And after all this acrimony and disruption, THF now says he has "nothing to hide." Huh? That might come as news to many of his supporters.--David Shankbone 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have nothing to hide. I have done nothing wrong. I was asking for WP:CIVILity in an effort to stem harassment. This seems to have backfired, so I am shrugging my shoulders.

This is now the ninth forum where David has raised these COI complaints about a content dispute, which are wildly misleading. Every single edit he is complaining about occurred on a talk page. WP:COI expressly permits an editor with a COI to disclose the COI and request a proposed edit. In good faith, I suggested that my published point of view was notable, and thus merited inclusion under NPOV. David (who has elsewhere argued that opinions by THF are notable point of view that merit Wiki-inclusion) objected strenuously, making 17 talk-page comments with a variety of libelous personal attacks. I made 9 talk-page comments responding and defending my proposed edit. After an RFC, consensus was not to include the cite to my writing. It was never added to the main page. That dispute ended more than two weeks ago. Multiple complaints by David to COIN and ANI found I had done nothing wrong other than possibly overreact to some trolling. Where is the problem? THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• You can keep counting all you want, I don't know how this helps your argument; I was asked to comment here on my Talk page. I also dare you bring a libel suit - we've been both been to law school, and if you are going to use such strong terminology then follow it up with action. I take extreme exception to your Wikilawyering and use of legal terms that have no bearing. So bring your suit for libel. Let's see how meritorious it is. Otherwise, please refrain from making scurrilous accusations just because I've "called your number".--David Shankbone 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COOL, David, I never suggested that I was going to sue you, just that you made false statements about me that necessitated a response. I further note that if one of Chip Berlet's or WMC's political opponents went after them with hundreds of edits that were personal attacks forum-shopped over a dozen pages over a two-week-old content dispute on a talk page that never once entered mainspace they would have been blocked three or four times by now. You've made your lengthy case repeatedly, now let others discuss it. THF 17:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We are both trained as attorneys, THF, so do not use legal terms that have no legal bearing. The diff you provided applies to your commentary regarding liability reform, etc., not to how you rank documentaries and what qualifies as a documentary. You have no notability in this regard. If you continue to raise new arguments I will continue to respond to them, and asking me not to do so is a bit WP:KETTLE.

David: it is clear that several editors were insistent on revealing THF's identity against his wishes, and there was a minor edit war on that template. So it seems THF's action to quell that dispute (by adding the link himself) is a gracious concession on his part. If you consider me "one of his supporters", well you might like to know I support the decision he made. (Though, in fact, I am in no way a "supporter" of THF - only of Wikipedia policy). ATren 16:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

THF should be banned from any political (or politicized) articles on which his employer, the American Enterprise Institute, has taken a stand. It's a clear conflict of interest for him to be editing these articles. Raul654 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My employer takes no stands. It is nonpartisan think tank with a collection of scholars who frequently disagree with one another. Fred Thompson and Michael Greve and I have three different opinions about federalism and tort reform, for example. Sally Satel and I disagree with Leon Kass about many bioethics issues. I disagree with John Yoo on a number of legal issues. Norm Ornstein has published articles on the Roberts Court that are 180 degrees opposite of what I've published on the subject. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Sicko, (1) I don't have a COI; and (2) even if I did have a COI, my edits are consistent with WP:SCOIC, because I discuss them on the talk page first several hours in advance.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he doesn't like Moore," or "THF has a conflict of interest because he is right-wing," then I ask that COI guidelines be applied consistently and that every editor on the page who likes Moore or is left-wing be barred from editing the page, and the page be turned over to a set of people who have no opinions about Moore whatsoever. A look at the page's edit history (and at edits I have made) show that it's not the editors of the page who don't like Moore who are POV-pushing.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he has written about Moore," then this is a misreading of the COI guideline. So long as I don't edit the mainspace article to include my writing on Moore, I am not violating COI guidelines. Any other interpretation of the COI policy would demand that people with expertise in the subject cannot edit Wikipedia simply because they have published. Perhaps that's the rule Wikipedia wants, but then it should be enforced evenly, and all of the other academics should be kicked off the project also. Chip Berlet and William Connolley regularly edit (often self-promotionally) in the fields of their expertise, and when trolls repeatedly accuse them of the "appearance of COI," the trolls are blocked. I should not be treated any differently, so long as my mainspace edits are good-faith efforts to comply with Wikipedia policy. I have ~7000 edits on Wikipedia: if I am a POV-pusher, surely someone can find a mainspace diff of something I have done wrong. David's diffs are all to talk-page discussion in an effort to generate consensus--exactly what collaborative editing is all about.

If the argument is "THF's former employer was hired in 2004 by a pharmaceutical company all because the pharmaceutical company hoped that, three years later, THF, when he worked for a completely different employer, would make Wikipedia-policy-compliant edits to an article about a movie about health care, all because he performed some legal work on a completely different unrelated subject for the pharmaceutical company," I suggest that that is a self-refuting argument, and that anyone who makes it got it from an attack site that demonstrates their own COI under even application of the policy. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First I think THF has been fair in being known for the person he is. If he had wanted to, he could have been an anonymous editor on Wiki, and much of the arguments in this discussion would be invalidated.

On the other hand, I doubt whether it is wise for him to engage in Wiki articles on which he has an obvious point of view, which may not be neutral. Perhaps it may indeed be wise to have this voluntary "no-edit" policy, but I don't think that is something that needs enforcement. Arnoutf 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The issue is not COI, the issue is disruption

The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering. I've outlined this case in my above comment. Our policies and guidelines protecting user anonymity are there to protect the NYPD police officer who makes a factual but unflattering edit to the Michael Bloomberg page, and should his identity be found out, may have ramifications for him with his job. However, if Fernando Ferrer, a Bloomberg opponent, began editing the Mayor's page, his identity would be pertinent to the discussion, and our guidelines and policies would not protect Ferrer. The situation with THF is analogous to the Ferrer situation, not the police officer. THF's career is to criticize public figures that disagree with his ideological point of view, and in the situation at hand, with Michael Moore in particular. Our guidelines and policies are there to protect those of us who are not public figures so that we may edit with knowledge we possess without fear of negative consequences in our waking life. Harassment, death threats, stalking, job problems. THF, who now says he has nothing to hide, so I am guessing he does not mind being called Ted Frank, has none of these issues and if he does, they are probably more a problem when he goes on Fox News than when he edits Wikipedia. Therein lies the rub: Ted has wanted to protect his identity against "unseen forces" on Wikipedia that he curiously is not concerned about when he goes on national television, with his face, employer and identity for a much larger audience to see. The problems I see for sanctioning, since this is the sanction board, are as follows:

1. THF's WP:Wikilawyering - using and abusing the letter of policies and guidelines with no concern for the spirit of why these were intended. This has caused a massive amount of disruption on the Wikipedia Project. He argues he should be protected by rules that are not there to protect Fernando Ferrer or Ted Frank when they bring their public disputes onto Wikipedia.
2. THF's Disruptive editing - He has consumed the ANI board over the last week asking to have pertinent content removed from articles, in this case Michael Moore and his sub pages, because Moore fingered a known, notable public critic of his as one of his main Wikipedia editors. THF has instigated disruptive edits and made them himself by gaming our policies and guidelines.
3. THF's WP:COI - when a person authors an unnotable piece as THF did, and then argues strenuously to have it included, going so far as saying it is a violation of policy not to include it, they are violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines. When a person who has a public feud with another public person, such as Michael Moore, and then efforts to have that person's content removed from Wikipedia, it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines.

Those are my arguments for sanctioning.
--David Shankbone 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that your argument currently contradicts itself, as you say in the very first sentence that "The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering," yet your very last point at the bottom of your post says COI. —Kurykh 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing and inclusion were on purpose. The COI argument is the least of the problems with THF, yet above it is the only argument framed. The other two issues are the more serious and go to the heart of the matter. Although I am of the opinion that there are COI issues at stake, reasonable minds have differed on all three of the COI incidents that involved THF. The main problems are #1 and #2. --David Shankbone 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here it is... the ban proposal suggests a mainspace ban... I'm asking for some WP:DIFF to mainspace. And if we could correlate those to disruptive editing it would be helpful. Additionally, precedent at this board is to close proposals that are complex... the arbitration committee is more suited for complex cases, so if it turns out research needs to be done, and a straightforward case cannot be presented, I'll probably close this thread provided an absense of substantial objection to that. With regards, Navou ^banter 17:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't feel that THF's behavior needs to only apply to mainspace, since he has used our policies and guidelines to tie everyone up in what is a public feud with Michael Moore. I feel the diffs I have provided above point to this problem. A person can work behind the scenes and cause as much disruption as when they edit the mainspace. --David Shankbone 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I responded to the claims of disruption in an apology on WP:VPP#THF before I knew this thread existed. I won't repeat them here, though I note that David is violating WP:MULTI once again by repeating false accusations on multiple pages instead of directing people to one talk page.

If we're going to talk about disruption, then this needs to go to arb, because out of the two of me and David, it's quite clear who is being more disruptive. I have repeatedly acted to end disputes by conceding issues where I had good-faith arguments for continuing to stand for consistent enforcement of wikipedia policy, and David has refused to relent on anything or assume good faith, even in areas where his arguments were repeatedly rejected, and has repeatedly acted to throw fuel on the fire. And that's just on-wiki: off-wiki, we get to David's use of Wikipedia email servers to send off-wiki threats in an effort to intimidate me to yield on a content dispute. As I discussed off-wiki with several admins, I had been willing to bury the hatchet on that, and let bygones be bygones in the hopes that David would stop WP:STALKing me, but it seems that nothing is going to end David's vendetta against me without an express command from the arbitrators that he should leave me alone. His conduct is extraordinarily disruptive and not acceptable. THF 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. As the top of this page says: Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. This is becoming disruptive all by itself, I would suggest an RFC or ArbCom. RxS 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• For all of the arguments THF raises against me, my Talk page carries no admonishments. Curious that, considering how public this issue is. THF posts different responses all over the place, instead of directing people to one place, and then when I respond to those, I am WP:MULTI. THF, I e-mailed to raise to your attention that you edit Wikipedia a lot during the work day, and asked if you were concerned someone might raise this to the attention of your employer. I never said I would, and trust me, THF, I have a pretty full life and have no desire to try and harm your employ. If I really wanted to make it a threat, I wouldn't have e-mailed via Wikimedia servers, which I used b/c I didn't want to use your AEI address to ask the question - duh. I assumed (correctly) you had a different address assigned to your Wikipedia account than your employer's. I apologized, however, because the question was asked in a heated moment. Like there was no "attack" on you by Michael Moore, there was no "threat" by me in that e-mail. I've encouraged you to bring this up at ArbCom, and I was the one who first talked about it on-wiki. Other editors, admins even, raised the same issue with you. If you stop the disruption, the constant ANI threads over your identity, etc. I don't think this need go any further. Otherwise, I'm willing to take it as far as it needs to go. I only re-entered this issue with you once you started the thread to have MichaelMoore.com removed from Wikipedia, you may note. --David Shankbone 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Create a new account, contribute constructively, and don't visit past behavior or persona. It will remain unnoticed. I did comment on this discussion, so if the templates need to be undone for more discussion, go ahead. Navou ^banter 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have spoken to Willy on Wheels about his community ban (I know him in real life, yes, the original one), and he has said he would like to return to Wikipedia. He has told me all of the accounts he has used, and that a LOT of people are imitating his old "move-page-on-wheels" routine, which, he says, is no longer amusing any more.

He would like his ban overturned, if the community are willing to do such a thing. He told me he hasn't been active since at least early 2006 - and anyone who's moved pages "on wheels" here, or on Wikibooks/quote/tionary/versity or any other wikipedia since February 2006 is not him.

He's also told me he's not using 195.188.152.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) any more, and has said that he recognises he was wrong, and says that he's glad his notorious Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels page is gone - as it is, he said it was "the old me", and that "page-move vandalism is no fun".

Anyway, if the community would like to forgive him, then I hope he can be exonerated. --Digrumes 17:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would recommend emailing an arbitrator. Regards, Navou ^banter 17:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• His name is pretty stigmatized -- he may be better off registering a new account and starting fresh. MessedRocker (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with MessedRocker - I don't see how he can expect to productively edit with that name. That would cause too much disruption and raise too many hackles. --David Shankbone 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Navou, a request for arbitration was filed in June, but rejected outright. Anyway, I know him in real life, and he's said "page-move vandalism is no fun". MessedRocker, whilst your idea sounds good, wouldn't that technically violate WP:BAN?? Anyhow, Willy's given me a list of all his accounts he used. Want me to post them here?? I'll admit I'm a bit of a WP:SPA, but it's better if the community can forgive and forget. He's also told me any accounts registered after February 2006 that have "on wheels" are not him, he said it was no longer fun to move pages then.

OK, I think I've explained myself... this is all for the best, eh?? Oh, and Willy isn't asking for the original account to be unbanned - but for permission to come back! (doing things the legit way!!) --Digrumes 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly it would be better for him just to start a new account, without letting anyone know. The amount of scrutiny he would face if it were known that he were the person behind WoW would likely drive him back off again. As long as he's contributing in good faith, it doesn't matter, does it? ~ Riana ⁂ 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• While this is a technical violation of WP:BAN, if he registers a new account, and edits productivly, I don't see how anyone would notice the difference. If it improves the encyclopedia.. Navou ^banter 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd tend to agree with Navou. If he comes back, and edits so productively no one ever even dreams it's him, what's the difference? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• If the arbitration committee refused to consider the request so recently, why should the community consider it? Poor decisions have consequences. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. If he wants to come back as a totally new user, with no reference whatsoever to Willy, and behaves well, we won't even notice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how do we let Willy (or WoW as you dubbed him), come back without violating WP:BAN. I mean, if someone like User:Zephram Stark tried to do what Jp Gordon suggested, wouldn't that be a violation of such?? I'm just trying to do this fairly and squarely, playing by the rules. --Digrumes 18:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There's technical violations, and then there's reality. In reality, if anyone who's been disruptive to the point of banned in the past comes back, edits productively, and stays well away from the old behavior that got them in trouble, no one will ever even suspect it's the old troublemaker. Of course, if they go back to the problematic behavior, they'll quickly be found out and the new account blocked too. Even if everything you say is true, and WoW wants to come back and edit productively, the best and least disruptive way for him to do it is to create a new account, play nicely, and never mention his old incarnation at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so. On the other hand, if he starts up by creating multiple usernames in a short period of time, he'll probably be noticed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Echo Seraphimblade - It seems like as long as he doesn't go moving pages "on wheels" nobody will ever notice him. His notoriety didn't come from his subjects, but from his vandalism. --David Shankbone 19:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User already blocked indef. Navou ^banter 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Theodore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has returned to Wikipedia, now his soft-ban on astronomy- and astrology-related articles has expired (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7 for details). He is again inserting his own unsourced points of view into articles and revert warring over them. As he has not used the time during his soft-ban to demonstrate that he can be a productive editor, I propose to ban him indefinitly. —Ruud 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, this POV warring troll waited virtually precisely only so long as his ban lasted, and is as Ruud notes, now back to his old habits. The only one he has managed to improve upon is his personal attacks and civility transgressions, and as that ban still has a further six months, I surmise that for some reason he thinks only the ArbCom ruling binds him to following policies. He has added nothing but strife, edit warring, OR, POV and multiple references to Jimbo on talk pages (as supposed support for his actions) since he registered. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

From the discussion so far, there clearly isn't going to be a consensus in support of this proposal, not least because of potential adverse media coverage. See also Jimbo's comment below. Addhoc 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction noticeboard has no jurisdiction here and is not able to accomplish this. I do not support such an extreme step.--Jimbo Wales 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a political topic ban on the United States House of Representatives congressional offices (IP range 143.231.241.0-255.255 / 143.228.0.0-248.255) to expire November 5, 2008 – one day after the next general election. Editors who use this range would be banned from editing Wikipedia articles that relate to politics. They may post suggested changes to article talk pages. Editors who use this range via registered accounts are strongly urged to disclose their affiliation and refrain from direct edits to political articles.

This organization has been in persistent violation of fundamental site policies. Particularly troublesome are habitual attempts to remove sourced information from political biographies. Due to the IT configuration of the House congressional offices, all representatives and their staffs share the same IP addresses. This ban proposal is nonpartisan: policy violations have stemmed from both major parties.

Problem edits from this IP range became national news in early 2006. Although some useful edits have also occurred, the rate of vandalism is unacceptable by any standard. 22 user blocks have accumulated since November 2005. Wikipedians have attempted dispute resolution, posted dozens of warnings, and the WikiScanner has attracted international attention - yet problems continue unabated.

[edit] Recent examples

1. On 27 August 2007 someone from a congressional office computer altered the military service history of Bill Clinton from “none” to “draft dodger”.[9]

2. 24 August 2007 - Rep. Bobby Rush (Democrat, Illinois)[10]

Deleted the following:

In March 2006, Rush was co-author, along with conservative congressman Joe Barton, of the controversial Barton-Rush Bill. The bill would significantly benefit telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Qwest — a bill that generated some controversy after it was revealed that the charitable arm of major telephone company SBC (now AT&T) paid over $1 million to an Englewood charity Rush and his wife founded to create the Bobby L. Rush Community Technology Center [11].

3. 24 August 2007 - Rep. Jerry Moran (Republican, Kansas)[12]

Deleted the following:

Environmental groups have criticized Moran for what they see as a consistently anti-environment voting record. The nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters gave him a score of eight out of 100 on environmental issues, citing among other things his support for oil drilling both offshore and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and his opposition to low-income energy assistance and public right-to-know legislation regarding the Toxics Release Inventory.League of Conservation Voters Republicans for Environmental Protection gave Moran a score of 13 for the 109th Congress, noting that he voted anti-environment on 3 out of 4 issues deemed critical by the group. REP criticized Moran for supporting salvage logging, the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to build logging roads in the Tongass National Forest, and expanded drilling, as well as for voting to weaken the Toxics Release Inventory system and to undermine provisions of the Clean Water Act.Republicans for Environmental Protection 2006 Scorecard

4. 25 August 2007 - Rep. David Davis (Republican, Tennessee) tells the press Nobody pays any attention to Wikipedia and points to inappropriate edits at other congressional biographies in response to a scandal about repeated blanking vandalism that his press secretary Timothy Hill admitted to having performed.[13] (Proposing editor's disclosure.[14])

[edit] Blocks, warnings, and dispute resolution

Block history.[15]

Warnings:

• User_talk:143.231.249.141
• User_talk:143.231.249.137
• User_talk:143.231.249.138

Dispute resolution:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Vandalism
• Wikipedia:Editing policy
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Autobiography
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

[edit] Background

• Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits
• Congressional staff actions prompt Wikipedia investigation

[edit] Principle

The "edit" button is not an invitation to censor verified information. For most of the last two years the government of China has blocked Wikipedia behind a firewall. It would be inconsistent to countenance censorship from one source while opposing it from another since the fundamental aim is identical: to pretend before the public that governance is better than it is. Wikipedia is not censored.

The principle is the same whether we're dealing with Joe's Barbershop or Capitol Hill. People wouldn't visit a library to rip pages from Encyclopedia Britannica and they shouldn't mar this encyclopedia either. This is a nonprofit project run by volunteers that attempts to provide well sourced information at no cost to the public; its patience cannot be infinite in the face of persistent abuse. Durova^Charge! 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

• This is certainly a convincing case... but should we really topic ban the United States government? -Amarkov moo! 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What else can we do? We've been patient and reasonable and tried the usual solutions. The public has a legitimate interest in getting neutral sourced information when they access our articles. If Joe's Barbershop had acted this way it would have been banned without fanfare long ago. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If Congressional offices are going to try to sanitize Wikipedia entries, wouldn't we prefer for them to do it from their Congressional IPs where they can be caught and embarrassed if they do something wrong than to encourage them to create outside accounts from the nearby Kinkos or Library of Congress (or home computer)? This is always going to be a problem so long as Wikipedia permits anonymous editing. Logistically, how are we going to notify every IP of a topic ban? THF 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Similar arguments have been attempted and have failed in other ban discussions. No, we do not permit open violation of policies because abusive editors might try covert violation. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Besides, it is in these individuals' best interest not to try sneaky manipulation. Editors who head down that path typically leave a trail of mistakes and the negative PR would be considerably worse than actions that could be explainable as goofs from a summer intern. Durova^Charge! 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Democracy and censorship are incompatible, therefore if a bastion and symbol of the democratic free world is proven to be censoring (by removing referenced material) then it behoves us that restrictions be placed on the ability to edit from that institution. Note that we will not be censoring, but placing a system of checks and balances so that it can be seen that WP is acting transparently in allowing encyclopedic material is added, and disallowing improper deletions. I see no reason why such a system in these instances should not be permanent. LessHeard vanU 13:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Editors who use this range via registered accounts are strongly urged to disclose their affiliation and refrain from direct edits to political articles." Given they way things work in practice, the strong urge is to set up accounts and deny their affiliation, and demand we assume good faith. THF makes a good point about the ip edit record at least providing some public accountability. On the other hand, Durova made a solid case based on policy. A topic ban for congressional ips is likely to be the de facto result as they vandalize and get blocked for it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Question How would this be enforced? Are we going to block violators? Since they all use the same range, we might just as well anon-block the whole range and force them to use accounts. (Of course, this way, only checkusers could tell if this range is editing.) Or do we authorize any user to revert without limit edits from this range regardless of quality? That could lead to partisan edit warring by registered editors (whether or not to revert "good" edits from this range). Thatcher131 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Enforcement would be through blocks, same as with any other topic ban, and if that fails we can raise it to a full siteban. Regarding the block method, I like the question and actually I had originally drafted a long term soft block on the IP range. Decided not to go with that for three reasons: there's more precedent for community topic banning, problem edits were concentrated on the topic of politics with more useful edits to other subjects, and in case some staffers try to evade this ban, the investigation would be simpler if the underlying IP isn't blocked. Seasoned wikisleuths will know what I mean. Durova^Charge! 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A case is there in principle as this has been a recurring problem, however, taking such an extreme move will almost certainly attract (possibly unwanted) media attention and will set a precedent for this course of action during other elections, not just in the USA and not just general elections. Besides this, there are easy shortcuts around a sanction in this case and it won't ultimately stop the problem. The articles in question are patrolled frequently anyway and so any erroneous changes are likely to be caught out within a matter of hours or days. I'm not convinced a sanction in this case will save us any work or improve the quality of the wiki. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The only precedent in question is whether this organization can set itself above this site's policies. If it can, then who else can? I propose this in the hope that decisive action will have a deterrent effect. Certainly, given the recent news, more organizations ought to be deterred from damaging Wikipedia articles. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is not our decision to make. See our policy on the blocking of sensitive IP addresses; this kind of decision is expressly not to be made by the community, for good reason. The policy states: "These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations and blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications that must be managed by the Foundation's press relations team. Avoid long blocks of these addresses and be especially careful in formulating your block messages because your block message will be seen and commented on by the press". This kind of blocking decision must be made by the m:Communications_committee. Neil ム 14:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect for what appears to be a very sincere response, that mischaracterizes policy: our responsibility is to inform them promptly after implementing a block. Blocking decisions on this IP range have already been made 22 times. My approach has been very conservative: I informed Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales days in advance and sent them an early draft of the proposal. Durova^Charge! 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But it says "avoid long term blocks" - how is this anything other than a long-term block? Have Cary or Jimbo responded at all to this proposal? I think editing restrictions are also a poor idea. Has there been any comparison done on how many good edits on political articles come from HoR addresses? To take action assuming all their edits are COI and/or vandalism is naïve - people from those IPs would probablyt be some of our most potentially knowlegable contributors to Wikipedia's political articles, particularly the older ones. Incidentally, even if Jimbo / Bastique do leave it to the community to decide,and are happy to abjure responsibility at this time, my reccomendation is not to block all House of Representative IPs for a lengthy period of time. Reasons include that it sets a dangerous precedent (would we therefore then preemptively block all government IPs for a set period of time before elections?), it's unnecessary (has there really been that much vandalism? 22 blocks on a huge IP range is not very much, at all), it's almost intended to create an unnecessary fuss (I dread to think what the media reaction would be), and it's assuming bad faith on a particularly high profile range of addresses, when, if anything, we should be assuming good faith more than ever. Neil ム 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I hate to say I told you so ... Neil ム 15:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• E kala mai, but this would be a terrible decision. Why punish somebody for something they might do in the future? Does the benefit outweigh the PR (and openness) implications? While it would be nice if they didn't vandalize, the editors can still make useful contributions. No need to kill this albatross just yet. It's not the kind of weight we want around our necks. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Another issue, you would be blocking the most expert editor (albeit possibly biased) on the topics involved there are. I think and hope the self-cleansing potential of Wiki is strong enough to cover this. When in doubt why not set up a kind of "guard dog project" that closely monitors the vulnerable articles to prevent and revert this behaviour. I know it is a pain, but some valuable information may well be provided from Capitol Hill once in a while, and we would not like to lock ourselves away from that, do we? Arnoutf 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Considering Jimbo's comment at the top of this proposal, any further discussion is probably moot, but to me, this would be a really bad idea simply for the media storm it would quite likely generate. "Hey, Wikipedia has banned the entire Congress! What about that 'anyone can edit' thing?" I'm not sure what the percentage of good edits to bad edits coming from Congressional IPs is, but I would suspect there's a pretty reasonable percentage of good, unbiased edits that come in from there; we may lose sight of that when someone stupidly polishes their congressman's article until it shines as a blazing beacon of political brilliance (then wonders what happened when they get caught for it). Tony Fox (arf!) 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm with Tony here. This would open up a political firestorm, and any media coverage of such a decision by Wikipedia would almost certainly be spun as censorship. There is also a "baby with bathwater" issue here: Yes we get vandalism and POV-pushing from staffer IPs, but we must certainly get some positive from them as well. POV-pushing is not hard to undo, but there's no way to undo losing an insightful contribution. Italia^vivi 16:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This user is banned by definition of the ban policy. If no one is willing to unblock them, then the editor is banned. If this is intended to be a note on the board for the purposes of letting the community know about this indef block, then discussion for unblocking should take place directly below this discussion. Banning actions do not have to be endorsed. This of course does not preclude an editor in good standing using the unblock template on Hornetman's talk page to make a case for unblocking. Once unblock, the editor is no longer considered banned by the Wikipedia Community.

In regards to the second part of the proposal, I do not want to appear to be a process wonk, but we have not really had many comments relating to the deletion of the editors all userspace. A more appropriate venue for this discussion may be an entry on MFD listing the request for "all userspace". The MFD venue is likely to garner more consensus generating discussion vis a vis the deletion of the editor userspace. Navou ^banter 03:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinitely ban Hornetman16

User:Hornetman16 was recently blocked indefinitely by User:Alison for sockpuppetry, via User:ChristianYouth, having previously been blocked several times for various problems, such as using a sockpuppet in the past (see User:Cenafan16). He continuously insisted that ChristianYouth was not his sockpuppet, and then started requesting that we unblock ChristianYouth. Since then, he has stated intent to come back and register again. I do not think this is a good idea, considering that he has threatened both me and Alison in e-mails, unless we block him. I propose that we ban him indefinitely and delete all his userspace. So far, he has been disruptive, and caused a lot of trouble. --Deskana (apples) 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal for an indefinite ban. I have no patience for people who threaten admins. - Philippe | Talk 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed - editor has confessed to being the sockmaster in email and has been little other than disruptive. His userpage was deleted repeatedly due to WP:USER and WP:NOT violations. Was constantly argumentative with others. Has a long block log[16]. Now, he has vowed to "make sure Wikipedia is shut down", etc, etc. Not here to help the project and, goodness knows, many have tried to get through to him to no avail. I put a lot of effort into trying to save his userspace by reworking it but he was largely reverting it all over time. I defended his userspace last week at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Hornetman16/Bar but at this point feel that a ban is appropriate - Alison ☺ 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: a number of other editors and admins were calling for a ban last week[17].

• (ec)I don't think this is needed. If no one is willing to unblock, this indef is a ban. Navou ^banter 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a reasonable amount of experience in dealing with Hornetman regarding image copyright, permissions and suchlike. He has a history of claiming copyright on images that are not his, making claims of having received permission but when requesting proof, can't. He does appear to be aggressive towards administrators - such as here so I really don't know if there's anything that can be done other than a ban, sadly. Nick 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He performed a cut and paste move to Conservapedia, claiming that he wrote the article, too. I agree with you totally, Neil. --Deskana (apples) 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed I first encountered Hornetman16 when he tagged this image for deletion. I pointed out that he was wrong, he escalated, I sought the opinion of an admin, he escalated, and eventually was blocked. For the first time. Since then there has been two months of repeated drama. I believe the community's patience has been worn out. Threatening the very admins who have tried to guide him pretty much clinches it. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly endorse ban - Despite the fact I had a brief interaction with Hornetman16 (which was actually a civil interaction), I monitored the situation with Hornetman16. I saw nothing but disruption from the user. Many users, mainly Alison and Deskana (two of the most patient users we have here), tried especially hard to get him to change his ways. They devoted a lot of time to help him. Despite their hard work, there was only more disruption with Hornetman16's userpage, his incivility continued, there was a fiasco at Wikipedia: Changing usernames, and finally sockpuppetry. I was unaware of the E-mail abuse towards Alison and Deskana, and that only increases the reasoning to ban Hornetman16. If the E-mail abuse continues, I suggest an E-mail block on the account as well. Acalamari 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I absolutely endorse this proposal and share Philippe's view regarding this business of threatening admins. I haven't been directly involved with this person but I've seen the edge of his disruption via various talk pages popping up on my watchlist and this guy is obviously just a time waster with no genuine intent to contribute constructively to the project. And threatening admins who are just trying to do their job and otherwise been very patient and fair is completely unacceptable. I also support Acalamari's suggestion to lock out his email, if that hasn't been done already. And I agree with Navou that a CSN ban isn't really necessary in this case, although it is sometimes useful down the track to be able to point to a ban discussion. No admin will unblock someone with his record and I think you could consider him banned under the traditional banning system (ie no one is willing to unblock so the user is banned). Sarah 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• He has demonstrated adequately that he's simply too immature to be a constructive contributor. Friday (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Firm support, with a view toward contacting his ISP. Numerous users have offered to help set him right, only to have him bite (or should I say sting?) the hands that are trying to feed him. I myself offered to lend a hand, since I "speak his language" (I'm a pentecostal/charismatic Christian, like him) I never heard back from him, and judging by what's been going on, I'm probably glad I never did. Obviously this guy is not mature enough for Wikipedia. I wouldn't object, however, to lifting the ban provided he makes the biggest apology ever to Alie, Deskana and everyone else whose time he's wasted. Blueboy96 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that an apology is enough anymore. He's always apologised after being blocked, but he just goes and does it again. --Deskana (apples) 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just noticed Nick's blurb about him deceptively claiming copyright on images that he doesn't own. You're right, Deskana--taking that into account, an apology isn't nearly enough. Blueboy96 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman16 appears to a child seeking attention. I'd like to see evidence (that is, difs) of misuse of the sock puppets he created, as per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Has he ever been the subject of an RfC? What other dispute resolution has occurred? Why an indefinite ban rather than six months to grow up? Banno 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It also appears that he has not been informed of this discussion. That's a bit rude. Remedied with a note on his talk page. Banno 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been e-mailed about it. --Deskana (apples) 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've notified him by email some time ago, so he's more than aware of it. Also, his talk page is still available for his own commentary re. this case - Alison ☺ 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

His talk page archives [18] [19] are a litany of failed dispute resolutions. His Cenafan sock was used to hound Daniel in a fake grassroots campaign during his userpage wars[20]. His second sock became incredibly disruptive on my talk page [21] and the whole matter descended into farce. His sock was then blocked. He then took the matter to email and now MySpace, where he has threatened further disruption and the starting of a campaign to "shut down Wikipedia" as being somehow anti-Christian. Fortunately, he has now privated his journal at http://www.myspace.com/wwecenafan16, so that's somewhat self-defeating. Seriously, he's been given more chances than most and every time, he's blown it - Alison ☺ 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, it is better to notify a user on their talk page rather than by email, since it is important that we be able to see that they have been notified. I can't see from the difs you provided that he did much damage to the Wiki. Yes, he was a nuisance, but did he use the puppets to circumvent a block, or to bias a vote, or some such? Was the dispute resolution process followed? If so, provide a few difs. And if not, why? Banno 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Assuming this proposal carries, you admins ought to be ready for a blizzard of vandalism. Given his declared intent to wreak havoc, his claim that WP is anti-Christian (shades of Gastrich?) and his disregard for copyright, one can only assume he's got a hamper full of smelly socks on hand. Blueboy96 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• In fairness, Hornetman16 has now contacted me in email to say that he has withdrawn the threat of disruption, yet wishes to be banned. He has now opened a new account on Conservapedia - Alison ☺ 22:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A six-month block would have been better. Banno 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He's threatened us over e-mail, written angry blog posts about us, ranted directly at our faces on WP:CHU/U (when someone was saying he'd improved), committed blatant copyvios, and been blocked for edit warring. You think this will change in six months? I do not. --Deskana (apples) 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"when someone was saying he'd improved". Hey, Deskana. No need to rub it in!!! ;-) ElinorD (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is a problem. But going from blocks of a few hours to an indefinite is a long stretch. Banno 00:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

User agreed to mentorship and topic ban, has apologized via e-mail, and is willing to work with the volunteer mentors. -- Avi 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Isarig (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

User:Isarig has been a notable revert warrior here on Israel-related articles for two years. When not at WP:AN/3RR as an offender, he is there reporting editors who have mutually violated 3RR alongside him in edit wars (a sort of kamikaze edit warring followed by quickly 3RR reporting his opponent). He was recently blocked for one week for extensive warring at House demolition, but un-blocked two days early for promising to cease his perpetual edit warring. Despite the aforementioned leniency in his most recent block, it was discovered via CheckUser that Isarig has moved from edit-warring on his main account to edit-warring with the assistance of sockpuppets. Isarig unapologetically continues his edit war here on Wikipedia, treating Israel-Palestine and Arab-Israeli conflict related articles as a battleground (going so far as to accuse other editors of participating in Hamas' kidnappings amongst other incivility and personal attacks), and has now moved to evasive means of disruption (sockpuppetry) after promising administrators he would cease his edit wars. I used the phrase "moved on to sockpuppetry" loosely, as he has been using socks to revert to his preferred versions long before this most recent incident.

Warning users against gaming 3RR using a sockpuppet you yourself are using to game 3RR goes beyond "bad behavior"; this is active and concerted disruption. This is also deliberate deception and a malevolent use of Wikipedia as a battleground. I hold that Isarig has exhausted the community's patience, and should be community banned. If not completely community banned, I propose a topic ban on Isarig (and any accounts operated by Isarig) against editing any articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and greater Arab-Israeli conflict. Submitted by Italia^vivi 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

• Support full ban. If no community consensus for a full ban, a topic ban from articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts. Italia^vivi 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban. Were it not for the sockpuppetry, I would more strongly support a topic ban; as it is, I will support either but IMO a full ban is indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's evident that other policy measures have failed here and other editors are being affected outwith the topic space by 3RR bans brought about due to Isarig. Chris Cunningham 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this is not "Wikipedia users for deletion"; I ask the preceding users to consider striking out their pseudo-votes elaborating on their reasoning. Has anyone considered the idea of mentorship? Might Isarig be willing to be mentored voluntarily? Eleland 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, and are not used unless there is no other way to stop disruptive behavior. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first. Isarig agreed to cease his edit warring, then immediately resumed his edit warring with a sockpuppet account. I don't see how mentorship solves this kind of willful disruption; he has shown a willingness to be deceptive and evasive in continuing his edit warring. Since blocks are only preventative and not punitive, this is the only measure for those exhausted by Isarig's prolonged campaign here. I do, truly, believe the community to be exhausted with his war and have raised the issue in this (appropriate) venue. Italia^vivi 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ban. I've never seen a chronic 3RR violator and sockpuppet abuser turn into a productive editor. Wikipedia is not therapy. —Ruud 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would support a topic ban (first choice) or a siteban (second choice), given what appears to be the total absence of any sort of learning curve here. Articles dealing with Arab-Israeli issues are highly contentious in the best of hands - having one less incorrigible edit-warrior/POV-pusher/sockpuppeteer at work on them will be a plus for the encyclopedia. If we really believe that Wikipedia is not a battleground, then we need to be willing to take action against editors who insist on treating it as one. Isarig has had plenty of chances and abused whatever slack he's been cut, complete with false promises to reform. I would favor a topic ban initially, though given his track record I would not oppose a siteban. If Isarig is willing to consider mentorship, then the topic ban could be revisited after 6-12 months. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• As someone who's touched bases with Isarig periodically since last fall, I'm very disappointed to see that he was abusing my good faith and others' by abusing sockpuppets the whole time. This was someone who had impressed me as intelligent and reasonable, yet locked in a nearly insoluble edit conflict because the surrounding issues themselves are so intractable. I may not know how to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, but I do know what to do when an editor games Wikipedia's policies as long as this. Isarig, please respect the community's decision and e-mail me in half a year to ask for reinstatement. I'm supporting this proposal. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment - i've been working on Battle of Jenin for quite some time trying to promote the article despite hightened sensitivity and i can only attest that on said article, Isarig's edits (of recent) were on the same level as that of other involved editors such as User:Eleland or User:PalestineRemembered who decided to participate here (i believe PR should not make block votes on such issues considering he was just nominated for one and was assigned a mentor that was userchecked as a sock). anyways, at least accoring to the statments made here, it seems that Isarig has crossed a few lines, esp. if he has been war editing after a one week ban. i think that at least he should be given a chance to respond before any sanction is given and i suggest, perhaps, that a single mentor could be assigned both to him and to PR (who's CSN case should be reopened)... for the sake of neutrality. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is actionable evidence against someone else participating in this discussion, by all means act on it. I will be the very first to come support you if you have evidence against any editor as damning and blatant as what Isarig has been doing. This is not about any single incident or conflict, whether it is Isarig's most recent conflict or conflicts from two years ago. There is an unabashed pattern of eagerness to battleground on Isarig's part, topped off with false promises of reform followed by sockpuppetry. Italia^vivi 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am recusing myself from expressing an opinion here. But I would invite people to read any part of Talk:Battle of Jenin to see huge problems with this article and how it's been impossible to improve it. I don't recall ever seeing an article so poor (though in this example, Isarig may not be the worst culprit). PalestineRemembered 08:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban They had agreed to stop edit warring on 04:02, 7 November 2006. Since then they have been doing just the opposite. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at minimum; will support full ban if such is the community consensus. A one-week block is clearly not sufficient punishment under these circumstances. CJCurrie 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The intent is not to "punish" Isarig, but to free the project from a disruptive influence. Raymond Arritt 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban per User:MastCell, User:Durova, and User:FayssalF. Raymond Arritt 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse full ban, per the Puppy. This kind of disruption would usually merit only a topic ban by itself. But when you use a sock to engage in gross edit-warring on a very sensitive topic, you're effectively telling the community the rules don't apply to you. Fine then--he can't play at all. Blueboy96 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Full Ban Disruptive editor and has given little to the project. The Use of sockpuppets to further disruption and edit waring gives me great pause.Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Mentorship prior to ban. As I suggested with regards to PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) I think that before we ban anyone, even from topics, we need to try mentorship. This particular subject is extremely prone to being a tinderbox, and unless we are going to start getting equally draconian with all involved editors, I think that allowing for mentorship, and the possibility, however remote, of allowing for gainful contributions to the project needs to be investigated and implemented. Should the mentorship fail, it is very easy to bring user:Isarig or user:PalestineRemembered or anyone back here to the noticeboard. Everyone should get a chance to be helped with how to handle the strong emotions that this (and similar) topics engender. Only failing another's guidance and help should we be breaking out the banhammer. -- Avi 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig has actively deceived administrators who have given him chances for help or leniency in the past. I do not support mentorship for him at all, he has exhausted good-faith leniency already and abused it to the fullest extent (sockpuppetry). If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you. Italia^vivi 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, perhaps I am misreading you, but the tone of your edits seem to be becoming less and less interested in protecting the project, and more and more reminiscent of a personal grudge against this editor. “If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you.” is the type of statement someone with an axe to grind would make, not someone who is truly interested in the continuance and betterment of wikipedia. WP:CSN is neither meant to be a witchhunt nor a venue for personal schadenfreude. It is where editors, including adminsitrators, arbtors, etc., come together to decide on the best option for protecting the project. Your, mine, Jimbo's, or Willy on Wheel's personal opinions on user:Isarig are, for the most part, irrelevant. If the project feels that the possibility of mentorship is warranted, it will be applied, and if not not. You, in particular, should not have much to worry about, as if you are so convinced that Israig is incapable of correcting his recidivism, he will be brough back here soon enough. And if Isarig CAN prevent himself from being brought back here, and edits constrcutively, then your opinion will in hindsight be incorrect, and wouldn't you want not to be responsible for the improper banning of any editor? I see you in a win-win situation should mentorship be extended, except if you have a personal vendetta in mind, which I hope neither you nor anyone has. -- Avi 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I will support of ban of anyone who has done the following: 1) edit warred extensively, reaching the point of multiple one-week blocks 2) who then agrees to reform 3) and then immediately resumes their edit warring through the abusive use of socks. I don't appreciate the wholly unwarranted impugning of my participation ("axe to grind," "personal vendetta," etc). If PalestineRemembered or any other editor undertakes the type of war Isarig has, I will support their ban wholeheartedly regardless of the editor. Italia^vivi 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't support the ban in this instance. I agree that Isarig can be a disruptive editor, but there's been no form of dispute resolution here. I would like to see a user conduct RfC on the matter before I would even consider endorsing a ban. Some form of mentorship would most probably be a good idea here, if it doesn't work we can always re-evaluate the situation and ban him at a later date - attempts at taming a problematic editor are better than outcasting them. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I totally agree with your principles here: mentorship would be ideal. However, skilled mentors are a limited resource; mentoring a problem user consumes quite a bit of volunteer and community resources. Yes, if an experienced user steps forward willing to mentor Isarig, that would be best. But if we can't find a good mentor, then I think a ban (at least a 6-12 month topic ban) is appropriate. A user-conduct RfC is designed to solicit the feedback of uninvovled editors - here, that feedback has generally supported sanctions. User-conduct RfC's are only effective if there's reason to believe that the editor in question is open to feedback. In this case, it's clear that Isarig knows the rules and is repeatedly and intentionally ignoring them. I don't see how collecting a bunch of editors to tell him something he already knows will change things. But then I tend toward cynicism. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • A topic ban in this case would probably be a very good idea. I think a six month Israeli related article ban should be enforced with blocks of upto one week each time he edits them. Community 1RR should also be applied, again enforcable with blocks of 1 week each time it is broken. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ban, either full, or at the very least topic ban, for not less than 6 months. This is not about dispute resolution; it is about constant and unapologetic contempt for the rules. This user has been extremely disruptive for years now, and his use of sockpuppets has shown clearly that his constant wikilawyering and harping on the rules has been little more than hypocritical trolling. He is always the first to file 3RR reports against users whom he is engaged in edit wars with, even though his own fourth revert comes within an hour or two after the 24hr deadline. Now we learn that he'd been circumventing that deadline anyway with sockpuppets! In addition, something another user mentioned bears repeating here -- Isarig's contributions to Wikipedia in general have been disruptive rather than productive. Over 80% of his edits in article space is a revert, usually accompanied with a snide edit summary. Rarely does he make an edit that is not politically charged and tendentious -- he never corrects spelling/grammar errors or adds information to articles that is purely factual or descriptive. He constantly deletes well-sourced information from articles. In the talk space, over 80% of his contributions include personal attacks and threats to escalate each content dispute into a WP/ANI report. Again this becomes even more objectionable when accompanied by the hypocrisy of acting like the rules apply to everyone else but not to him. We should not be too surprised about all this in any case. About a year ago I got into a conflict with Isarig because I had the audacity to suggest that paid meatpuppets (i.e. people paid by an agent specifically to make certain edits to Wikipedia) presented a conflict of interest problem and should identify themselves; Isarig's position in the ensuing discussion is quite telling. Basically, he defended the practice, suggesting that paid meatpuppetry presented no greater COI problem than editors with ideological perspectives that influence their editing. Now that I know he was operating sockpuppet accounts specifically for the purpose of violating WP rules that entire time, the vehemence and rudeness of his defense of the equivalent of bribery makes a lot more sense. csloat 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I am immensely dismayed by this circus wherein all those people who have traditionally opposed Isarig on Israel-related articles have converged to propose a ban on him. Isarigais a good-faith and prolific editor, and it is apparent that he is being persecuted for POV rather than behavior. This witchhunt must stop now. Beit Or 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editors don't use sockpuppets for edit-warring and committing 3RR violations. Italia^vivi 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting Isarig is being "persecuted" for his POV, or calling this a "witchhunt", is convenient but utterly inaccurate. Isarig has a worse block log than many topic-banned or sitebanned editors, he's abused the trust extended to him by neutral editors, he's shown no signs of improving his behavior despite multiple blocks and warnings, and he's most recently abused sockpuppets to edit-war. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mentorship I used to edit the Israeli-Palestinian articles extensively. Although I admit having little experience with Isarig, I can attest to the fact that there is an infuriating sense of lawlessness that permeates every single article in the subject. Good behavior never goes unpunished and activity that would be considered negative and harmful elsewhere is consistently rewarded. It is clear that Isarig has more or less fallen into the same hole many other editors have, but let us not pretend his behavior is abnormal or even out of the ordinary. I hope we not only support mentorship for Isarig, but also for countless other editors who frequent the same articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I do not support a ban for this editor. I would second the suggestion for some kind of mentorship above. I would also call for Isarig to admit his mistake and publically apologize and promise not to do it again. Clearly, Isarig he has done wrong things such as the sockpuppets and he should be punished in some way for this. He should certainly be blocked for a time for that behavior, and certainly for longer than any previous blocks. In my experience with Isarig and the editor who left the comment above, CSLOAT, Isarig took some very strong personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and did not give it back as badly as he got it. He did not edit war any more than others. Clearly he could have been more civil, but unfortunately this is a highly highly uncivil environment. We should NOT put the blame only on Isarig here for that incivility. Others have been uncivil, others have been blocked for reverting and edit warring, others may have used sock puppets, etc. This should be a wake up call to everyone involved that the ends do not justify the means, that wikipedia policies are here for a reason, they apply equally to all of us, and if we want to produce good articles here we have to tolerate opposing views and allow the encyclopedia to express them. Bigglove 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and support mentorship. The one-week ban that was already imposed seems sufficient, per the banning admin's statement on AN/I. Then if mentorship is imposed in similar kinds of cases, that would be reasonable as well. I agree with some of the comments above, that at least some of the calls for harsher measures seem to be related to content and/or personal disputes. 6SJ7 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By way of extension, I can't help but wonder if some of the calls for lenience are related to ongoing content disputes. CJCurrie 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Such wondering should be done mentally, unless you have evidence of bad faith. -- Avi 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that mentorship cannot really be "imposed". It requires a credible, experienced volunteer mentor to step forward and agree to mentor Isarig (see the case of NCdave above). MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - sockpuppetry is wrong, but I don't think indefban is warranted. Clearly, some of the calls for harsh measures are coming from Isarig's opponents in content disputes and/or usual conspiracy mongerers. Unfortunately, articles related to Jewish history and religion are not the best example of collaboration in WP. Isarig is far from being the worst offender there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  This is a two-way street; clearly, some of the calls for leniency are coming from those who share a similar position and ideology with Isarig. Tarc 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting. For what it's worth, I see that people who share Isarig's POV are opposing the ban, while those who differ with his POV are supporting it. To be expected. But it's pretty clear, contrary to this being a case of Isarig's opponents or "the usual conspiracy mongers" (?) ganging up on Isarig, most of the really neutral editors (and I would include KillerChihuahua, Durova, Raymond arritt, Aeon1006, Ruud, Thumperward, and Blueboy96 among them - correct me if I'm wrong) have supported the topic ban. I don't think this can be blown off as people re-enacting a POV or content dispute. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • However, has mentorship ever been tried? I am loathe to jump to a ban without giving this, or any user, an opportunity to ask for, and receive, guidance. A topic ban during the initial stages of mentorship may be appropriate, but being able to be rescided earlier at the mentor's discretion. It is very easy to bring people back here, so I fail to see the downside. -- Avi 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with you - mentorship would be ideal, assuming Isarig is interested and a suitable mentor is willing to take him on. If he is mentored, it would probably still be appropriate to have a temporary topic ban (3-6 months?) which could be revisited after that time with input from the mentor (it looks like something similar is going to be tried with NCdave from the above thread). MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It looked to me like Durova, from what she was saying above, had been informally keeping an eye on Isarig. If so, an experienced admin, whose opinion on these matters I would trust, has spoken out against mentorship. If that impression was inaccurate, then I would change my suggestion below to be morein line with MastCell's, above. Hornplease 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• IMO, a Topic Ban would be the best way to go. (For the record, I've had quite negative dealings with Isarig, but not for several months or so now). Anyways, if a user has been brought to a point where gaming 3RR to the point where sock-puppets are being utilized, then that's a pretty serious problem. Try a removal from all Israeli-Palestinian, Middle East, etc...articles, as these are the focus of the rule-breaking. See if he can redeem himself by editing in another field of interest/hobby/study. If the attitude and corresponding bad actions crop up again, then the idea of a further ban could be brought up. Tarc 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'd suppose a topic ban for a set period is worth a try. I would have supported mentorship, but Durova's points above seem to indicate that that is simply inappropriate in this case. Let Isarig demonstrate his willingness to improve the encyclopaedia in areas where he does not feel the need to oppose( what he presumably sees as) trolling, and then the community might feel a measure of trust that he does indeed have WP's interests in mind, and intends to pay more than lip service to its policies and guidelines. (Frankly, all the people arguing that "everyone is bad" in these cases miss the point. Some people are worse, and those that simultaneously abuse the system and use it to their advantage, like several editors have established Isarig has done in this area, are the worst.) For the record, Israel-Palestine articles occupy a tiny fraction of my time here, and do not recall running into this particular editor. Its a pity that this sort of disclaimer is required. Hornplease 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose total ban. I would support a block more limited in temporal and topical scope. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Topic ban for a set period along Hornplease's reasoning. Mentorship could well be a waste of time, as there's hardly anyone on Israel related articles that wouldn't need one. --tickle me 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban for now Assuming all the evidence is accurate (and apologies for my tone if it is not), I want to say that I am deeply disappointed in Isarig. However, Isarig has been a valuable editor; many editors have contributed almost nothing to WP, and what they contribute is mostly trolling and disruption, and they are usually given the option to be mentored. So I would propose a temporary topic ban, to be lifted when/if a suitable mentor can be found. If any violations of WP:SOCK continue, it would be a matter to reconsider here. IronDuke 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support strict conditions & mentorship; something like 0RR on any Middle East topics would be nice to start with. Evading 3RR with socks is a serious violation, especially for an editor who is so prolific in 3RR reporting of others and so eager to play the "electric fence" game with 4th reverts at 24h:1m. Furthermore, it is clear that pro-Arab editors are held to far higher standards when it comes to revert warring, incivility, et cetera. Yet two wrongs don't make a right; there's something in Canadian law called the faint hope clause and I think it ought to apply even to such disruptive editors. This being said, we need a very sharp mentor indeed, preferably someone who comes from the opposite POV, and there needs to be effective follow-up. If this is not psosible, than reluctantly I have to say community ban. Eleland 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support total indefinite ban Let's not forget that Isarig was a sockpuppeteer, conducted disrupted edited, wikilawyered, and used wikpedia as a battleground. I can post diffs on request. Other sockpuppeteers have been indefinitely banned for doing far less. For example user:Rovoam, user:Buffadren, User:Mark_us_street, user:Bonaparte, user:LIGerasimova, user:Artaxiad. Note that my interaction with Isarig has been minimal although his shotgun reverts of sourced material of other users has kept me away from the Arab-Israeli topics due to the fact that I didn't want to waste time researching and posting something in case Isarig reverts it. I believe he is a serious detriment to the project, not only for his revert waring but preventing other editors from participating in topics for which they may have an interest. Pocopocopocopoco 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Given that all of the examples you list here were banned for multiple sock accounts, almost all of which were used to vandalize and/or violate copyright and/or harass, what you appear to be arguing is that leniency should be shown to Isarig, since his infraction, serious though it was, pales in comparison to your examples. IronDuke 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• The examples that I have listed were users that were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry that were far less aggressive with their reverts than Isarig. For exmple, above user:Buffadren wasn't even a major revert warrior but was banned on a suspicion of a conflict of interest. user:Commodore Sloat may have also raised a suspicion of a conflict of interest with Isarig. Pocopocopocopoco 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, every single example you listed was guilty of using multiple socks over multiple articles for long periods of time, and I think all of them were vandals. If you had investigated the matter before you posted, you would have seen that user:Buffadren was shown to be User:Mark_us_street, whom you list as a separate user. It looks very like you have a personal grudge here, and I urge the community to take that into consideration. I also respectfully urge you to be more careful with your accusations. IronDuke 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• So you think you got it all figured out have you? Perhaps you might figure out that I might know something about user:Buffadren if I was wrongly accused of being him and I might have been curious as to who he was? See my user page. He was banned on the suspicion of meatpuppetry and possible conflict of interest. He had the same IP address as user:Mark_us_street because it was believed that they both worked for the same organization the Tiraspol_Times. It is clear that Isarigs behaviour was far worse. You clearly haven't taken the trouble to look into any of this yourself. I take issue with you trying to twist what I have said above as well as well as your accusations that I might have a grudge. I challenge you to prove your accusations of a grudge. I can only conclude that this must be due to a bias that you have, possibly content based, in favour of keeping Isarig. I urge the community to take this into account. Pocopocopocopoco 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• First off, I want to make it clear that I'm frankly pissed off with the guy for running socks. This is really not acceptable and he needs some sort of a time out in order to reflect on his participation here. On the pages I've with him, I've never had any reason to believe he was doing this so it has appeared out of the blue. Very disappointing. That being said, I think there are are couple points about this discussion which I think need to be addressed.

1) Complaining about Isarig's 3RR reports is bogus self pity. Nobody forces anyone to 3RR, and if you do, and you get blocked for it -too bad. That's not disruption. Look in the mirror, and improve yourself.

The problem is that Isarig deliberately escalates edit wars in hopes of filing reports. I'm not defending those who have genuinely broken 3RR and been reported by Isarig, but I absolutely condemn his practice of edit-warring with the apparent intent of escalating 3RR violations. Italia^vivi 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

2) Isarig has been called a disruptive editor. I don't think that's entirely true. I think he's argumentative, and I think he sometimes engages in debate farther than he should and he needs to be more civil. OTOH, the ME topics on WP are a mud pit and he's generally much more civil that the people he's arguing with. Here's a recent example, look at Talk:House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where he's referred to as a "troglodyte".

If an editor who wages frequently wages edit wars (sometimes utilizing sockpuppets) isn't "disruptive," I have no idea what is. Italia^vivi 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3) I also don't see him stonewalling the inclusion of properly sourced material, or injecting poorly sourced material, as is seemingly routine on these topics. I think it's safe to say he has a pro-Israeli POV, but when he abides by policy, I think he's an asset to the project. The trick it to make sure he does, so I support mentorship, but I don't support a indefinite ban at this point. <<-armon->> 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on #1 -- nobody here is reporting this for "bogus self pity" reasons; the problem is that Isarig was using illegal sockpuppets for the specific reason of circumventing Wikipedia's 3RR policy, while at the same time using the 3RR as a license and as a battering ram against other users. The issue is not who violated 3RR but rather Isarig's totally hypocritical attitude towards Wikipedia rules. He'd use the 3RR as a license to revert three times every day, with the fourth revert at 24:01 or some such. When he made a mistake and got blocked he'd come back and promise not to do it again. Meanwhile he'd use the 3RR and other rules to get his way on content disputes, reporting and threatening to report anyone who disagreed with him to ANI. All the time he was flagrantly violating these rules, using a sock to evade the 3RR while trying to get others in trouble for it. It really shows his complete contempt for the rules - few have been more self-righteous than Isarig about the Wikipedia rules, yet at the same time, few have been more flagrant in violating them. I think that's the crux of the issue on #1. On #2 and 3 I respectfully disagree, but a debate over those matters is not necessary at this time -- he is not being sanctioned for those particular abuses. csloat 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose ban and support mentorship. Banning is a last resort, why not try positive approaches (like mentorship) first? --MPerel 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why should we when the user hasn't even apologized or shown any signs of understanding why what he did was wrong? Lothar of the Hill People 22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• This is not a vote to see who gets banned or who is allowed to stay. You can discuss whether or not he should be allowed to edit, but not treat it as a democratic lynching.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, it is plain to everyone here that these are not votes. Everyone has expounded on their reasonings with arguments and rationale; the fact that some used bolding to summarize their statements doesn't turn it into a "democratic lynching." Bold text formatting does not equal "voting" and telling people they have to start completely over again just because they have used bolding is unreasonable. Almost every comment in the above discussion has been four lines or more on my 800x600 monitor. This is not voting. Italia^vivi 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban from what I've seen of the user he is highly disruptive and doesn't display any signs of being rehabilitatible. If he shows some sort of contrition or apologizes to the community then perhaps a topic ban can be considered instead but without any sign of even acknowledging that he's violated the community's trust and that he's sorry I see no reason for leniancy. Lothar of the Hill People 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

Why was this archived above? Ryulong, I don't think anyone is treating this as a lynching. Certainly there are some flared emotions surrounding Isarig, but I don't think anyone in the above discussion is trying to "lynch" him. I think there are a lot of frustrated users who are upset because Isarig's complete contempt for the rules around here has so far gone unsanctioned. I also don't see how this has been resolved, so I don't think the archiving of the discussion is helpful at this time. But everyone should be clear that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish Isarig or get revenge on him but rather to protect Wikipedia from his abuses. csloat 05:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an AFD for banning a user. Start it over without the support and oppose.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point, I'm sorry. There have been several sanctions suggested above -- total ban, time bound ban, topic ban, time bound topic ban, mentorship.. the above discussion appears to point to various levels of support for various options and some support for a combination of options. csloat 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone should be banned is not something people should type "*'''Support'''" and "*'''Oppose'''" for. I don't care what sanctions are listed above. They need to be discussed and not voted on like WP:RFA or WP:AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that AFD is not a vote either. In any case, this is a discussion in that people are responding to each other's points and attempting a consensus. Asking each person to repeat his or her argument, but without bolding any text, seems a little absurd to me. Hornplease 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of processes on this website that are called "not a vote" but in actuality often are. This page is returning to its old ways of driveby bannings, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly most AFDs do not meet the most perfect standards of discussion. That being said, the above discussion does not appear to be a driveby banning at all. A great number of people have objected to an outright permanent ban, and some have called for mentorship; its quite clear that there is engagement and evolution of positions going on. Nobody is likely to claim that the sheer number of votes matter here. What is a drive-by, I'm afraid, is your archiving. Hornplease 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of bolded suggestions here either, however, I don't think the archival in this case is helpful either, those positions appear to be supported by rationales. Thanks, Navou ^banter 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's being treated like AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So if we go through and un-bold statements of "support" and "oppose" can we keep the discussion? It seems like you're arbitrarily throwing up an obstacle to what appears to be a meaningful discussion about the issues raised and about possible sanctions. csloat 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a reasonable solution to be to simply un-bold the text? Something more drastic could be to remove all instances of "support" or "oppose" and judging each comment by its rationale. But asking users to "start it over" is being neither productive, nor considerate of other people's time and efforts.Bless sins 08:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? Or is it like i could do edit war for 2 years + use abusive socks and after that come here where people would use bold text and then comes an admin closing like leave him alone guys, you are lynching him. What's particular about this User? All files here use the same bold system. Any rationale? - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above, there were dissenting voices raised against a total ban, but the case for a topic ban was not refuted. Some mentioned mentorship but I'm not sure what good this would be for a long-established editor who should be aware of our community standards. Catchpole 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was clear that no consensus to total ban but the question is what is the outcome now? He'd get back in a few days and say hello. Can we guarantee that no use of socks would be accepted? How would you know? Go phishing and being accused of wikistalking? Can we guarantee he'd not use the 3RR as a tactical tool? We haven't arrived to that point and yet the thread has been archived. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying not to interfere with the decision-making side of this discussion, but I am startled to see that User:Isarig has apparently never been asked to list the sock-puppets he has created and used. There is a credible sounding allegation that he is operating yet another one, see here. Perhaps disturbingly, this User:Bigglove has come here and contributed to this CSN. (It is also pushing this RfC against CSloat on what appear to me to be trivial grounds, for something CSloat has apologised for). I urge the community to get to the bottom of the serious allegations in this case. PalestineRemembered 08:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here to remove my comments from this discussion, only to find the discussion archived. On another page, a user had taken exception to my posting them as I am accused of being the sockpuppet of Isarig. I am not Isarig, but anyone reading my comments in the discussion above should feel free to disregard them given the concern raised by csloat and PalestineRemembered. One would do well to note, however, that in my remarks I did not flinch from condemming Isarig for his policy infractions and calling for his punishment. I will not comment on points CSloat raises concerning the user conduct RFC that I brought regarding CSloat. That discussion is appropriately kept on that project page. Bigglove 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have recused myself from the banning discussion, as I have had a number of feisty exchanges with Isarig. This brief post is only a response to to Armon's above (in the archived discussion), wherein he describes how Isarig is often more civil than his talk-page interlocutors, one of whom recently called him a "troglodyte." I was the author of the post in question, which Armon has badly misunderstood. There was a dispute about whether Isarig had rightly deleted a sentence about Rachel Corrie's death having raised international awareness of Israel's demolition policy on the grounds that it was unsourced. Another editor argued that "only someone living in a cave would not know that Rachel Corrie's death brought world attention to the house demolition issue", therefore it would have been more appropriate for Isarig to add a fact tag to the sentence than to delete it. I came in at that point, offered a source for the "disputed" material (after the seven seconds or so it took me to find one), and invited the "troglodytes" to inspect it "once their pupils have adjusted" to the light. "Troglodyte" literally and etymologically means "cave-dweller" (Latin troglodytae, plural, from Greek trOglodytai, from trOglE hole, cave (akin to Greek trOgein to gnaw, Armenian aracem I lead to pasture, graze) + dyein to enter). Armon presumably did not understand the play on words.--G-Dett 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh no, amazingly enough, I did understand your "play on words". Isarig objected to Corrie stuff as being unscourced and soapboxing. After a sterile argument where no one bothered to actually provide a source, you finally did -that's good. Unfortunately, you also peppered it with your incivil "witticisms" -that's bad. <<-armon->> 22:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

Does anyone disagree that there is a consensus for a combination topic-ban and mentorship? My suggestion:

• A six-month topic ban from Israeli-Palestinian articles combined with mentorship as to how to handle some of the passions it engenders.
  • During the duration of the ban, a violation may be reverted on sight and a block (length variable 24 hours to one week - most likely at the discretion of the mentor) applied.
  • The ban can be reduced by the mentor should the mentor feel Isarig has shown significant improvement.
• Indefinite limitation to solely the user:Isarig account, even for legitimate reasons. Any violation of this provision should result in a community ban.

Thoughts? -- Avi 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A little harsh, but basically fair. IronDuke 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is very difficult to justify abusive use of sockpuppets. Anyway, any implemented suggestions are all subject to reversal through appeal to Arbcom. -- Avi 15:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with IronDuke, harsh but basically fair, we need a good mentor though; and Isarig's agreement to listen to the mentor. Arnoutf 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite 1-revert limitation on Isarig would be appropriate. Italia^vivi 15:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is something to be worked out between the mentor and Isarig. Perhaps the mentor will think it appropriate, perhaps not. Regardless, Isarig would not be editing the articles he (and others) were revert-warring on due to the topic ban. In other parts of the encyclopedia, I do not see the need, just yet, for a 1RR limitation. -- Avi 15:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He has revert-warred extensively elsewhere, especially at media-outlet-related articles. I do not believe his edit warring behavior is limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Italia^vivi 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say over 80% of Isarig's edits is a revert. I think a 1RR limitation is perfectly reasonable here. csloat 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then let the mentor decide that. The main issues raised here are inexcusable sockpuppetry and editwarring. I believe that the suggested remedies handle that. Again, subject to the above remedies will place Isarig on a very short leash. Further, I am certain that 3RR violations will be dealt with severely, based on Isarig's history. There is no need to "pile-on" as it were. -- Avi 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I accept your proposal. Italia^vivi 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to object to the attempt to frame this as "consensus"; it seems to be pro-Arab and editors lobbying for a ban, versus pro-Israeli editors asking for a topic-ban + mentorship, and neutral editors split more or less evenly. I myself am an exception to the pattern but I can only call it like I see it.

Moving on, I'm not sure what a topic-ban accomplishes, AFAIK this editor has only ever wanted to edit in that single topic. Again, while I personally oppose a total ban, I have to concede that any pro-Arab editor with half this history would have been banned long ago. Isarig has shown ample ability to game and evade 3RR; I'm certain that if placed on 1RR he would simply move to removing NPOV information, or adding POV information, on dozens of articles at once, one time per article per 24h. I think he has to be forbidden from removing information from Middle East articles, period; I think he has to be required to provide good citations from clearly non-partisan groups for anything he wants to include. This being said I don't actually support an outright topic ban, since it would be equivalent to a full ban for all intents and purposes. Eleland 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He edits media-related articles and other subjects, too. Also, could you clarify the comment "I have to concede that any pro-Arab editor with half this history would have been banned long ago"? Is this an official approach somewhere? Italia^vivi 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have recused myself from contributing to decisions in this case, but I feel that Avi should do the same. He has drawn attention to allegations that have been made against me - and yet he objects to warning people that Teens! (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) and Clintonesque (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) are banned sock-puppets! I feel his conduct could be mistaken for partisanship. And I feel this is particularly worrying in a case like this one, since the discussion concerns the "value" of material in articles, and the integrity of the editors who place it there. There is a lot more at stake in this case than the usual incivility, 3RR, OR, NPOV etc allegations. PalestineRemembered 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, PalestineRemembered, it is allegations such as what you have just made which underscore the need for mentorship. I will save the participants here the bevy of links that would indicate your misunderstanding of the situation. As I said, I personally would be willing to take on mentorship for you; I am afraid you would not accept, however. -- Avi 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Isarig's sanction should be more lenient because he is pro-Israel rather than pro-Arab? I personally don't think his bias should enter into it one way or another. I would support a full topic ban that he can request to remove in six months (i.e., it doesn't automatically expire), mentorship, and a strict 1RR rule. He needs to learn to edit more constructively -- as I said above, over 80% of his edits seems to be a revert. A willing mentor (preferably one from an opposing POV) can help him edit constructively over time. Additionally, checkuser should be performed occasionally to be sure he is not running socks again. csloat 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Avi's proposal is a good one. A 6-month topic ban combined with mentorship, sounds fine to me. I think 1RR would be a good addition, but would leave that aspect up to his mentor. I would say that he's on double-secret probation, though - if he's documented to be using socks again, or if he violates the topic ban more than accidentally, or if he shows no improvement at the end of 6 months, then he should be permanently topic- or sitebanned. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with User:MastCell. It must be very clearly understood that the topic ban and mentorship are the last second chance. Raymond Arritt 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair solution; a review-based (ie not automatically expiring) 6-month topical ban with mentorship with the understanding that this is the last "second chance." I hope whoever takes up Isarig's mentorship (should he accept) also imposes 1RR, but that is up to their judgement. Italia^vivi 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to give Isarig an opportunity to explain himself and comment on the proposal before a decision is made? I don't know if that opportunity currently exists, given the block. A 6-month topic ban seems a little harsh to me. Maybe it would be better to have a briefer topic ban and give the mentorship a chance to work. I also agree with Avi that any additional restrictions (such as 1RR) should be determined by the mentor, who obviously would have to be a "neutral" party in all senses of the term. 6SJ7 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, the topic ban can be reduced in duration if the mentor believes it appropriate. Obviously, this will require a long-term demonstration of substantial improvement on Isarig's part. -- Avi 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now this I oppose. Six month minimum, lifted upon review. Also, would you add "Arab-Israeli" alongside "Israel-Palestine" in your proposal? Italia^vivi 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The ban is not meant to be punitive, but protective of the project, Italiavivi. If, in the mentor's eyes, the project is protected by Isarig's changed behavior, why leave the ban? And yes, I believe "Arab-Israeli" is included. -- Avi 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would interpret the topic ban broadly to mean any remotely controversial article associated with Israeli-Arab relations. That said, I agree with Avi that the topic ban is not punitive per se; if the mentor truly believes Isarig has turned over a new leaf, then the best approach might be to come back here to discuss shortening the ban. If a respected, neutral mentor vouches for Isarig, then it's likely the community would consider shortening it. Alternately, I suppose the ban could be lifted at the discretion of the mentor, though the threshold for re-imposing it for bad behavior should be very low. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also interpret the topic ban broadly enough to include at the very least all of the pages he has been a problem on. As for Isarig being permitted his say, even during his one week ban he can edit his talk page all he wants; one would have expected by now an apology or a comment in response to the blocking message]. There is no guarantee he will be back at all under the circumstances, but if he does come back, I think a 6 month topic ban minimum along with mentoring and a 1RR at the discretion of the mentor would be reasonable, even if he does apologize on his talk page and agree not to do it again -- as we know, he has made such promises before. csloat 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should not be forgotten or overlooked here that Isarig has apologized and agreed to "reform" several times in the past. Such statements should be taken with a grain of salt, even WP:AGF would not deny this. Italia^vivi 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why he is on his last chance -- Avi 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As per my opinion above (i.e. he agreed to stop edit warring on 04:02, 7 November 2006), numbers are just numbers -just like the bold votes Ryūlóng referred to. 6 months is just like 1 month just like a year. 2 reverts are just like 3. The question remains. It is about a pattern and patterns cannot be measured. Ryulong is totally right though technically wrong. He should have expressed this view everywhere where admins and editors alike would surely agree w/ him firmly. Isarig's case is just one among hundreds around wikipdia. Recently, i just found two similar case by chance while tracing an unrelated incident at the ANI though low in seriousness. Yes we do find cases but usually no immediate remedy is offered apart from a civil advice. Please read this to get my point. Editors like Sarvagnya are hard to convince or explain to. No, they don't accept notes and advices. They just keep moving w/ false promises most of the time. I am sure there is a leak somewhere and i would believe it is on 3RR policy and how people understand it. They see numbers and that's all. I've just proposed [WP:AN1+n] but no i am a fool! Nobody responds. We move. We say no BATTLE but the BATTLE is the rule and the advice is the exception. Wake up guys. We aren't talking about Isarig here, we are talking about a trend in wikipedia where hundreds of users come here to listen to no one except to themselves. This needs to change. The atmosphere needs a radical change. We need alternative ways and solutions. There's a "wikipedia global warming" and we need to look for renewable energy to make it work longer and longer. I've therefore accepted mentorship along w/ Avi. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would feel more comfortable with this had Avi not already indicated his leniency on the topic ban and 1RR restriction, but are you saying this will be a dual mentor arrangement, ie both you and Avi will be his mentors side-by-side? Italia^vivi 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I asked Fayssal to be the sole mentor, and he requested that I help him. I agreed conditional that he be considered lead to ensure appearances of propriety, as my background is more similar to Isarig's than his. -- Avi 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A dual mentorship means that it is a serious and unbiased business. Otherwise Avi could have done it himself as i trust his judgments. Since i was asked to do it i accepted for the many reasons stated above and thought it may be a good idea to work on it together. I may deal w/ reverts and good advices how to work in harmony w/ different backgrounds of editors and probably Avi w/ POV issues like removing verifiable sources w/o even edit warring or introducing questionable material w/o consensus, incivily, etc... In brief, it is not to restrict anyone's rights to work in Wikipedia but to make sure work is done rightly and according to WP policies and guidelines. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. You two have come up with a good, reasonable, strict solution. I doubt anyone would oppose you and Avi's joint proposal. Also, I would like to once again re-state my support for User:Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal of a 1RR block-enforceable limitation. Italia^vivi 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do sometimes, as many others admins do, block for edit warring even before 3RR is technically violated. So obviously, more than 1RR is already too much in this case. But again, i prefer saying it like "edit warring is bad for Wikipedia so please help us and you'd be helped and help is not abundant." -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a mentorship with FayssalF and Avi is a great idea, and I hope it works. After this, no one can say he wasn't given every opportunity to improve. <<-armon->> 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent solution. Banning really should be a very last resort.--G-Dett 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this solution far too lenient but I will go along with it if its what the community wants as long as Isarig immediately comes clean with all his socks. I have a strong suspicion about a couple users but I will hold off a checkuser request until Isarig reveals them himself. Pocopocopocopoco 01:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone spell out the solution emerging here? What I am reading sounds good although I do not know anything about either of the mentors here. Am I to understand the consensus favors a six month topic ban along with mentorship with the topic ban to be reviewed at the end of 6 months and possibly lifted at that time at the mentors' discretion? And that there is no strict 1RR in place but that the mentors will encourage Isarig to avoid reverts. I think pocopococp..'s suggestion that Isarig should come clean about any other socks he is operating is a good idea too, although I would hope that was a given. Is there any way to find out whether he is operating any other socks? Either way I am glad someone has agreed to mentor him. csloat 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My reading is that the community broadly supports a 6-month topic ban (subject to review at the end) under dual mentorship by Fayssal and Avi, which I support. I have seen several editors support mandatory 0RR, or the recommendation that 1RR be left to the mentors' discretion (I decidedly prefer the former, and believe he would take advantage of the leniency if 0RR is not explicitly stated in the decision). I too feel that it is very lenient given past disruption, but my understanding is also that this will be the last chance for Isarig to genuinely turn a new leaf. If this fails, I have no doubt we will come back to this board in six months. Italia^vivi 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am communicating w/ Isarig for now. While waiting for an email, just one thing which is still unclear to me. CS you know Isarig from media-related articles or from somewhere else? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We met on the Juan Cole page and had numerous disputes there, then on the MEMRI page, on Christopher Hitchens, on Southern California InFocus, on Martin Kramer, on Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 and several other topics. Clearly I think the topic ban should be inclusive of all articles where Isarig has initiated edit wars in the past. csloat 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well give it a few hours as i am still exchanging emails w/ him and waiting for a reply. He's surely offline now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A message to Isarig → You'd be dealing w/ some cool people but so mean when it comes to real business. (read Vote n° 11) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any community sanction at this time -- Requesting community sanctions here against a user who is currently blocked, and thus unable to present a defense, is extremely poor form, as is failing to notify a user on their talk page when a community sanction discussion is opened against them (see User talk:Isarig (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs). If the case for an indefinite block or other community sanction is sufficiently complex as to require discussion here, then the user against whom the sanctions are sought should be permitted to effectively participate in such discussion; being unblocked, if necessary, for the limited purpose of such participation. Operation of the community sanction noticeboard as a kangaroo court whereby established, good-faith users may be banned without notice or the opportunity to present a defense will harm Wikipedia by resulting in many unjustified bans. John254 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Established good faith users don't operate sockpuppets for the purpose of edit warring and violating 3RR, as Isarig has been doing for at least the last year. A user being "established" means little if said user has also been a sockpuppeteer the entire time. Italia^vivi 03:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig also has plenty of opportunity to have his say on his user talk page. An apology or explanation should have been forthcoming by now at the very least. He has chosen not to say anything about it. csloat 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked for a few days. Is there an exemption that would allow him to post on his own talk page? If the answer to that is "no", he has not had the opportunity to respond to these proposals. 6SJ7 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users are always allowed to respond on their User_talk pages barring repeated abusive use of the venue. He could edit his User_talk right now if he desired. Italia^vivi 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppetry does weigh against a finding of good faith, but it isn't dispositive. I believe that, in this particular context, Isarig may still benefit from our presumption of good faith, even if his behavior has been quite disruptive. In any event, if the justification for banning Isarig were obvious, then Isarig would have been blocked indefinitely by unilateral administrative action the moment his abusive sockpuppetry was discovered. Fundamentally, the fact that imposing a ban or other community sanction against Isarig is sufficiently controversial as to require a community ban discussion should imply that Isarig should be permitted to participate in the discussion. Moreover, no benefits have been claimed for preventing such participation. John254 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to extend your good faith to a user who essentially went straight from "okay I'll quit edit warring" to edit warring via sockpuppetry, feel free. I would call your trust severely misplaced. Italia^vivi 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who wish to request a unilateral sanction against Isarig may do so at WP:ANI. Since it appears that no unilateral sanction (beyond the 1 week block) is going to be imposed, what plausible benefits do we derive from not following a fair process at the discussion here? John254 04:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig has chosen to communicate via email instead of on his User_talk page. That is his decision, and has no bearing on whether or not the community can address matters through this venue. Unilateral sanction is generally undesirable, which is exactly why this discussion is taking place here. Italia^vivi 04:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unilateral sanction is quite desirable, in the appropriate circumstances. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism would grind to a halt if a discussion were required before each vandal could be blocked. Isarig, however, is not a user who is properly subject to unilateral long term sanctions. For users such as Isarig, a fair process should be followed, to avoid unjustified and/or excessive sanctions. Not placing a notice on Isarig's talk page when the discussion was opened (it appears that he was notified by email much later, though the non-public nature of email hinders this determination), and not unblocking Isarig so that he could actually participate in the discussion here is not a fair process. John254 04:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

John, i think you haven't read the top of this page. You know that this is the CSN. Also, you haven't even read the whole of this thread to find out that the user has apologized via email and we are into exchanging discussion and mentorship is already effective by the approval of the user in question. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Result of the discussion was that there is no consensus that TJ Spyke should be indefinitely banned. TJ Spyke has been unblocked and placed on an indefinite revert parole, the conditions of which can be found in the opening statement of this discussion. The Hybrid 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the length It was decided a month ago that TJ Spyke was to be indefintly blocked from Wikipedia for excessive revert warring blocks and for using multiple sockpuppets. He contacted me by e-mail a month ago about the inital thought that a IP he used was used to commit vandalism (its still unknown if that is true or false). In any case, what I told TJ Spyke was very clear: The community was sick of the revert warring, so sick they have indefinetly blocked you (refering to TJ). Before the indefinte block was placed by User:Alkivar, it was agreed that TJ Spyke was to serve an multi-month block, which he had never recieved before. I told him by e-mail to serve out a month of no editing and to come back in a month if he was still interested in editing. Editing for him is literally impossible at this point, all accounts and IP's are blocked. I told him in a month I will have his talk page unprotected so he may comment. I had this done yesterday. You may view the comment here. I gave him very sturdy ground rules if he was to return to editing (that is if the community lets him back). This would require:

1. Limiting himself to one account (i.e no more sockpuppets, period)
2. Placing him on revert parole (1RR preferably)
3. Admit any past accounts he has formerly or currently had, and admit their usage was wrong. (this was essential since he never did admit to the fact he used them)
4. Apologize for his disruptive behavior openly.
5. And if he violated the limitation of the account numbers, or violated revert parole, he can be reinstated with an indefinite block.

On the talk page you will see that every criteria I placed to him has been accepted by TJ Spyke, again, given that the community decides to unblock him.

Although one or two users agreed not to bring it to CSN for a few months, I have decided to bring it here now. My reason being is that I want a community discussion on this, and not just a few editors. Also, I would like to come to a consensus about when exactly he should be unblocked. I've come up with three proposals:

• Unblock now, place immediately onto parole. If he violates any of Wikipedia's rules, 3RR, uploading wrongly licensed images, vandalised etc. he is straight away blocked again.
• Unblock on 1st October, with the above again.
• Unblock on 1st December, with the above still in place.

He however also must apologize for the disruption either here or on any project talkpage, preferably WP:PW. I would like a community wide consensus on this, so we don't have bickering on what/what not shall happen. A comment by another user over at WP:AN sinked the conversation, hence the reason why I have brought it here. Thank you. Davnel03 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He has already apologized once on his talk page as he was blocked, another one is pushing it. BTW, most of the content of this post, was copied from what I said from "Apologizes for the length..." to "...the community decides to unblock him". — Moe ε 14:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I support unblocking him on December 1st, with the paroles in place of course. However, if the community has any other proposals about what to do with him than the three that you listed, then I would like to hear them, personally. Cheers, The Hybrid 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Leave the block in place. An editor who has abused sockpuppets isn't going to out all of them, and we're not allowed to CheckUser him due to allegations of "fishing." I could only see myself supporting this unblock if backed by aggressive verification via CheckUser, which I doubt would happen. Italia^vivi 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do about that in a few hours. The Hybrid 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's impossible for him to edit right now. His IP range which hosted all of edits has been blocked until sometime in December. Anything that could have been CheckUsered, has been CheckUsered before and blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't think assuming bad faith with someone trying to make a compromise this hard would be trying to sneak in something that could get him rebanned. — Moe ε 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • With all due regard Moe, I'm not obliged in any way to assume good faith of a confirmed sockpuppeteer. WP:AGF isn't a binding contract with blatant, repeat offenders. Italia^vivi 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Accusing someone of policy breaking with no evidence and with them restricted to even do so, is not at all productive. — Moe ε 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• as a totally uninvolved person, I'd like to see two possbilities for restoration of tjspyke. One is a longer break with no pupetting and no whining to be let back in, and two someone who is able to ride herd on him very tightly and willing to dump him back into indef-land at the slightest bit of disruption. --Rocksanddirt 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit pointless that people should have to watch TJ non-stop when (or if) he gets unblocked. But that's the only decent option, otherwise TJ is very likely to cause trouble again (with socks, 3RR and so on). This so called "last chance" isn't a chance at all: it's more of "let's just watch TJ and make sure he does don't anything bad, because we need him back to check wrestling article vandalism". TJ did a lot of good, but his bad things outweigh his good in my view. Bringing someone back, just to fight a war on vandalism, seems a bit pointless. From what I can see: people are doing a fine job reverting vandalism for wrestling articles already, so unblocking a known problem user to help, doesn't seem like the right thing to do. I'm sure many blocked users fought vandalism and did good things: that doesn't mean we should unblock them for the same reason. Lastly I would like to point out: TJ's last sock (which was used to block evade) wasn't that long ago: [23]. Block evading by use of sock, is even worse than just using socks in my view. RobJ1981 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at TJ's history, I am very leery of even opening the door the slightest bit. Many Many blocks for 3RR and edit warring, and then the discovered sock puppet. I strongly believe that if TJ gets unblocked, we will be back here shortly thereafter, and would decline to unblock and urge CSN to decline this discussion. SirFozzie 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Foz. I initially thought he should stay blocked for at least a year ... but the more I think about it, when you're running a sock at the same time a discussion's underway on whether to ban you, it's obvious you have no intention of playing by the rules. Ban. Blueboy96 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your making things up. Could you give me the name of this alleged sock that he used while he's status was being determined on Wikipedia? The last known sockpuppet was Lrrr IV (or whatever it's name was). He literally hasn't been able to edit after the blocking of that account and his main account. — Moe ε 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Lrrr IV ... he was sniffed out on July 15, while the original discussion was underway. Blueboy96 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think we were planning to indefblock him way back then, you are mistaken. Alkivar implemented that result despite what was said at CSN that day. We were originally only going to block for a month or multi-month, no banning discussion was ongoing. — Moe ε 02:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Moe's right. The longest block being discussed at that time was 6 months; I should know since I was the one who proposed it, and the one garnering consensus was 4.5 months. In truth, to point out something that Moe has in the past, Alkivar giving him the block is enough reason in itself to overturn it. Alkivar violated the conflict of interests policy in that he and TJ had gone at it several times in the past. He protected his talk page after a small conflict over the templates that had been over for hours, and when he revoked his right to email anyone he was clearly trying to effectively ban him permanently. Alkivar overstepped what one admin is allowed to do. There was a clear consensus that TJ should not be banned permanently, and he went out of his way to make sure that he had no way to request an unblock. Then there's the matter that blocks are supposed to be preventative, and not punitive. With TJ on parole, he presents no threat to the community, so this block is no longer preventative. I figured that Moe and I going out of our ways to make sure that justice is done showed that we were volunteering to watch him when he returns. I guess that I have to explicitly say that I am more than willing to monitor his contributions, and report him if he violates his parole. He is no longer a threat, so according to the policies he should be unblocked this very minute. However, since that won't garner consensus, I believe that a multi-month ban would be a fair compromise. The Hybrid 04:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for me anyway, if he were to get blocked again after violating a parole I wouldn't come back to try to get him unblocked. We aren't friends by any stretch of the imagination. I had my first dispute with him, and I had my fair share of disputes with him afterwards. I don't feel sorry for him. However, he has made many good contributions, including getting an article featured. He has one flaw, and I believe that someone who has made as many good contributions as he has should be given one last chance. For the record, we aren't talking redemption. He will always be labeled a sockpuppeteer, and an edit warrior at the mercy of those around him. There is no redemption from that. Now, I can understand why people are hesitant to unblock him, so I am now going to propose a harsher punishment. Perhaps setting the ban to end one year from the date his most recent block was given would be more acceptable. Is that alright? The Hybrid 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think there's far too much thought being put into this. Unblock him. If he messes up again, block him indefinitely. He knows the score, he knows he'll be watched. Where's the harm in affording this last chance to someone who has made so many positive contributions? Miremare 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What about enforcing this? Davnel03 07:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is where WP:DTTR applies. — Moe ε 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Leave the block in place. Given his extensive 3RR and sockpuppet history, he will most definitely end up breaking one or both rules eventually. --Maestro25 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is apparent that there is no consensus here for a community ban. I've put the proposal from Davnel03 to TJ on his talk page. Banno 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal by Davnel was actually a proposal by Moe Epsilon that Davnel cut and paste here, and he (Moe) already hasd TJ's agreement. The Hybrid 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you provide the diffs here? Banno 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the most profound diff. If there are any others that are relevant I will post them here, but that may be unnecessary since that shows him agreeing to all of the conditions. The Hybrid 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I've unblocked him on those conditions. Banno 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was indefinite ban for abusive sock/meat puppetry. Personal attacks focusing on homophobic and/or racist overtones were aggravating factors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was banned by ArbCom for one year for activities documented at this case. The ban was initially set to expire on March 29, 2008 but has been extended twice due to instances of meatpuppetry and proxy editing.

Today, it emerged that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) admitted to being a meatpuppet of FAAFA, stating rather brazenly that half of his edits were proxy edits for FAAFA. In particular, he admitted to deliberately sinking Crockspot's RFA by introducing evidence of his off-wiki conduct.

FAAFA's ban has already been reset twice, but to my mind, when you deliberately attempt to sink an RFA--with a meatpuppet no less--you have no business being here. I therefore propose that FAAFA's ban be extended to indefinite. Blueboy96 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, FAAFA/Bmedley has also used the identity of NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which has its own sorid history of blocks. Dman727 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As the indef blocking admin of the Bmedley Sutler account I agree. The FAAFA account's ban should be made indefinite. Seeing what we have all had to deal with for the past few months I see no reason why he should be allowed to come back after one year.--Jersey Devil 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it would be appropriate to extend the siteban on FAAFA from 1 year to indefinite as a formality. In practice, I seriously doubt any admin would or should consider unblocking him at this point anyhow. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The community's patience with FAAFA and crew has ended. They've been given many opportunities to contribute productively but instead they have disrupted the project over and over. The parting statement of Bmedley boastful and unrepentant. I agree with an indefinite ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems silly not to, considering FAAFA's block log. --Deskana (talky) 23:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree with the above. You don't get to circumvent your block, accumulate a new block log like this user did, and then boast about it later without some serious consequences. --Haemo 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse per basically everybody. We should probably indef the non-FAAFA half of Bmedley, too, just for formality's sake (assuming he wasn't just pulling our chains there). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure he was just pulling our chains there.Proabivouac 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if he was, though, better safe than sorry? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite ban as one of the victim of his attacks and homophobic rants. --DHeyward 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious endorse. Here are a few more probable socks I have collected.

• Pimmelkopf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
• Macacawitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

- Crockspot 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If I may be allowed to play devil's advocate, Bmedley did admit to being a meatpuppet for a banned user, and thus as far as we're concerned, he's a meatpuppet for a banned user. However, should his admission be taken to definitively condemn another user? How do we know for sure that Bmedley isn't just "pulling our chains" with something that isn't true after all? If that were true, FAAFA would have no control over his actions and no recourse. To block one user on his or her own admission is one thing, but blocking a user based on the admission of a lying malcontent who claims to be his or her meatpuppet seems a bit off.

It also seems a bit off not to extend some form of courtesy to the user (Crockspot) whose RfA was "sunk" by Bmedley. I don't know exactly what to do, but it's pretty obvious that he'd be an administrator now without Bmedley's "outing" of a politically incorrect comment he or she made on another forum which Bmedley spread all over the place trying to make the potential administrator seem homophobic. Given my user name, I'm not exactly happy that another user would say, "Pretty much any dude with 'bear' in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass," on CU or DU or any of those stupid "underground" websites, but this comment, which sunk the RfA, shouldn't have done so. It is rude, politically incorrect, and insensitive (to LGBTs, people with "bear" in their handle, and asses), but this whole business of dragging people's extra-Wikipedia lives into Wikipedia decisions is a horrible thing, and Bmedley's the one who is responsible for it in this case. Is he going to be able to get away with it? Calbaer 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read fnord23's posts (which is FAAFA) on WR, it's pretty clear that he was not being victimized. - Crockspot 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be made clear that the evidence used to indefinitely ban FAAFA is not Bmedley's say-so. This discussion makes it seem as though it is. Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefnite ban Disruptive user, already should have been banned indefinitely. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• His antics with Smedley are unacceptable, an extension to infinite is well deserved here. --MichaelLinnear 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• How about basing this on some evidence, like what Proabivouac brought up on ANI? Republicans, gay sex and meth:[24][25] "Busheep"[26][27]The second comparison is half off-wiki, but I'd support a ban extension on the first alone. There's just too much circumstantial evidence here for it to be a coincidence.--Chaser - T 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reluctantly. I'd hoped this was an editor who would make a legitimate return. Doesn't look like he's willing to work within our structure. Durova^Charge! 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Editor does not appear to want to return and edit within guidelines. Has taken pride in "beating" the system. -- Avi 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse well-deserved ban. KrakatoaKatie 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crockspot's RFA

People opposed his RfA. He did not pass. We can't say "oh, well it turns out the evidence you guys all used was provided by a banned user, so your opinions don't count." -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It does pose an interesting problem. Assuming for the moment that they are actually two people, Bmedley did not only admit to proxy editing, he stated that FAAFA was actually logging in on Bmedley's account. According to the Wikipedia banning policy, banned users are not welcome to contribute, and all of their contributions to the project are subject to deletion. So how do you unring a bell? - Crockspot 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If I knew, I'd propose something, but I don't, so I'm just throwing it out there.... Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a short list of alternate workable remedies, but this is probably not the appropriate place to discuss them. - Crockspot 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been quite convinced for sometime that Faafa and Bmedley are the same person, even before he admitted to proxy editing for faafa and sharing the account yesterday. Heck his very first edits screamed sock. His behavior, language, agenda, article interests and mode of operation are completely identical. As for the Crockspot RFA....well its really unfortunate and troublesome. If Faafa had not interfered, Crockspot WOULD be an admin right now. However there is no indication that the majority of editors who opposed Crockspot were "in league" with faafa/bmedley. They simply voted their conscious and I think that should be respected. Essentially Faafa/Bmedley found a way to exploit the WIKI process. While Faafa/Bmedley has proven himself to be a dishonest troublemaker, there doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to compensate Crockspot and thats a failure of WIKI. I think that Crockspot best course of action is to simply abandon his account and start anew. He's a quality editor and deserving of adminship, however there is no unringing the bell at this point. Dman727 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Could someone explain why we are treating this revelation as bad? Clearly, the information swayed many people's opinions. For what reason should we not allow people to give information that will change the outcome of a RfA? -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not bad or good. It just is. RFA's are structured like a game of poker IMO. You use any and all information available to make a decision. Sometimes your cards get flashed and your opponents get more information than they are normally entitled to. In this case Crockspot hand was revealed through his decision to use a less than anonymous user-id. Others have been more circumspect with their identity and are rewarded for it. As I mentioned above its a failure of the wiki process, and unfortunately the miscreant faafa exploited it. Dman727 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Let's not re-open this issue, please.--Chaser - T 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Here's an interesting question, if Bmedley didn't ask the question, would someone else have? Personally, on a side note, points to Crockspot for keeping a cool head through all that. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  I think there was a decent chance that at least part of that information would have come out. There were significant opposes prior to the information getting out and discussed. --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting the Crockspot RFA--in which I did not participate--is not a good idea, even in light of FAAFA/Bmedley's ridiculous disruptions. The number of oppose votes was extremely high, and obviously oppose voters were evaluating Crockspot's comments on Conservative Underground (and his response to the questions about them) rather than Bmedley's post and we therefore need to respect their opinions. Also it should be noted that the majority of CU posts (including the one that people may have felt was most egregious) which were added to the RFA came from User:BenB4 and if anything it may have been his post that pushed a bunch of people into oppose (Bmedley already had a bad reputation at that point, and at least one editor encouraged Crockspot not to even respond to his post--Crockspot only responded after BenB4 posted additional CU comments). Trying to undo the RFA results will create an enormous amount of bad blood and will be bad for the project. Crockspot should continue contributing in a positive fashion and try again down the road or, if he feels that is impossible, create a new account and start from scratch. Or just live without being an admin, which, after all, is no big deal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree, my point is just that it was not a slam dunk passage prior and there was the appearance of folks looking for a reason to say no. However, my observation is that this community forgives that sort of thing slowly, if at all, so I don't know that the crockspot handle will ever be able to pass an Rfa. --Rocksanddirt 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was cruising to an easy pass before the CU material was introduced. See Image:RFA Crockspot - off wiki activity influence.png. - Crockspot 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but as I said much of the CU material was not introduced by Bmedley. Regardless of how it got there, many editors found it quite troublesome and voted Oppose in good faith. We can't, as you said, unring the bell (or put the genie back in the bottle) so I don't think there's any remedy that will undo the results of that RFA (and even if there was it would be a dramafest to the nth degree). I also agree with Amarkov above that, in spite of Bmedley/FAAFA's major incivility and justifiable long-term ban, the revelation of the CU stuff was a good thing. The very fact that it changed the outcome of the RFA makes it good that we had the information (had it come out after a successful sysopping it could have been much more of a problem). I think the best thing we could do is move on from this whole situation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Per community consensus here, I extended the ban to indef. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, this is the second time this year that we've had to ban someone at least in part for disruption at RFAs ... maybe we should let it be known on the main RFA page that disruption there will be dealt with very severely. Blueboy96 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was no consensus for a ban.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Addhoc (talk • contribs)

Will an admin please look at the behavior of Crossmr (talk · contribs) and Njyoder (talk · contribs) on PayPal and Talk:PayPal? This is a dispute about whether to include Paypalsux.com as a source or external link. They filed an RFC, but instead of actually waiting for comments, have continued to argue with each other. There are about 16,000 words on the talk page after the filing of the RFC, almost all by the two of them. (I doubt they read each others' posts any more, or at least they don't seriously consider their merits.) They have also been forum shopping at WT:RFAR trying to get arbitrators to enforce some three-year old case against one of them or something. Other editors including arbitrator JPgordon have tried to be voices of reason on the talk page but no use. The article is currently protected.

Protection locks out all editors when there are only two problem editors here. I propose a community ban of Crossmr and Njyoder from the article and its talk page for a good long time, months at least, to be enforced by blocking, so other editors who are not so polarized can deal with this. I also ask that lookout be kept for sockpuppets and SPAs since I suspect that one or both will be unable to truly disengage. Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to try a little good faith and have a look at the full details surrounding the case before proposing a ban with vague details about what's going on and lots of assumptions about how we're really thinking and editing. For some clarification: the dispute is about not only the inclusion of that link among other similar links, but also about whether or not a forum is a reliable source for criticism. The dispute arose when 2 editors commented from the RfC and stated they didn't feel paypalsux was an appropriate external link. Following that an IP added some old, improperly sourced criticism to the article which was removed with explanation. Edit warring ensued despite more than another editor attempting to explain to Njyoder that this was not an appropriate citation to support the material. As far as a "three year old case" its a 2 year old case, and the sanctions from that case only expired 1 year ago. The reason it was brought up again was because I saw his current behaviour and method of handling the current dispute to be identical to that previous behaviour, and there was very little editing on his part since the expiration of the sanctions. I also sought input as to whether or not to file that case, and was told that if it was the same behaviour there was no need to go through the same DR process that obviously did not work last time. As to whether or not we can disengage, we've already disengaged at IntelliTXT, at least I have while the discussion continues. I've refrained from reverting the article further, even though the majority has agreed with my interpretation of the policies.--Crossmr 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Need more hard evidence rather than vague statements. A community ban proposal is a serious thing. Durova^Charge! 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make much sense. Crossmr is correct about the sourcing issue, I think. I've recused myself from any ArbCom activity here, because of my eBay connections; but a cursory look at the sources (and unsourced language) that Njyoder wants in the article should be sufficient. Go to Talk:PayPal and help instead. It's hard; there's verbosity there; but the issue isn't that complicated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jpgordon. I'm not sure if your comment was direct at me or the OP, but the situation would be much better resolved if anyone commenting here instead went to the paypal and IntelliTXT talk pages and weighed in on those respective discussions.--Crossmr 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr is definitely a good faith editor and although I haven't edited alongside Njyoder, this appears to be a content dispute. In this context, I agree with Durova that insufficient evidence has been presented for a community ban and with Jpgordon that proposing a ban doesn't make a lot of sense. Would suggest this discussion is closed and some form of dispute resolution attempted. Possibly formal mediation? Addhoc 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that we haven't had enough outside input. If we can get editors to go to the talk page and weigh in on the issue it should (hopefully) solve the issue without the need for formal mediation, or anything further. if we can't get people to go to the article pages and give input, something like formal mediation will become necessary.--Crossmr 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I think we won't be needed formal mediation or anything as one user seems unable to work with the original research and reliable source criteria for an encyclopedia and will likely end up blocked for disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

ArbCom bans are not to be adjusted without taking it to ArbCom SirFozzie 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Last week, Bormalagurski (talk · contribs), who is subject to a one-year ArbCom ban, was caught using the account TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs), and thus had his ban reset. He has now come back with yet another sock, KasterJeShupak (talk · contribs), begging for a new start [28]. I wonder what should be done here - should we reset his ban again, or should we allow him a "fresh new start"? TML 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

it sounds like he wants to invoke his right to vanish, which I support to a certain extent, but less so in the case of an editor who is or has edited inappropriately (especially to the point of a banning). Given his statement (assuming he's being truthful about none of the edits with the new account being disruptive), I'd make the following recommending: leave an indef block on the main account. Tell him he has to finish his original ban until october, however impose an additional 6 month parole on his behaviour. If during that time he doesn't edit war or vandalize or commit any similar disruptive behaviour which got him banned in the first place he can be left to edit in peace with no undue attention paid to him.--Crossmr 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with 'second chances', though we need to get an admin or two who are willing to agree with this, and agree to monitor his second chance. (i.e., if something moderately disruptive is done, that editors don't complain here about someone still see it and puts him back under the ban) This does make extra work for folks, no doubt. --Rocksanddirt 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If we reach a consensus on the sanction, we don't necessarily need an admin to monitor him. Any editor could monitor for violation and just make sure it gets put on AN/I with a link to this discussion if necessary. Having an admin on board though would be ideal.--Crossmr 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah woah woah woah woah! If he wants the ArbCom ban reduced, he needs to go to ArbCom. End of story. SirFozzie 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was: transfer to Request for comment.

} I apoligize if this is the wrong place to report this. This user has been causing many problems with multiple articles. There have been tons of warnings and messages left on this user's talk page, but there has never been a single reply. The user does not use the preview button, and never leaves an edit summary. Most of their edits are unconstructive, and sometimes vandalism. Once in a great while will they provide something constructive, but it's usually not much. Most of the articles they edit are related to tv shows on Disney Channel and Nickelodean. For an example, see [29]. But also check out their user talk page and constributions. If any other info is needed, please let me know. But I think something needs to be done with this user. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Umm, are you sure this is in the right place? I don't think it's serious enough to ban. Maybe you could take this here. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• AnnieTigerChucky is dealing with a legit WP:BLP concern on at least one of those articles. Please discuss this with her on her talk page and on the article pages. This is completely inappropriate here. WP:ANI or WP:AN if you must get other admins to review (probably ANI), but ... looks reasonable so far. Georgewilliamherbert 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, except the part about "Please discuss this with her on her talk page and on the article pages." That's useless; communication is not this user's forte. She is similar in many respects to MascotGuy, which I mentioned on an ANI thread about the same editor earlier this week. MascotGuy and his socks are blocked indefinitely. I'm not sure ATC deserves the same fate, but she's certainly testing the community's patience.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your replies...

To JetLover: Did I not say that I was not sure if this was the correct place or not?
To Georgewilliamherbert: See The Fat Man's post.
To The Fat Man...: Thank you for seeing the issue here. Any ideas on how to go about fixing the situation?
Pilotboi / talk / contribs 04:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just give it a little time. I left AFC an encouraging post about a constructive edit she made. If the quality of her edits continues to improve, great. If not, she'll eventually exhaust her warnings and be blocked.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That works. :) --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest opening one or more content requests for comment to develop consensus at disputed pages. A ban discussion sounds premature. Durova^Charge! 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To place User:Ron liebman under a Community Ban for repeatedly breached the Naming Policy by using misleading usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, without verification; misusing sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman; placing threats of legal action on his talk page[30]

} Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (January 30th, 2007 - May 11th, 2007) has been haunting us with sock puppets since his indefinite block on May 11th. He is using these sock puppets to repeatedly add false information to articles (I think, if I'm wrong please correct me). He has 130 suspected puppets and 12 confirmed accounts. These puppets are frequently popping up, and I think a ban should be in order. I think he has exhausted all of our patience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User has been indefinitely blocked since May. Moving from only one 31 hour block to an indefinite is harsh. Why not try a block of a few months first? Unblock, if he re-offends, indefinitely block. Banno 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the user been informed of this discussion, and has the issue of identity been solved? Banno 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps more explanation is needed, including links and diffs. Banno 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a ban when no admins are willing to unblock the person? I proposed a ban here for User:Lyle123, and it was closed as "no need to reconfirm existing bans" or something like that (see here). Kwsn(Ni!) 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that he has been blocked indefinitely, after only one block of 31 (why 31?) hours, and that the indefinite ban has been in place since May, I am considering unblocking him. Banno 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then this discussion can produce a result, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Prima faci, this looks like Liebman started editing seriously in March [31], got into a few disputes and broke 3RR and was blocked briefly, tried to avoid 3RR with a few sockpuppets and was blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a block of a few months would have been better. Since then he has used sockpuppets to avoid the block. I suggest unblocking, so that he doesn't have a need to use sockpuppets, and with the condition that a breach of 3RR, including via sockpuppets, will result in an indefinite block and community ban. Banno 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He has shown no willingness whatsoever to conform to the rules about citations and POV-pushing, ever since his first activities in January up until now (or at least yesterday, when he was very active with his socks). With no commitment from him to do better, how do you imagine that unblocking him will help solve anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't disagree with this more vehemently, Banno. Liebman has been using the identities of real living people at both SABR and http://baseball-reference.com/bullpen while denying all sockpuppetry and even claiming that other people are stalking him (checkuser says otherwise). This edit at bullpen confirms that he's almost stealing other people's identity. He's been discredited on this wiki and theirs and responded with venomous messages like this and this just for a quick sample. Frankly I'm shocked that someone would be rewarded for months of rampant false information and sockpuppetry by being released from their block! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman's indef block was only after we warned and blocked his sockpuppets for increasingly long times and he kept making new ones (about a dozen at the time, more since) despite repeated warnings on his page and the sock pages to stop making more. The combination set of user accounts and IPs were all clearly and repeatedly warned and told to stop escalating the sockpuppetry and vandalism. There are also very serious concerns in that he's impersonated almost 50 members of the SABR baseball statistics organization with account names. Please see: WP:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman for an overall summary, though I don't know if it's up to date on all the socks (check the categories). Georgewilliamherbert 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To follow myself up, also look at the 5 checkusers; 4 were actually run and confirmed 41 named socks and 15 plus IPs or IP ranges in New York City libraries and universities, and we've identified a lot more than that by edit pattern alone. Per Kwsn below, he also out and out lied about being associated with the socks, right before the largest CU confirmed that he was. He's also persistently lied in emails to unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - He lied saying all the socks were imitators, yet this check right after he said that proved otherwise. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Now you are telling us things we need to know, if the community is going to endorse a ban. Not all of us are familiar with the minutia of the case, and it is up to those making the case for a ban to present the evidence. Since my interest in baseball ranks somewhere below my concern for what you do with your breakfast scraps, a bit of detail is needed, especially links and diffs. Banno 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"A list of diffs"? There are hundreds of them. I suggest you start with the history for Hideki Matsui and cross-check it with the list of sockpuppets (listed in the first paragraph, above) to see which ones are his, and then you will just begin to get the idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My advice to you, which will be lost on you if you're under the age of 50 or so, but that's OK: "Duke 'im, Banno!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

""Duke 'im"??? Banno 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the best spoonerism I could come up with for "Book 'im, Danno!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuh. You've lost me. Banno 01:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-O. Georgewilliamherbert 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks. Banno 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban I am quite happy that the sockpuppet evidence provided above is sufficient to warrant the denial of editing privileges to this person. I was the blocking admin. (aeropagitica) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support. Looking at the evidence, each offense taken by itself would warrant a ban. Deliberately adding false information, egregious sockpuppetry (over 80 socks, by my count) and impersonating real people. All together? Gone. Blueboy96 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I was only peripherally involved with this mess, but what I saw was plenty awful enough. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Question: He is already indefinitely blocked, but he keeps using a public library, with its multiple IP addreses, to create new accounts and continue his activities. I would like to know how or if banning will solve that problem? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Currently the "ban" is only implied, i.e. it falls under #1 of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban where he is indefblocked and no admin is willing to unblock. A consensus here would be an upgrade of sorts, falling under the umbrella of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. That's my understanding anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Aha. It's a formal proceeding that prohibits an admin from unilaterally unblocking him, but from Liebman's standpoint it would be business as usual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Mostly yes. It also may bring the situation to more people's attention so Liebman's antics become more difficult for him. Otherwise, it's just another entry in the long list at WP:LTA. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • A formal ban will make it much easier to deal with his tactics--i.e., unlimited Checkuser requests, revert/delete-on-sight of all his contributions and block-on-sight of all socks.Blueboy96 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I remember that a range block of one of the library systems he uses was put into effect at one point, for the IP starting with 141, I think. A formal ban would definitely be a good thing, imho. I've been doing a lot of watching for his "edits" and reporting them to WP:AIV. His snarky comments towards me and others have been a real treat, not so much. Plus his creating sockpuppet IDs as digs at people, like this one of Baseball Bugs and No Guru and me, for instance. Whatever can be done to stem the tide, so that we might all spend our time actually making constructive contributions to Wikipedia, would be muchly appreciated. Thanks all. :) -Ebyabe 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence presented so far is that Liebman has

• repeatedly breached the Naming policy by using misleading usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, without verification.
• He has a record of misusing sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman.

Enough for a Ban. Baseball Bugs has made one last attempt at a reconciliation. If unsuccessful, I recommend a community ban. Banno 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is now a rather unconvincing reply at User talk:Ron liebman. I am not willing to unblock this user on this basis. Banno 11:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban The indefinite block on his original account should be upgraded to, or interpreted as, a community ban. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban The indef block was appropriate for this disruption only account, especially considering its bad faith actions. Indef blocks aren't infinite. The user can come around at any point and ask to be unblocked. Ongoing sock puppetry merits the ban. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment FYI, Ron has asked for unblock on his user talk page repeatedly in the last roughly couple or three weeks (see there for exact dates) and been declined by everyone who reviewed it. I have today told him to file an arbcom appeal if he wants to pursue this further, though of course with any community ban / indef block another administrator has the perogative to give him another chance. I don't recommend it, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware. Georgewilliamherbert 18:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: arbitration, Mr. Liebman has been yelling about that for quite some time. I believe he's been given the e-mail address but does nothing with it. It appears his yelling now amounts to trolling (disruption to get some attention) and protection of his talk page may be necessary before long. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but any admin who unblocks this guy ought to be desysopped for gross dereliction of duty, IMHO. You're talking about a person who impersonated real people ... I could be wrong here, but in doing this, he exposed Wikipedia to a good deal of legal danger. Blueboy96 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a threat of leagal action in his recent post[32]. Further reason to consider a block on his talk page. Banno 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Per that sally, I move to close this discussion. Hate to say it, but Mr. Liebman just dislodged his own snowball from the cliff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

LAEC runs a website, Safelibraries that is opposed to the American Library Association and other library-related organizations. In addition to promoting his agenda on his own website, on blogs, and message board, he has also joined wikipedia and he has devoted the bulk of his wikipedia activities to crusading against libraries / promoting his website. The existence of his website is a redflag that LAEC probably has a conflict of interest.

His first username was SafeLibraries.org (the url of his website), although at some point he was required to give up that username, since it was his site's url, and instead he chose his site's motto: "Legitimate And Even Compelling", (referring I believe to need to keep children from accessing unsafe libraries). The username choices are a redflag that LAEC primarily sees wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his agenda.

Along the way, he's caused more than his share of disruption. In Oct '06, and RFC was filed against him. Glancing over his talk page, it seems like he's been causing plenty of stir in the intervening year. And now, he's been editwarring Another American Libraries Association article. These past and ongoing editwars are a redflag to me that LAEC's has been sufficently disruptive to merit a topic ban.

The conflicts of interest is troublesome, but if his edits were in the ballpark of being good ones, I'd wouldn't sweat the COI. It's more the tendentious use of wikipedia as a soapbox-- undertaking a systemic campaign to insert any possible criticisms of libraries into wikipedia, however tenuous.

Take for example the latest edit war. The YALSA, a library organization, does a billion different things, one of which is publish lists of popular books. It once included a book called "The Gossip Girl" on a reader list. Some people think "The Gossip Girl" is controversial. LAEC uses the diseparate facts to contruct an argument that the YALSA is immoral, and he goes to the YALSA repeatedly reinserts an article about "The Gossip Girl is racy reading"-- a news article which doesn't even mention YALSA. The text of the YASLA wikipedia article doesn't mention "The Gossip Girl." The link so inappropriate for the article, I don't know where to begin on what it violates: Battlefield, Soapboxing, Conflict of Interest, Original Research. But LAEC reinserts the link [33][34][35][36]. When 3RR prevents him from readding it, another editor with a suspiciously meaty/socky edit history shows up to add it back in for him. [37]

One or two of these incidents would be overlookable-- I'd just do whatever was necessary to restore the article and move on. But this sort of think has been going on for the better part of a year, despite an RFC against him. I'm at the point where I don't even feel like bothering to do the "edit war, recruit nonpartisan eyeballs, acheive consensus, editwar" cycle-- he'll just stop for a few weeks, move to a different library article, and start the process over again.

Over the past I and others have spent lots of words communicating with LAEC trying to help in understand why his use of Wikipedia hasn't been appropriate. I regretfully have concluded It's at the point where the community has to step in and ban LAEC from editing on articles related to his website agenda-- topics like libraries, library organizations, content filtering/censorship, etc.

--Alecmconroy 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's about as one-sided, misleading, and flat out false as they come. He even besmirches other people who apparently happen to agree with me! People just need to read the YALSA talk page and the history comments I added when editing the main page, after first clearing their minds of the false information that appears above. And I ask people to ensure wikipedia policy is followed. On another topic, if there is any policy related to stopping Alecmconroy's unsportsmanlike behavior, informing me about that would be appreciated as well. Ditto for Jessamyn. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wow. I've just finished that meticulously documented RFC and I'm rather surprised this editor wasn't sitebanned a year ago. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, do you withdraw these two legal threats?[38][39] If not, I'll administer an indefinite block. If so, I'll endorse the proposed topic ban. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

LAEC, I was immensely proud of you for stepping away from that dispute between you and KillerChihuahua, among others. For that, you have my respect. Unfortunately, in light of the evidence presented here today, I am greatly disappointed. When you stepped out of that argument, I thought you were a changed editor, that you had turned over a new leaf. It pains my heart so deeply to see now that this simply wasn't true. I truly hope we can still be friends and respect each other, but the evidence presented against you leaves me no choice but to endorse a topical ban. Durova, I can understand your horror at all these diffs, but I strongly encourage you to not indefinitely block LAEC. I'm sure that he can find ways to contribute constructively on non-library topics, gain the community's trust, and perhaps appeal to the Arbitration Committee after a year. LAEC, I'm so deeply sorry to have to do this. I only wish I had another choice. With a heavy heart, Arky ^¡Hablar! 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there was no dispute "between (LEAC) and myself. You must be completely confused, Arky. He was being highly disruptive, I warned him, he ignored me, I blocked. There was no dispute at all, there was disruption and its consequences. The only "dispute" one might somehow painfully pull from that incident was whether one can harass good-faith editors with a barrage of personal attacks or not. My position was No, LEAC's was Yes. I submit to you that is not a dispute, that is willfully arguing one of our most basic rules for interaction with other users. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please feel to examine my edits for any type of puppetry. I have made suggestions that disagreed with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling [40] over the issue of the criticality of the information. I feel its valid and critical to at least some extent, and he seems to disagree over the critical part. I feel that any really neutral party would see this as a simple content dispute, and I believe the information being presented is clearly relevant as it is about young readers, is dealt with by the ALA chief, and enriches the article. Thats not OR, its simple and sensible editing. The Wikiscanner news recently has made vanity editing more of an issue, but I don't think we would need to ban or block any organization members, unless they become too biased towards vanity editing. Right now I feel the situation is manageable. I do encourage admin awareness for the articles in question, as more critical information will most likely be added to the article. I am happy to work with any admin mentors on the article so as to keep all sides constructive. I am in the process of researching the subject and there does seem to be a fair amount of controversy. I am notifying admins here now so that we can preemptively prevent any further or related conflict. Clearly the issues need to be handled more carefully by all, including myself. Lingorama 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block is this site's standard response to legal threats. Due to the time lapse I'm willing to suppose this editor withdrew those statements at some earlier time and can either provide the diff or repeat the pledge. Regarding the Wikiscanner, as someone who's done complex investigations for a long time I strongly oppose the notion that this tool is some panacea. Editors deserve a reasonable interim to adjust to site standards. A year is more than reasonable and the diffs provided in this thread are sufficient to demonstrate that the problem continues. I wouldn't topic ban any organization members, but I have no problem imposing external limitations on ones who persistently violate fundamental site policies without the appropriate learning curve. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you enact any sort of ban, you need to specify exactly which policies you believe LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is violating so that others can form neutral opinions. Also, what specificly are the "legal threats" in the links you provided? Citadel18080 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All right: WP:NLT, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, and WP:V. Add WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI on the guideline side. The legal threat links speak for themselves. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durova's retraction solution at least. I made an attempt at legal sanctions before, under bad legal advisement in a situation not relevant to Wikipedia, and I've had to retract such work. Its not easy to do, though it is constructive. If that is the situation here, I'd also recommend a simple and basic statement of retraction. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling seems to be keen on providing constructive solutions in general.

Judging by the articles in question, I see there is a fair amount of heat among the parties. But there is also a fair effort by some towards balanced editing. So I suspect things will be ok long term. I wasn't suggesting the Wikiscanner be applied, only that the situation seems to be a lot more relevant recently, especially in these sort of cases. The research I am doing on the subject also suggests that the presentation of some rather distasteful but relevant issues is likely to be resisted by anyone with a personal interest. Its useful to be aware of such situations before they occur so we can apply attention in an efficient way at the right times. I'd like to keep any relevant admins posted so as to reduce the occurrence of further problems. Lingorama 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why I think LAEC should be given a second chance. I see nothing serious enough in the diffs provided to warrant an indefinite block, and while I think a topical ban is applicable in this situation, another alternative would be to give LAEC one more chance. If he inserts any POV into a library-related article, this should be enough cause for an indefinite topical ban. I would prefer this option, as it is my belief that LAEC can contribute constructively. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The second chance came eleven months ago at the close of RFC. Or to use a good quote from an otherwise unremarkable film: You're young so you get a few chances. Not an infinite number of chances, but a few. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an admittedly preliminary attempt at complex scrutiny: Just an overview - I took a look at LAEC's edits from a year or so ago, and the pattern seems to have changed. The edits and reversions seem to be a lot more measured recently and there is plenty of reasoned and sourced discussion attached. I imagine its due to experience and admin advisement. Also, LAEC doesn't seem to be editing with a single article in mind [41] and he seems to be applying majority view, scientific skepticism, and balance. He seems to edit quite broadly. I don't how relevant that kind of contextual information is here, but I'd say it shows a contextual improvement all the same. I don't see such improvements or breadth by some other involved editors Lingorama 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I still recommend the Durova retraction solution if it applies. Calming the waters, offering explanation and clarity, and offering solutions in general will really help these articles improve. Lingorama 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that some of the edits that have caused this recent dispute are the same edits that LAEC was attempting to make in April on the YALSA page[42] and I'm not convinced anything has changed. I have no opinion on his non-library-related edits or as his contribution as a Wikipedia outside of the scope of this particular action.

LAEC's username comes from a Supreme Court decision, quoted on his user page "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." - Supreme Court of the United States, US v. ALA I have removed inappropriate citations to that court case in the recent past [43] Part of the problem has been that LAECs understanding of this court decision does not match analysis by other legal experts (LAEC is a retred lawyer if I recall correctly) which makes continued reference to this court case particularly troubling from an encyclopedic standpoint. I would also encourage widening the scope of this sanction to include filtering-related topics and legislation such as CIPA [44], DOPA [45] and content control software [46] where these disputes also sometimes crop up.

I find the continual references to my personal status with regards to ALA, my personal blog (where LAEC has commented) and the wikipedia page about me somewhat offputting, though certainly not crossing any explicit boundaries. The fact that he now tries to have people side with him to give him "help with a bully" also concerns me. It is not bullying to follow Wikipedia procedure. Jessamyn (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. LEAC has been canvassing for support.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Vassyana 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana. To be fair, it seems that "canvassing" is something that other related editors seem to be doing [57]. I myself have never been contacted in such a way by LAEC. I am concerned about balance and various interested parties on the ALA and related articles though. I am not sure if bullying is something that is technically dealt with on Wikipedia, but I will doublecheck the ALA articles for any obvious group-pressuring of single editors who hold opposing views. Lingorama 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Well the evidence on the ALA article seem to have a huge amount of IP edits coming from Chicago (68.... numbers especially). I think this is extremely strong evidence that sockpuppetry is being used by the ALA, which is based in Chicago [58]. If that is not a situation that leads to non-partisan editors feeling badgered or bullied, I don't know what is. Lingorama 07:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at the page in question, there are maybe 15-20 IP edits in total. Wikiscanner finds no relation at all to ALA-registered hosts. Also, of course, this has no bearing on the behaviour of LAEC. As for the "canvassing" - sorry, but one editor asking one other editor for a second opinion in a rather neutral fashion is not remotely the same as posting an explicit plea for help to 7 selected user pages within 6 minutes. --Stephan Schulz 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to clarify my actions here, the diffs of LAEC canvassing are explicit, numerous, and sequential. This is the most blatant instance yet of an attempt to undermine the integrity of the community sanctions process. Were that tolerated, consensus discussion in this area would degenerate into mob rule. Tu quoque is not a defense: the single diff and WikiScanner results for ALA do not amount to significant evidence, and even if they did that evidence would have no bearing on LAEC's editing status. Durova^Charge! 13:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP address and sock-puppet allegations are one of LAEC's standard responses to criticisms of his edits on ALA-related articles [59] and I'm suprised to see another editor championing them since they seem to be so obviously without merit. Lingorama, if you could point out where you see these "huge amount of IP edits" coming from that IP, it might help us understand what you're talking about. As it is the only person with a huge amount of recent edits on the ALA page is LAEC.[60] Again, ALA is a 60,000+ member organization, it is likely that people who make edits to ALA related pages may have some experience or connection to the organization. The guidelines in Wikipedia help us determine what is and is not a good edit so that we don't have to rely solely on editor credibility when assessing the history of an article. Jessamyn (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

I had been pretty open with a topical ban, since the most (but not all) of LAEC's problems were on subjects related to his website. I would still find that option palatable if LAEC was responding to this sanction with a "Now I See The Light" attitude, accepting the principle of Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, and agreeing to cease editing the library/censorship/contentfiltering/ala/aclu sphere of articles.

Unfortunately, it looks like he's responded to this just by battening down the hatches and preparing for a crusade. The incivility of his responses, his inability to appreciate that his actions are problematic-- this makes me think a mere topical ban is just an invitation to future trouble. His recents aggressive wave of canvassing/recruitment/potentialpuppetry, openly referring to those involved in this discussion process as bullies"-- it doesn't bode well. If he gets off with a topical ban, I'd expect to see him just migrating to the border fringe of his banned topics and continuing to be equally disruptive. After more than a year's worth of trouble, it would probably be best to put this user behind us and spend the saved time writing an encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was inclined to support a mere topic ban, but the fact he's canvassing makes me think that won't be enough. I propose a two-month ban from the whole project, and after he comes back, an indefinite ban from all library-related topics. Throw in an indefinite revert parole on all articles as well. And that's only if the legal threats have been withdrawn. If they haven't, I'm with Durova here--ban him and throw away the key. Blueboy96 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing to manipulate the discussion instead of addressing the legal threat question is the final straw. This is blatant gaming of the system. Indefinitely blocked. Durova^Charge! 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Reason for block unclear; user unblocked

I have indefinitely blocked this user after seeing his bizarre work on National Labor Federation. Review and undo welcome. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but indef seems a bit harsh. I didn't see anything that couldn't be solved by filing an RfC ... I could be wrong, though. Blueboy96 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the user's edits there. I've pulled up there last six edits to the article, before they were blocked: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

These all look like misguided, yes, but good-faith edits by a user unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Just to point this out, misguided edits by new users are not uncommon. Yes, it's bizarre for them to be only working on one article, but I see no evidence of vandalism or intentional harm caused. In fact, I'm not even sure if this could warrant an RfC. It seems to me all the user needs in a push in the right direction and a little mentoring. With all due respect, Tom harrison, I'm not sure if it's necessary to indefinitely block an account unfamiliar with even how to write articles for, and I quote, "not here to write an encyclopedia". The thing is, if the user knew how and how not to contribute here, they'd be writing perfectly fine articles. I'm sorry if I come off as rough here, but blocking a user who has only started editing regularly on September 6th 8 days later is overreacting to the highest degree, especially not telling them how to use the {{unblock}} template and thus giving them no chance whatsoever at being unblocked. Sorry again if I sound a little abrasive, Arky ^¡Hablar! 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I posted to hear what people think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't examined the edits, so won't comment on the block, but there isn't really any need to tell a blocked user how to use {{unblock}}. If you're blocked, you'll get full instructions on your screen as soon as you try to edit. ElinorD (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)‎

Sorry, ElinorD. I was not aware of his. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a puzzling block. The justification is not at all clear. So a community ban is unlikely. So far as I can see, there is no case here. Banno 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I have requested a second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion on block for User:Malbrain. Banno 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do what you think best, but please keep an eye on him if you unblock. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the user has been unblocked by User:Banno and I think that is appropriate. We can watchlist the page and keep an eye on him. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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