Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive9

User:Hipocrite, User:MediaMangler, User:Vigilant, User:Aim Here, User:Kebron, User:Jerryg, User:Pfagerburg

No action taken. Both sides are attempting to use this board as a fulcrum in an ongoing war that should have nothing to do with Wikipedia. I think the operative phrase is "A Pox on Both your houses." SirFozzie 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Users have exhibited a pattern of stalking, trolling, and harrassment based upon personal, political and business objectives to either drive this user away from Wikipedia, or setup various "ambushes" under feigned claims of "edit warring" and other forms of disruption where they work together as a team to disrupt Wikipedia in order to create fabricated evidence of edit warring and other claims to target this user for banning and other sanctions, and/or to misuse Wikipedia to post Libel and extort money. With the exception of User:Hipocrite, these other users are all from the SCOX message board. The SCOX message board is an online community of Linux advocates who vigorously attack anyone they feel is a threat to the Linux or FOSS movements or business interests. They are also fundamentally the same community who frequent Groklaw.net. Many of their targets have been affected outside of Cyberspace. All of their behavior conforms to the offenses listed at WP:HARRASS.

Based on news reports in the Deseret News, Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO has received death threats and boxes of earthworms and dirt in the mail from anonymous addresses which coincide with threats and postings from these users on the SCOX message board which has led to him acquiring a concealed weapons permit and a firearm he carries with him always due to the serious nature of these threats. I have received a box of dead fish wrapped in newspaper shipped to my residence as well which also coincide with threatenting postings on the SCOX message board, as well as death threats directed against my family.

In September of 2005, SCOX message board trolls posted an article to Wikipedia libelling me, then proceeded to use the article as a platform to enshrine what Jimbo Wales characterized in statements on the article talk page as "libel, trolling, and tabloid gossip". Mr. Wales deleted the page and all associated edits after it had been posted for over a year and vigorously policed the article and semi-protected it to stop the abusive conduct of these trolls from the SCOX message board. I was banned originally for filing legal action in 2005 against the people making the death threats, and unbanned after the legal processes had been concluded. One of these trolls sent an email to my wife during this ordeal stating they would, "kill her, cut her open, pull out our unborn son, and kill him too." After reading this email, my wife fled our home and lived in hotels for several weeks, then stayed with friends in Cortez, Colorado and refused to return to our home for over two months. The disruption to my personal life by these individuals and their conduct cannot be described in words alone.

During the initial foray while I was banned by Jimbo because I had filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against SCOX members, several of these message board trolls approached me anonymously through letters, anonymous phone calls, and other means and attempted to extort money from me or demanded I resume funding of various Linux ventures and/or hired them back or gave them "salaries" in exchange to cease editing of my bio on Wikipedia or in exchange for favorable edits. I believe one of the persons demanding the money was User:Jerryg and/or sent the box of dead fish, since it was postmarked from Oregon (Portland) near where he lives. Vigilant appears to live in Nebraska and has moved to California and formerly ran the Linux Users Groups in the midwest. Most of these people have money and /or are older and have business interests and/or considerable investement or stake in Linux and FOSS companies, or are high level people involved in Linux and FOSS.

After returning to Wikipedia, this same group from SCOX again initiated their trolling on Wikipedia and were eventually blocked. The most sinister and disturbed of these trolls are Al Petrofsky and Vigilant. However, other "mission posters" also have recently emerged.

Admin User:Duk has provided a lot of help with this by blocking these trolls and mission posters and recording evidence of their conduct. User_talk:Duk/SPTA. For this he has earned my trust and appreciation and that of my family.

The SCOX message board postings reveal that virtually every edit I make on this site is reviewed and commented on in a sportscaster "blow by blow" description at the SCOX message board, with planned forays and a multitude of sockpuppet attacks designed to create chaos on Wikipedia and marginalize me into a corner where I come under scrutiny by other editors on the site. Simply reading this message board will reveal that all of these posters are indeed stalking and harassing Wikipedia editors and contributors. All of this conduct violates jsut about every policy and rule of civility Wikipedia has, The Wikimedia Foundations policies, and in many cases, State and Federal Laws as well. Users like User:Hipocrite, who use the obvious controversy to promote the conduct of these people as some sort of angle to advance their own views are no better than the trolls they protect.

I propose a permanent ban on all of these users from SCOX.of interacting with me on this site, including User:Hipocrite, and any other users who identify themselves as SCOX members, or who act in concert with them. I also request Administrator privileges to protect myself from them people and only for that purpose. They will not come near me if they know I will block them on sight, as they did the same forays into the Cherokee Wikipedia and Wikigadugi where I am an admin and WikiSysop, and very quickly learned that I will not only block them, but file reports with their ISPs in cases where they attack my personal servers and get their service terminated, which I have done to Vigilant and Al Petrofsky several times already. The criteria for blocking would be 1) They edit any article, talk page, template, or other item on Wikipedia within a 96 hour window of before or after I edit the same they get blocked for a week. This gives them four days of distance between me and items I edit. They may not post, harrass, intimidate, or come anywhere near me within this time window.

I cannot ask that they be banned from editing my bio because this violates the anyone can edit rule. Since Mr. Wales has taken over review of edits on my bio, they can edit it with knowledge their activities are being periodically reviewed by Senior Foundation officials.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can *prove* I sent you a package of dead fish, you will remove my name from the accusation. Lies will not help you here or anywhere else. --Jerry (Talk) 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawl. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Mangojuice^talk 18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, are you adressing that at me? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Realistically, much of what you're asking for is definitely not going to be granted. For example, I can say with almost complete certainty that the community will not grant you Administrator access to "protect" yourself, nor will it place injunctions on people preventing them from editing articles within 96 hours of you - that would basically allow you to prevent them from editing any article of your choice by simply making minor edits every few days. The idea that they can't edit any thing for 96 hours before you edit it... well that's 100% certain not to happen unless getting Administrator privileges grants you the ability to predict the future. --YFB ¿ 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Point, I'll correct the request. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an off-WP fight that has rolled onto WP. While I have some sympathy for Mr. Merkey, a lot of this, quite frankly, he brought onto his own head with his actions, and his demands. It's said if you start believing that you have enemies in every corner and acting on those beliefs, sure enough, you will soon have exactly that. As for Mr. Merkey's demands, I have a hunch that the answer will be quick, and it will be negative. SirFozzie 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I asked for death threats or stalking and harassment on WP by trolls. I also do not believe I instuted their forays. This is a false and callaous statement. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion this request and the above User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey thread should go to WP:ARBCOM. There is too much history here (much of it off-wikipedia) for this to be a clearcut WP:CN case. Let ARBCOM sort this one out.--Isotope23 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The ARBCOM has typically not taken a case with me on this topic. There are several reasons why. One of the reasons has to do with the fact I fund a company which could be viewed as in the same business space as the Foundation. The reasons are too complex to go into here. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Promising that if you're granted Administrator privs that you'll use them only for good? Given the unreliable nature of your previous promises (like the condition that you were only going to edit Cherokee articles on English WP) I truly hope this doesn't get granted. Mr. Merkey, not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, SCOX member, OSS Zealot, revertbot, sock puppet or stalker. The sooner you start acting like a rational person and drop this "I gave money, I can do what I want!" attitude, the sooner the people you're accusing will fade into the background because you'll cease to amuse them. --Spragory 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another sock. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on WHAT exactly? I'm not a sock, troll, or otherwise. This is PRECISELY what I mean. You've really got to get over yourself.--Spragory 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Both sides, take your off-Wiki battles elsewhere. Enough is way too freaking much. SirFozzie 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tobias Conradi may be blocked up to an hour by any administrator for any personal attack or violation of civility.
• Tobias Conradi is limited to one revert per week on any article. This includes moves.
• Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances.
• Should Tobias Conradi violate any ban or prohibition imposed by this decision, he may be blocked by any administrator for up to one hour. Blocks need not be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Reddi

No Action taken, recommend WP:DR or appeal to Arbcom to reinstate parole. SirFozzie 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This seems to be a long time coming. User:Reddi was placed on probation by a arbitration ruling and had to be banned and blocked a number of times for violating it. As soon as his time was up, he decided to continue again to become a very problematic editor insisting on rewriting articles related to Nikolai Tesla in a very unencyclopedic fashion, being extremely combative to the point of total breakdown in communications, and has basically checked out of normal editorial discussions instead repeating himself over and over again without addressing the fundamental problems. I will ask the other editors who are having problems with him to comment here, but I believe that it is high time the community recognize this disruptive editor for who he is and show him the door. Diffs to be posted at a later time. --ScienceApologist 16:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is uncivil ...

ScienceApologist, Please do not distort the situation. ScienceApologist is uncivil and uncooperative.

I was not banned and blocked incredibly large time, maybe once or twice for a brief set of time. I have not been uncooperative since I have been back and have tried to talk with ScienceApologist ... but he refuses to engage constructively with me. [1]

ScienceApologist has recently used abusive language against others ... [2], again. [3], contrary to No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL.

How many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken against ScienceApologist? J. D. Redding 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've had troubles with Reddi in the past; I would await diffs before judging about the present William M. Connolley 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a prime case for Dispute Resolution, please do not bring cases here to get leverage in an ongoing edit war. I would recommend a Request for Comment, or if you insist, look into Community Enforced Mediation SirFozzie 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

we need some diffs at least. Reddi's statement is perfectly hollow, asking someone not to be a WP:DICK is not incivil. That's precisely the sort of allegation you get from problem users that try to "turn policy right back at you". Thus, I think J.S with his "both editor" Solomonic approach is mistaken. If Reddi managed to behave for a full year, and fell back into his bad habit once he was not on probation anymore, what might be needed here is just another year of probation, not an outright ban. dab (𒁳) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that Reddi's edits, at worse, are candidate for content dispute. --Iantresman 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Suggest a request for comment per SirFozzie. Agree with Dab that Reddi is currently under probation, and further sanctions probably aren't necessary. Addhoc 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison between users

• I do not support the community ban on either editor since neither editor has a continuing history of abusing editing and no evidence has been presented by either requester. I would however support a topic ban on both editors due to their uncooperative and combative behavior. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of a topic ban will require specification of the topics in question and supporting diffs. --Art Carlson 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a "solomonic" approach implies that one party might be less guilty then the other. I think both editors have long histories of disruptive editing. In my experience SA, in particular, becomes a notorious wikilawer whenever it supports his agenda and Reddi has been guilty of his own policy violations. I think a... lets say.... 6 month ban on both editors from any article relating to science and the paranormal would be the best solution for wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with dab. Telling someone not to be a WP:DICK is an ad hominem however you look at it, as it does not address the edit. WP:CIVIL gives several examples.
• In response to J.S above, ScienceApologist was subject to an ArbCom finding that he has been (a) Uncivil (b) Deprecating (c) has edit warred (d) has failed to extend good faith.[4]. I have currently reported him for further incivility,[5] where he has been "strongly cautioned", and in another report, it has been noted that ScienceApologist appears to have been given "leeway" and allowed to "push it",[6]. I'm not aware of any Wiki policy which allows this. --Iantresman 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The major difference between SA and Reddi is that SA's bias is towards scientific rationalism, whereas Reddi's is towards everything but. The former is much less of a problem, as the sources SA prefers tend to be reliable and his edits tend towards what I woudl consider to be neutral (in matters of hard science, NPOV and SPOV are close to, though not exactly, synonymous). Reddi has been sanctioned before. I suggest that the best way forward here is probably a request to the arbitrators to extend those sanctions, which appear to have been reasonably effective for the most part, because an RfC is just going to end up as another mud-fight between the scientists and the paranormal believers, which is (as we have proven more times than I can count by now) a total waste of time and server resources. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific rationalism" is not an excuse for policy violation. Bias is bias, no matter scientific or unscientific, political or apolitical. We should look into the facts, not unfairly santion editors. Neonflight 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mostly agree with JzG (of course there is also a story behind SA's patience being exhausted, so he may not react like the most coldblooded and always civil rôle model of a Wikipedia editor here). In addition I would be glad, if Reddi just switches to contribute where his expertise is, not where he thinks, his expertise is. All given, it seems not that sort of case which can easily be handled here. --Pjacobi 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Neonflight's comment: What are you smoking right now? Facts as opposed to science. Reporting the scientific consensus is biased? --Pjacobi 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

this isn't on alleged policy violations on the part of SA anyway. Not that I've seen any. For the record, "don't be a dick" is something like the fundamental commandment of Wikipedia. I hereby am telling you all to not be dicks; if anyone objects to that, he'll have little choice than come to my talkpage and be a dick about it :p

Now, since no community ban seems to be forthcoming, I suppose we could as well close this debate here. I suppose this will have to be an RfC (I am not sure how what we are doing here is different from an RfC in the first place). dab (𒁳) 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, admin please close it, no one will be banned from this discussion. Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't need to be an admin. Just need to be WP:Bold. Like now. 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Permanent community ban on Henrygb

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

Again, this is something outside of this board's "scope." Henrygb is banned until he contacts the Arbitration Committee. This is likely never to happen, so his ArbCom ban is an effective infinite ban.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

---

As a recent new member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, I've made it a point to look at WP:LOBU so I can recognize the characteristics of obvious sockpuppets. That's when I happened upon the case of Henrygb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was caught using two sockpuppets, Audiovideo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Facethefacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When he was confronted by ArbCom and asked to resign, he not only did not respond to his RfAR, but immediately created another sock, SE16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). By order of ArbCom, he has been desysopped, and banned indefinitely until he responds to ArbCom's concerns.

Looking at the evidence, I initially was going to propose a one-year community ban--but then I discovered that one of his socks voted in his own adminship bid. This is an egregious betrayal of trust--this is the third time in a year that we've had admin-related issues tainted by sockpuppetry. Speaking as a rank-and-filer, I am of the mind that this guy should not be allowed back under any circumstances, and propose a permanent community ban.Blueboy96 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to vote yes due to gross gaming of the system, but is there an active case in front of ArbCom? I think that if he's banned until he satisfactorily responds to ArbCom, then yeah, he's banned. SirFozzie 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The case is closed at present--they voted to ban him pending a response to their concerns. I'm proposing that he not be allowed to come back at all--the evidence shows that he was telling the community he wasn't willing to follow the rules he's supposed to uphold. The community has acted before on several occasions with closed ArbCom cases--and even in exceptional cases when there was a case open (see RJII, JarlaxleArtemis).Blueboy96 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, just a reminder that this is not a vote. Secondly, I don't see how a community ban is necessary. He is banned until he replies to ArbCom. I think we should just leave it at that and let the ArbCom handle his reply, if it ever comes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the fact that one of his socks voted in his own RFA makes me particularly uncomfortable about him being part of the community at all. This is almost as bad as the Just H affair in my book ... my assumption was that vote stacking in RFAs is a bannable offense.Blueboy96 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I should have put the ! in front of vote (meaning support), but I think ArbCom will have to be persuaded to let him back in, and I think we can consider him banned. SirFozzie 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to advise the arbitrators of this discussion. They may have information (e.g., whether they have heard from him since the decision was issued) that could be relevant. Newyorkbrad 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose an indef ban on Henrygb. He is presently banned until he explains his actions to ArbCom. That seems a satisfactory position to me. Banning him regardless of any explanation he may later give is unnecessary and unfair. If you believe that he will never be able to offer a satisfactory explanation, then this ban is already indef to all intents and purposes. But I think we should be willing as a community to hear apologies and explanations before making a permanent decision. WjBscribe 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The community can do as it sees fit in this regard. We still haven't heard from him. Frankly, I don't expect to. But since ArbCom has felt fit to give him at least a vague notion of a chance ("talk to us, please"), perhaps it's simplest to leave it at that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Object we don't ban users over a year, normally, as Fred Bauder stated in a recent ArbCom case. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not normally. Certain abuses warrant it, though -- especially when its admins abusively sockpuppeting. Seems to be a little more common then we'd like, sadly; I guess it's just the bell curve -- the more admins we have, the more bad apples are going to turn up to take advantage of our assumptions of good faith. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm agreeing with WJBscribe here. He's already banned until he explains his actions to Arbcom, and if he ends up doing so, then we should take his statement into account for a discussion of banning him. Having said that, I really do doubt that he won't end up banned forever some way. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. The findings in the ArbCom case are worrying, and by order of AC he remains banned until he faces up to the real concerns. I have not seen evidence that Henrygb has actively tried to harm Wikipedia however, indeed his contributions to the encyclopedia have been good. I see no need to piling on further sanctions unless the ones in place don't seem to work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

This arbitration case has closed and the decision published at the link above. Zer0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Community ban of BassxForte/Vilerocks

User:Vilerocks/User:BassxForte has been editing disruptively for a fairly long time now. Details at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BassxForte. Also see the ensuing dispute at Talk:Ciel (Mega Man Zero). I didn't really want to use this last resort... personally I stopped assuming good faith for a while but was hopeful again after his new account, but it's gone again. - Zero1328 _Talk? 13:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Imdanumber1

Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to bypass redirects because he dislikes redirects and "a guideline...cannot be violated". The latest can be seen at User talk:NE2#Redirects, in which he urges me to "be a better contributor on Wikipedia" by allowing him to continue his redirect bypassing, and tells me to "do us a favor and leave Wikipedia, troll." I have posted this at the Village Pump and Administrators' Noticeboard with no resolution. Can somebody please advise me on how to stop his abuse? Thank you. --NE2 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, yes, but why would it be necessary to sanction people for doing unnecessary things? -Amarkov moo! 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's more than unnecessary; it makes it harder to perform maintenance tasks in the future. For instance, if the titles of the headings on Times Square–42nd Street (New York City Subway) are changed, it will not be enough to change the targets of the redirects pointing to that page, but all direct links will need to be changed too. If IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line, which is about two lines, is split, the links that he pipes to that will have to be changed back. --NE2 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Vilerocks/User:BassxForte

Vilerocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previous account is BassxForte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) Has been editing disruptively since January-ish. I've tried everything, with a second and third attempt on ANI ignored, and a submission just here two days ago ignored and simply archived. He has had an RFC here. Acting tendentious, failing Wikipedia:Verifiability, rejecting community input, that all goes under disruptive editing. He has exhausted the patience of around 5 or 6 fairly active editors, and also mine. Evidence of all of that can be see in that RFC, but you'll have to look at Vilerock's contribs to find the recent ones. (I'm not in the mood to list them for your convienience.) - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anacapa

Due to constant disruprion, and sockpuppet use to avoid blocks, Anacapa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby community banned from Wikipedia. SirFozzie 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I have blocked this account indefinitely for this edit entitled "Libelous warning" after a lengthy investigation, conducted mostly by Cailil, that Anacapa is a long-term disruptive editor at feminism-related subjects and probable sockpuppeteer who violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, and generally responds aggressively to anyone who points out that this user's behavior exceeds the bounds of site standards.

Per the above link, this user accuses me of libel and of being a Maoist, so to avoid any appearance of impropriety I am submitting my decision to the community for review. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This was the editor previously here at CSN where the view point of a majority of those discussing the case was that if they were an active editor (they had disappeared from Wiki for some time), sanctions would be needed. Since the editor has returned and has not improved in the slightest, that my view point is that it's a good, supportable block. SirFozzie 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For about a year User:Anacapa has been involved in povpushing and complex vandalism on wikipedia across a range of articles. Spanning From Menonite to Shunning and from Rape to Feminism. Anacapa uses their account and about 14 different IPs from the University of California Santa Barbara to make posts. The IPs in question and edits by them are detailed in my report (here is a wikilink to the list of Ips).

In May Anacapa's disruption spiked. Displaying signs of WP:OWN, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE on the Christina Hoff Sommers Shunning, Antifeminism and Sex differences articles (see report). Thy have also left long off-topic rants on the user pages of those user who warn or question their behaviour (for example on my talk page on Jehochman's talk page [7] and on Durova's talk page [8]).

As it stands Anacapa is involved in disputes with Durova (because she warned Anacapa for NPOV - this led Anacapa to make the legal threat), Jehochman (because he warned Anacapa for WP:NOR on Rape) with Sxeptomaniac and Jbolden1517 on Shunning (becasue Anacapa has attempted to turning the talkpage into a battleground) and with myself (because of Anacapa's repeated IP trolling of Project gender studies). I consider Anacapa's behaviour to be disruptive because it has wasted a lot of editors' time and has created a poisonous atmosphere on certain articles.--Cailil ^talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I am not engaged in any content dispute with Anacapa, nor do I edit at the same articles. The only sense in which Anacapa and I have a direct dispute is regarding the legitimacy of a block warning I had posted at Anacapa's user talk page. Throughout Cailil's investigation I have been reticent to take direct action because I do have a mild predisposition on matters that relate to feminism. I rarely actually edit that topic except for historical biographies of female soldiers and sailors, which is far removed from Anacapa's areas of interest. I acted here because a legal threat is straightforward reason for banning and few administrators have followed this complex investigation in detail. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of clarity in my use of the word "dispute". Durova is right to mention this - I was using the word in its wider meaning. The users I listed don't have a simple content dispute with Anacapa. Much of Anacapa's disruption is a matter of them turining pages into battlegrounds - spuriously claiming that people who question or disagree with them are totalitarians, maoists, stalinists etc - as well as povpushing. Durova herself has no content dispute with Anacapa. Sorry if my use of words led to any confusion--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was alarmed by this editor's POV pushing on rape. You can see his agenda in this comment. Indeed, Anacapa has a tendency to put his own opinions and original research into articles, and then slap on a reference that sort of talks about the same topic. [9] [10] This is sneaky vandalism. I had to completely rewrite the section. [11] Anacapa has a pattern of intimidating any editor who resists his assault on neutral point of view. Anacapa makes hostile comments and accusations of slander. In the past I've argued to lift blocks of editors who were simply unskillful, selfish or clueless. Anacapa's attitude problem is much more serious. His philosophy is incompatible with WP:5P, so he should not be allowed to return. Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban, per Calill's detailed report. It clearly shows that this one is not here to write an encyclopedia. It's not worth the hassle--nuke him. Blueboy96 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a crossposting to ANI, I don't think the full community is here. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The user's ceaseless rants and Great and Most Vigilant Crusade for The Truth pretty much guarantee that no admin in their right mind will be overturning the block anyway. Whichever "style" of ban this is, I imagine it will be effectively binding. ··coelacan 03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the issues of this case?
1. Legal threat? See [[12]] which says if Anacapa either clarifies that no legal threat was intended or the threat is withdrawn, then blocking should end. This policy may be a reason not to have a community ban of Anacapa.
2. Rape article? Very heated, I agree. Block - maybe, maybe not, I haven't studied the edits much. It is possible that Anacapa is out of line.
:I am surprised that it says "Most cultures worldwide have not considered the possibility that women can commit rape against men" because the editor writing this obviously forgot about Debra LaFave [[13]] and Mary Kay Letourneau [[14]] or regards the U.S. as a minor thing.3. I am not at the University of California Santa Barbara. I am opposed to rape. I also invoke this policy due to the heated nature of the topic. [[15]]
I am opposed to community ban for reason 1; I have made no conclusion for reason 2 but think that regular blocking of a period (1 week? 2 weeks?) may be better as a "cool down" tool particularly since Anacapa has never been blocked before; I fear wikistalking so I invoke reason 3.Hotpotatoes 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)checkuser results is "likely" so stricken as likely sock.

Account created only today, at 12:56 pm Eastern. And only edit was to this page. I smell a sock ...Blueboy96 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No checkuser evidence = not proven. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, Wooyi ... just put in a request.Blueboy96 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am defending a Wikipedia's policy, not Anacapa. This policy[[16]] does allow for unblocking if a legal threat is withdrawn. Community ban citing this reason is like giving the death penalty for writing a bad check or for possible running of a red light.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.90.90 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC). (Edit sounds like the above stricken sock but WHOIS says this user is Denver, CO so not a sock)

That's different. Unwithdrawn legal threats mandate a block. The community can consider the threats disruptive whether or not they were withdrawn, and still ban. -Amarkov moo! 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that Hotpotatoes is a sock of Anacapa. Checkuser will confirm either way. To reply to their concerns, Anacapa has been indef blocked for a legal threat and they have not withdrawn it. Durova's indef block is only for the legal threat, any community sanction here would look at this threat as the last or latest act of disruptive editting - not the only one. If you read the report you will see the long list of IPs Anacapa has used and the list of articles they have disrupted for nearly a year - the situation is not limitted to rape. Legal threats are not the equivalent of "running a red light" it is taken very seriously by the community. It's one of the worst forms of intimidation and disruption an editor can try to use to get their own way on WP. Lastly, Anacapa has been advised to look at WP:ADOPT, as entering mentorship could ameliorate their situation.--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely. I dunno about the rest of you, but there's really not a whole lot more to say. He hung himself.Blueboy96 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anacapa has now used multiple socks to pretend to not be Anacapa and present arguments against banning, as though there was disagreement, both in this thread and in the RFCU page. I don't think anyone would have any reason to oppose a ban, with that behavior. ··coelacan 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything but more sockpuppeting, more disruption, and more grief coming from allowing Anacapa to continue editing. I believe a ban's the only way this can end. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban, his behavior on rape is appalling, probably a year or so, because I heard Fred Bauder once said we don't ban over a year. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am neutral on the ban. I am personally willing to tolerate more of his behavior than, I suspect, many others are; however, Anacapa is certainly tendentious and disruptive, so it was bound to be necessary to block him at some point based solely on those issues. Unfortunately, I suspect that his obsession with "balancing" certain subjects means he will reappear from time to time. Sxeptomaniac 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cailil has demonstrated remakable patience and scrupulousness in documenting this long-term problem. Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, I believe that - in addition to the specific legal threat - Anacapa's other behavior merits a siteban in its own right. I stated that opinion at the previous ban proposal, which if I recollect closed without action because not enough Wikipedians participated. Also, to clarify another point, I refrained from taking action on any content-related disruption (due to my own POV on the overall subject) and although I endorse a ban for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. I would also recuse myself from actually implementing an indefinite block on that basis (community bans can indeed be indefinite and many of them are). Legal threats are a different matter - I considered myself free to act. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, good move, Durova. And he just did a good job of justifying that with attempt to astroturf. Good grief--do they have to be so obvious?Blueboy96 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor the end of that comment. Actually I'm glad when sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are obvious. That makes my volunteer work easier. I don't particularly like to educate disruptive editors about how to disrupt more effectively. Just handle the matter as routine and WP:DFTT. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right Durova, some others have dealt with Anacapa far more than I have, so my remark was poorly worded. Having finished reading Cailil's report, I can see that those working on gender and feminism related articles have had to deal with him particularly often in the past. I guess I just see that the block, to a large extent, stems from his consistent problem behavior as much as the one incident. My personal patience hadn't worn out on him yet, but the block seems reasonable in light of problems with him in other areas of Wikipedia. Sxeptomaniac 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, he may have tried to return as Chergles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Talk about hanging yourself ...Blueboy96 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

move to close

No one has objected to the proposed ban, except for Anacapa's sockpuppets. This thread was linked from ANI when one of those puppets started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#Checkuser extremely flawed, so Eagle101's suggestion of linking from ANI for wide input has been taken. Users who have had no interactions with Anacapa have looked at the evidence and said that a ban looks necessary. I don't think there's anything left to say here, but I don't want the thread to be archived ambiguously. Can an uninvolved admin now wrap this up and stick a bow on it, please? ··coelacan 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This ballgame pretty much ended with that Checkuser request.Blueboy96 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done: I will add Ancapa to the Ban list when I have a moment. SirFozzie 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community ban of User:Nasz

User has been indefinitely blocked. Addhoc 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

(moved from WP:AN/I ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavic_peoples&diff=134506703&oldid=134498488

• charging whithouth references the most renomed Scholars

Plese temper him. He looks for me crazy, his action is especialy fourius when refernces are added .

It looks from the speed [17] of reversion then he using a boot aginst the edits.

Nasz 07:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot? That's highly unlikely as the edits aren't very fast, and anyone can match that speed. As for the edit in question, he isn't crazy, though I have no idea if the revert was justified or not.... --DarkFalls ^talk 07:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute: talk to the user. No administrator intervention is required and your accusation of bot usage is pretty much baseless. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should discuss your edits on the talk page, rather than here. There's really nothing we can do, since there's no infractions of any guidelines. --Haemo 07:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The so-called references are in clear violation of WP:FRINGE. Nasz keeps revert warring over his text:

Is perhaps worth to note now comon polish vocabulary phrase "actors from burn up theatre" was coined when Moomsen published his Getica unders name of 'Actores Anigue' and based on Manuscripts burn by him couple yeras before. The book is still defended by Germans like holy bone but most probably contains invention of Mommsen authorships. He was activ politian verbant suporter of falen pangermanizm."

He tries to revert war this and similar OR assertions into Slavic peoples and several other articles. I would support a community ban of the user. He's been tirelessly adding nonsense to the articles since last year and revert warring over it. I have yet to see any useful contribution from him. His specialties include fringe theories, copy&paste moves and probably also sockpuppetry. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's nearly incoherent on talk pages, due to his broken English, so that's not exactly endearing him to me. --Haemo 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nasz is adding confused nonsense in broken English at a frightening pace. If anyone has the heart, do try to talk sense to him, but I think a ban is perfectly arguable at this point. This has been going on forever, and the user's conduct has only deteriorated in the face of kind admonitions. dab (𒁳) 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me talk to him - I don't want to see a well-intentioned editor go under without a fight. --Haemo 08:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that before any block is administered someone should at least attempt to communicate with Nasz in his native tongue. I'm not saying that his contributions make a lick of sense to me, but lets at least identify the source of his objections. (e/c) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind to that, although I confess it takes a lot of precious time to follow his contributions, lest his original research infiltrates mainspace, where it may be perpetuated by subsequent edits. I have never seen a person who treats WP as a battleground for his fringe theories suddenly reforming into a helpful editor in the face of admonitions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to first separate his (or her) positive contributions (if any) from the combative ones. Nsaz obviously has a desire to contribute something to Wikipedia, by learning more about him and the basis for his contributions we might be able to set limits on which contributions conform with Wikipedia policy. Once Nsaz is made aware of these limits, he will be able to choose between participation and block. Then again, I'm not familiar with the subject Nsaz contributes to, and I will defer to the judgment of Dbachmann and others with expertise in the field. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

well yes, Nasz is an adherent of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory and its significance to Slavic National mysticism. That is to say, fringe theories and pseudo-scholarship. Discussion of this stuff does have a place on Wikipedia, but a very restricted space, mostly confined to dedicated articles (WP:FRINGE). With Nasz we have the two-pronged problem of language and pushing of fringe views as mainstream. Even if you invest time in cleaning up his additions, you'll still end up with fringe theories misrepresented as respectable. I honestly don't think we have much to gain from a belligerent editor with little command of English and a fringy agenda. We may get some input for evolving our article on PCT and Slavic nationalism, but I am not sure that's worth the effort. At the end of the day, he unduly imposes on Ghirla's and my time that could be spent more constructively. If other people are willing to babysit him that's fine, give him a mentor or something, but don't let him run around loose on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann is an administrator, but how you call an [edition] which delete all sections of article and 72% of references? In one aspect I agree with him, he titled his edit trolling campaign in progress Nasz 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

D: That is to say, fringe theories and pseudo-scholarship

N: I think he is not qualified to speak as voice of 5 scientifics communities. I requested him to insert {fact} he accusing me of fringe. Hi you Dbachmann! what kind of emotion allow you to curse living great professors! Namly: Mario Alinei, Gabriele Costa, Alexander Hausler, Marcel Otte, Jonathan Morris listed in Wikipedia and more unlisted here. You insulting academia and my intelligence! Shame on you to say. Nasz 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time cleaning up after User:Nasz. It is true it is almost impossible for him to see that the stuff he added was unsourced or that he did not understand the sources he gived. Also practically all his edits needed copyediting. At one time he was disruptive to the degree that he started to revert my vandal reverts (I can provide the diffs, if needed). Plus he always blanjed his Talk page afer someone put a compliant there. Giving him a tutor would make the person work practically full time on controlling Nasz. I gave up and stopped editing the articles Nasz worked on. However, I had no doubt that someone has to solve the problem sooner or later. It is very similar to another user who was recently blocked indefinitely after a RfC I commented on. -Friendly Neighbour 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I remember someone mention on Nasz's Talk page that he was already blocked on Polish Wikiedia. I have not checked the fact. Of course, Nasz blanked it pretty soon but it should be somewhere in the page history. --Friendly Neighbour 09:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

F: I gave up and stopped editing the articles Nasz worked

N: Good! I can refresh this memory. How the article looks now? 20 inline references!. Before me was one! Is'nt it? See also :)

F: It is true it is almost impossible for him to see that the stuff he added was unsourced...

N: It is blatant lie. Most of the references presented in R1a1 - I inserted!.

Nasz 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, fwiiw, the user was indefblocked on pl-wiki on 8 March 2006 [18], with a reason of Wielokrotne bezsensowne edycje, wulgaryzmy w dyskusjach ("consistent nonsensical editing, vulgarisms in discussions"). I think it is pretty clear that we are not looking at merely a language problem here. (there is no doubt the two accounts belong to the same user, his field of interest and his gist match as well as his username). He lasted for just over two months on pl-wiki, sometimes our fluffy approach on en-wiki is a little over the top. Also note this recent exchange discussing his behaviour on en-wiki. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the move for a community ban, as I cannot see any evidence of productive contributions but a great deal of disruption in his wake. This seems to be more than a language problem. He was previously blocked on the English Wikipedia for similar bizarre behaviour. Buddhipriya 10:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban per the arguments above, the potential for disruption is not worth it ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we see if he is open to a Request for comment. The guy has been here for a year, and yes I do see good contributoins. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I have not been aware that the issue is discussed on IRC. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

sure, if he accepts the RfC and acknowledges that he's that far from a community ban, this may be a way forward. So far he hasn't shown any sign of introspection, but if he does reform, so much the better. If not, we can still ban him in a couple of days, there's no hurry here. dab (𒁳) 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits of Nasz (talk · contribs) have been discussed before, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive87#User:Nasz. Piotrus (talk · contribs) subsequently contacted Nasz. Nasz doesn't seem to have responded to this on-wiki, but I don't know if the users have had contact via e-mail. I agree that there are editing issues involving Nasz (broken English, original research, etc.), but I don't know if they exceed the level of a confused newbie to the extent that a community ban might be warranted. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I see that Nasz has registered in December 2005, which means he is not a newbie. There have been many complaints about his editing, and many attempts to mentor and guide him. I agree that the time for further action (RfC?) may have come. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also attempted to contact him, and redress this before it came to a ban, but this user removed my overtures without comment. He does not appear willing to try and work towards a resolution of this, and I do not believe that an RfC will have any impact on him. I am loathe to move for a ban on someone who appears to be contributing in good faith, but at this point I am honestly running out of ideas about what to do. --Haemo 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting on the above, and especially the fact that he was banned on the Polish Wiki for essentially exactly the same problems tells me that this has gone quite far enough. I'll endorse a ban --Haemo 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution

Let's ban User:Dbachmann. It will save a lot of our time. Nasz 02:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nasz well it appears that there are some concerns over your actions. Would you be open to a request for comment. Perhaps that will help matters. Right now I don't see adequate evidence to kick anyone out. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have a much better idea. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ok, I missed out the stuff above where he was banned on polish wiki :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up

After closing the discussion and banning Nasz (talk · contribs), Szac (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sockpuppet earlier today. Szaczaszczy (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet as well. For more, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nasz. Many of Nasz' articles were tagged for cleanup, like De Originibus Slavicis and Johann Christoph Jordan, but would it be an option to delete them instead, and let someone else create a proper article in their place in due time? Quality over quantity, etc? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

24.13.244.169 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly Nasz (talk · contribs) when not logged in. Exactly the same articles edited with the same edit quality. I wonder if this IP number shouldn't be blocked also for the good measure? -Friendly Neighbour 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It seems I was right about the IP number but it has already been blocked for 6 months. -Friendly Neighbour 18:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

24.13.244.169 is most definitely Nasz, as he's confirmed it himself. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the length of his ban on enwp? I propose a year for this type of bad behavior, since one year is the normal maximum per ArbCom tradition. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked indefinitely. Call it a ban or not, I highly doubt anyone will ever want to unblock. -Amarkov moo! 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But the question remains: what do we do with the articles Nasz and his sockpuppets have created? Do we keep them around here waiting for someone to clean them up, do we seek the help of a regional noticeboard in fixing possible translation errors, do we send the articles to AFD or should we speedy them? Aecis^Brievenbus 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

G5 doesn't apply retroactively, so deciding that it is a ban wouldn't help. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And the articles are probably not incomprehensible enough for G1. Which leaves two options: prod/afd, or calling on the help of a noticeboard or a WikiProject. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban of User:74.225.36.136

I'm calling for a community ban of the User:74.225.36.136. Extensive evidence of his behavior can be found, User talk:74.225.36.136. He has created a sock puppet account User:WhatHaveYou34 and has refused to agreed to site policy when it comes to rumor endorsement, citing sources, and has repeatedly used denigrating language towards Puerto Ricans.

1. Perhaps get the user to understand that his edits on WP are unwelcome and that his sock edits will unless he adheres to site policies regarding rumor endorsement, citing sources, and personal attacks
2. Make sure that users who revert his sock edits do not receive 3RR blocks from unsuspecting administrators.
3. If the user continues to be a rogue editor and not listen to mediation by a mediator or use logic and reason when it comes to simple themes (for example he claims that Jeff Bezos is ethnically Cuban only because Bezos's mother's second husband was Cuban and adopted him and gave him his surname) than his edits will be reverted and anyone can submit a abuse report for erasing citations like he has done for the Sammy Davis Jr. article and using racist ranting such as in his own words:

• LOL. referred two site administrators. Your spelling is atrocious. And then you go calling me ignorant. That's really funny. I'd be shocked, but you're Puerto Rican --- so it's expected. 74.225.36.136 04:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• LOL. Thank God that's not possible. If you could become Puerto Rican through a one night stand there would be billions of you people. lol. Isn't there a list of Puerto Ricans somewhere on this site for you to update ... oh, yeah ... Puerto Ricans really haven't done anything worthwhile so you stick to the Cubans. Understandable. 74.225.36.136 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

then racist editors like him are not welcomed on this site. XLR8TION ^{Talk to me--XLR8TION 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)}

We don't indefblock IPs, let alone ban them. —Kurykh 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This really is laughable. First off you know I have a user name so why don't you go ahead and at least nominate my username, that is at least following proper protocol. By the way, you should probably look up the Wikipedia article for a sockpuppet ... User:WhatHaveYou34 is my screenname, not a sockpuppet account. Secondly, you really have no ground to file any sort of complaint for behavior. You are just as guilty as I am of resorting to childish behavior, only difference is I am mature enough to admit it. Not only did you instigate this entire matter by initially reverting my good faith edits as vandalism with no basis, you track my every move by maliciously editing[19] and re-touching every edit I make to an article to correct "spelling mistakes" or "grammar mistakes"[20] when you have proven time and time again you are no expert on either subject.[21] Plus we can't forget that you also resort to name calling. Interestingly enough you forget to provide these links: here you called me "ignorant",[22] this little gem provides some background into your history of questionable edits [23], and what do we have here? It seems you've been reprimanded for attacking other users [24] ... wow, that's a surprise. Didn't see that coming. Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ... or should at least wait until one is thrown at them first. 74.225.36.136 08:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Mitchell

No Action required on this request, however, Geoffrey Mitchell is strongly suggested to cease Advocating for a blocked user and concentrate on productively editing Wikipedia articles. SirFozzie 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

It's clear he doesn't want to contribute, just to harass me and Matthew. Motion to community ban. Will ^(talk) 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I know people normally ask for diffs. Take your pick. Will ^(talk) 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A look through those edits indicates that the editor in question has never made an edit outside of talk pages and a couple of noticeboard posts, and seems to exist solely to carry on the fight for the indef-blocked Sixty Six (talk · contribs). But, he's also never been blocked and I don't see any other dispute resolution, which makes me think a community ban might be excessive. Maybe an RfC would be a better starting point - a wider range of viewpoints might help. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your comments Tony, I don't think an indefinite ban is out of the question for an account that hasn't made any positive contributions. Addhoc 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal belief is that Geoffrey Mitchell, and the IPs that often "show up", are Sixty Six or friends of Sixty Six (meat puppets). Geoffrey Mitchell has shown quite clearly that he is not here to edit/improve the encyclopaedia, I've tried to ignore the long-term trolling that has occurred, but it's coming to a point where it's becoming a nuisance... and I can't foresee him contributing positively to the encyclopaedia. Perhaps a check user should be performed to verify that he is not Sixty Six? Matthew 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the checkuser. Seems there's a high chance that Geoffrey may be a sock as well, even if the CU comes back as negative. Whsitchy 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be curious as well. I'm also going to leave a note on Geoffrey Mitchell's talk page to suggest that he try building the encyclopedia instead of carrying this on; it doesn't look like he's aware of this discussion either, at this point. I still feel that, if he's not a sock (or the checkuser continues to be refused), some other dispute resolution or mediation should be used before a community ban is enacted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony's comments were received on my talk page. I'm reposting my responses here, so that all interested parties can view them accordingly:

"Hey, thanks for trying to interject some maturity and civility here, Tony! And you do raise a good point about the editing, as it does appear that only those who've done thousands of edits seem to "count" around here. However, to be honest, I'm like Munta -- I'm seriously concerned that any edits I make will be purged/reversed not because the contributions are invalid/inaccurate/etc, but out of spite, vehemence and vengeance. Sure, I've got several articles out there I'd love to make corrections and additions to, but like Munta and anyone else who's run afoul of Will and Matthew, any change to any page I make will most likely be reversed. Quite bluntly, it would be a damn waste of my time. And if you'll think about it for a minute, how else is *any* Wikian supposed to interpret this debacle? We have a Wikian who *has* contributed positively to several articles -- you have to look at the history of his user page to see it now, thanks to those who were responsible for his blocking to begin with -- and yet because he refused to back down when two adolescents tried to bully him while hiding behind their monitors, he's blocked, ostracized, and otherwise refused further opportunities to contribute positively. Not because he was trolling articles, but because he wouldn't cower when the admin and his sidekick in question growled. Now, taking this into consideration, can you blame myself -- or anyone else, for that matter -- for being more than reluctant with regards to contributing? Which should explain why I've taken up this particular crusade. I *want* to contribute, but not if these two particulars in question are still being allowed to impose blocks and file false claims of "sock puppetry". That sort of behavior is not only without question *very* childish, but it's a symptom of what's keeping Wikipedia from gaining the credibility the concept deserves. Geoffrey Mitchell 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) "

Q: After seeing a positive contributor to Wikipedia bullied and blocked by those filing the complaints, and having been falsely accused of being a sock puppet, would *you* want to contribute article edits and corrections, knowing that your efforts would be wasted? Geoffrey Mitchell 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. Nobody is saying you have to be an editor here. An indefinite ban could still be applied merely to end this squabble, in order to encourage everyone else to focus on improving articles. Addhoc 10:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read between the lines, that says "Your complaints don't matter. Either shut up and do we tell you to do, or we'll kick you out of here, regardless of whether you're right or wrong." Would someone please explain how Wikipedia benefits from such a policy? Geoffrey Mitchell 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think what Addhoc is saying is that we're here to build an encyclopedia, so that's what everyone should be doing. As I suggested to you, go out and work on articles - outside of the articles that the people you're in conflict with are involved in - and we can all go about our business. Six or more months of arguing over this hasn't built the encyclopedia much; at this point, it looks, from your contributions (and those from the IP you appear to have used prior to registering (as indicated by your first registered edit being to replace that IP's sig with your own)) that you're focused more on backing up Sixty Six than anything else. If you absolutely insist on continuing the argument, consider a user conduct RFC, but I'd advise that instead, you go out and work on articles - a productive contributor is more useful than a banned user. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's several points to address here, Tony:

• First off, I acknowledge we're here to build an encyclopedia. What's *not* being acknowledged is that there appears to be a "clique" in effect whose interests are more interested in trying to impose their will -- no pun intended -- upon the shape of articles with undue and unnecessary force. If you look at the history of the events leading up to Sixty Six's permanent block, and the relationships of those involved, it's pretty clear that he was not fairly treated.

There's another related point that should be made here: why aren't Will and Matthew here justifying their actions? As has been pointed out by others, there seems to be some obvious concerted effort to "protect" these two particulars individuals against any criticism to the point that all they have to do is to cry "troll!" and other, more adult admins rush to their rescue without doing any real research into the situation.

• Secondly, I really fail to see what the IP address point you're making has to do with anything here. Timeouts happen, and I simply failed to notice it until after the comment was added. I went back and added my signature after I logged in. Is there some Wikipedia rule that says that happenstance is an offense? If not, then this is a non-sequitur on your part.

• Thirdly, I'm "focused" because I saw a good contributor to Wikipedia run off of here for the *wrong* reasons. He wasn't run off because his contributions wern't up to snuff, or that he was trolling, but that two specific individuals went on a vendetta against him over his refusal to accept their bullying. Any admin who was truly upholding their responsibilities would have seen this right off the bat, and have put a stop to the whole debacle the proper way. True, Six may have gotten a little heated towards the end, but if you follow the chain of events, Will and Matthew's refusal to work out their issues with Six despite repeated attempts to settle their differences.

What happened was a railroading of the type you'd only expect from a small town sheriff in the Deep South, circa 1961.

• Finally, I'll stress again that I *do* want to spend more time contributing to articles. However, as with many who're watching the "Sixty Six Situation" witn interest and have voiced their dissent as to how he was treated, I'm *very* reluctant to make any edits as I, with good reason, do not want to find my time wasted with my contributions purged out of vengeance. Can you or anyone here guarantee that Will and/or Matthew won't take such actions? Or are the "kangaroos" so entrenched in the "kourt" that I should just abandon all hope and leave? Geoffrey Mitchell 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out the IP because it continues to give an indication that even prior to registering, you were involved in this dispute; quite frankly, at this time, you still show all the indicators of a single purpose account and your goal is to keep up the fight with Matthew and Will, et al. This is why I'm encouraging you to go out and edit other articles, away from the dispute - again, it's more productive than carrying on a seven-month or so long fight.

Looking back at Sixty Six's edits, he started out contentious - his first edit under that username referred to "wikinazis" and his second, to his user page, included an insulting comment about Matthew. I went through most of his contribs this afternoon; he did make some good contributions to some articles, but he also had some civility issues that appear to have led to the indef-blocking that was left on despite reviews by several admins. If he wants to edit, I'm sure that an e-mail to one of the arbitrators or an ArbCom clerk would provide him with a starting point - and that's probably about the only thing that's going to move a block forward.

If you have an issue with Matthew or Will regarding their contributions, as I suggested before, an RFC would be a starting point. But, as my last comment on the matter as a completely uninvolved editor, I'd really suggest that you leave this alone, and go on and edit other articles productively. If Matthew or Will (neither of whom are admins, I should note) follow you to those articles and malevolently undo your edits, report them; if your edits are valid, they should not be reverted, and admins will deal with it. Anyhow, that's the best I can offer - I'd like to see everyone go forward from here, and avoid further nastiness; this is my best suggestion. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Will recently "abandoned" his admin position at the same time as the admin who imposed the permanent block on Sixty Six, Alkivar, and Matthew has made three very unsuccessful attempts to become an admin. If you take note of the comments made that were against his admin campaign, it's obvious that he's not as positive a contributor to Wikipedia as he's presenting himself to be. In either case, while not currently active as admins, they are clearly using the same methods previously employed to impose their will against myself and anyone else who's decided to stand up against the type of bullying Sixty Six and others like him have received.Geoffrey Mitchell 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone here even read Matthew's talk page? He's gotten into about 500 disputes here at Wikipedia. I'm not even here to fight with Sceptre or MatthewFenton. I just don't think Sixty_Six should have been blocked, and a legitimate reason has not been given. If you uphold Sixty_Six's ban based on the arguments presented, then the fact that Matthew is still on Wikipedia is ludicrous given that he's been in arguments with about 498 more people that Sixty_Six ever has and has been banned several times before that. Keep in mind, Sixty_Six never even got blocked before that. Is that how Wikipedia works? You get in one disagreement with the wrong person and you are blocked forever right away (no ifs, ands or buts). But you can get into an argument with everyone else who doesn't have connections and get away with it scott free, or at the very least, be given a timeout. Very hypocritical in my opinion. I challenge anyone to find any one of Geoffrey Mitchell's arguments where he has not MATURELY made a point without getting into personal attacks (criticism is not harassment). Unfortunately, it now seems that Sceptre and Matthew have now turned their vendetta on Geoffrey Mitchell and they probably will get him banned as well. Coumarin 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This once again raises the question that no admin has dared to answer during all this: why aren't the accuser(s) previous history of edits and disputes taken into account? It would seem the answer is that the meaning of AGF applies differently to those who are either admins or cohorts of said. It's very hypocritical when you get right down to it. Geoffrey Mitchell 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Fox has this spot on. Write, not fight. Please take this advice seriously. If you keep on fighting and write nothing, you will get kickbanned later, if not right now. Moreschi ^Talk 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was advised by a former admin to quote this here, since those demanding my head on a platter for sticking up for Sixty Six apparently have forgotten how CN is supposed to work:

"This is not the place to come to if you think someone is causing a problem and should be blocked. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) for that. Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, not a means to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first."

Take special note of the part about using a ban to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. That's clearly what happened in Six's case, and what's apparently being attempted here against those who've taken up his side. Geoffrey Mitchell 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bans are for long term abusers where all other options have been tried and failed. I don't see evidence of that here. Please try those steps first.--Isotope23 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the point of order. Geoffrey Mitchell 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey, yes, there is a "clique" here. Those who work to improve the encyclopedia and those who don't. Fortunately the clique is very easy to join. I would love to see you improve articles but so far I see almost no involvement with the article improvement process... (8 edits to the article space 79 not).[25]) Now, thats not a reason to indef-ban you... but it would be nice to see you focus more energy on article improvement. (POV Disclaimer: I was heavily involved with the Sixty Six episode) Sixty Six was banned because he was disruptive to the article improvement process.

• In conclusion... I do not support the indef ban, but I would like to heavily encourage Geoffrey to become part of the "clique". - ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey's edits to User talk:Sixty Six are nothing short of potshots at Matthew Fenton and Will (see this edit before the page was protected and cleared). I would not be bothered if the user also engaged in constructive criticism of the projects goals. The first pillar of the five pillars of Wikipedia, states that it is not a soapbox for the advocacy of others. My advice to Matthew is to take a short break and approach the project in a more helpful manner. If User:Sixty Six returns, it is up to him now to appeal his block and to go from there. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not pots shots, they are well thought out and perfectly valid criticisms of inappropriate actions concerning certain people involved.Coumarin 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not how I see it. Still, Geoffrey is clearly breaking policy of advocating for the rights of a person who is not currently a party to this continued discussion. How is stating that "It might have been the stress from being assaulted by those two you-know-whos that might have contributed to his medical problems" a perfectly valid criticism? I understand if the fact is that Sixty Six is still recuperating, but on Wikipedia, people need to fight their own blocks if feasible, not have a "friend" go on this "particular crusade," as Geoffrey calls it. I am not advocating a block, I am merely asking Geoffrey to step back, take a breath, and try to contribute. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not a battleground, but I find it hypocritical that Sixty_Six gets a punishment for allegedly treating it as one while Sceptre and Matthew don't even get warned for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Don't you find it ironic that he is calling for the unbanning of someone while Sceptre and Matt parade around asking for others to be banned? I think people need to realize who's really is treating this as a battleground. Coumarin 05:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coumarin in that everyone needs to take a giant step back, maybe take a walk in some nice fresh air, and take some time to refocus on our priorities. Which don't include fighting, or carrying on about each other. I don't think anyone here is more 'wrong' than the next person. Riana ⁂ 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we OK to close this with no consensus for a ban but a strong suggestion that Geoffrey Mitchell concentrate on editing the encyclopedia rather than advocating for a banned editor or following around editors that the banned party had disputes with?--Isotope23 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to propose that very thing today. This is about as far as it's going to get - I suggest the parties stay clear of one another and edit away. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. SirFozzie 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vilerocks and User:BassxForte

Vilerocks (talk · contribs)/BassxForte (talk · contribs) (both belong to the same user) Has been editing unconstructively for a very long time (around January). Evidence can be found on this RFC. The main problem is that he never accepts consensus and is clearly disruptive because of it. It leads to alot of very lengthy arguments which go in circles and revert wars. He has stated that he is extremely stubborn, and you will never win, even if an admin intervenes. This is all true, with evidence found pretty much wherever his name appears.

I've posted this twice on WP:CN before with no reply at all; if no one at least tells me if this is the wrong spot, and why, then I will be forced to take it to arbitration. I don't want to do that, I would prefer this process. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm really interested in at least getting any kind of reply, here. My patience is really wearing thin. I really think a community ban is easier than arbitration. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It does say in the header of the page that community bans are a last resort. Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, and if you don't feel that the user is learning from the RFC or other discussions, that really is the right way to go - especially if you haven't received a response here.

Having said that, he does seem to have some issues with civility and collaboration, and hasn't seemed to learn much through the dispute resolution thus far. While a community ban is probably not in the cards at this point, if you feel it's necessary for his actions to be dealt with, arbitration might be the only thing to do at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT indicates three ways to deal with a disruptive editor: A simple ban by an admin, ArbCom, or a community ban. I consider both ArbCom and here to be a form of last resort, but I decided this may be easier, since it includes the opinion of other editors. This is why I'm growing frustrated at my last two attempts, since this appeared to be a correct method but no one replied. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I understand there is an RFC linked, however, perhaps more input from the community will occur if differential edits can be laid out. Additionally, have any other steps of dispute resolution been attempted. With regards, Navou 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've mainly been following the guideline on Dealing with disruptive editors for this, so no other types of dispute resolution have been attempted. Also, it was a personal decision of mine to not attempt other methods of dispute resolution, as it would be a waste of time, since he is tendentious. His reply to the RFC affirms this. I'd also like to note that I have notified Vilerocks of this discussion (in a rather blunt way) and he does not appear interested.[26] Probably because of his own opinion on me. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, do you have any involvement with the subjects of this discussion? Navou 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That question's a bit ambiguous to me. Could you clarify it? If you mean something like a current dispute with Vilerocks/BassxForte, then no. I've been avoiding talking to him directly. If it's previous disputes, then yes, to a great extent. I have been directly involved in disputes, but I've been trying to maintain a neutral view. Since I could be regarded as being biased against this person because of the many disputes, I've been seeking other people's opinions. That's why I did the RFC under user conduct, and not a subject in particular, and why I went here for a consensus of Wikipedians instead of ArbCom. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This situation seems a little ridiculous to me. If an editor is being disruptive or is going against consensus and will not stop, block them. Everyone here is a volunteer; it's absurd to have volunteers forced to deal with nonsense like this. Let me know if you need any assistance. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The only assistance I need is a willing admin to block him indefinitely. I've used ANI, no admins assisted at all. I don't like going to someone dragging them into it because it goes against my view of Wikipedia, which is, volunteering. I'd rather post my problem and wait for offers of help, but nothing came. People just talked, they didn't act. And now no one's talking, either. I just want this over, 6 months of facing the same user is too much for anyone. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Vilerocks/User:BassxForte is a problem user. Their arguments are circular backed by no policies or any sort of real argument other than "I want it" (in reference to articles about characters) despite the fact that the articles fail many of wikipedia's key policies. They create arguments simply for the sake of it and for the sake of disruption. This user seems to ignore people even when shown applicable policies and believes their own ideals are the only requirement for articles. They show no recognition that their behaviour is disruptive and show no hope of reforming whilst ignoring everyone elses attempts to help wikipedia as a whole community.

Seraphim Whipp 10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A sample of recent activities:

Revert wars:

on Pantheon (Mega Man Zero): [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

on Ciel (Mega Man Zero)(edit warring goes from 23 March 2007 on various subjects): [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Talk pages: Talk:List_of_Mega_Man_Zero_characters#Merger, Talk:Pantheon (Mega Man Zero)#Recent edit warring on this page: An answer (hopefully)

Look at his contribs for the rest. the majority of his edits consist of these. I really don't think listing diffs are needed.. not only that, but I'm quite tired of this ordeal and I really didn't want to. - Zero1328 _Talk? 12:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These two users have been blocked for 2 weeks for disruptive editing practices and an unwillingness to follow consensus. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was really seeking an indefinite amount of time, but I suppose that's sufficient for now. The next important matter to bring up is the length of ban at the moment and/or in future. Again, I am in no place to place an opinion, as my judgement may be biased. Personally I would say indefinite, as per WP:DISRUPT. It's been shown that he won't change his editing practices. - Zero1328 _Talk? 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Flameviper with editing restrictions

The ban was lifted per community consensus but reinstated per the results of a checkuser indicating that editor 2-16, who contributed to this discussion to lift the ban, is a sockpuppet of Flameviper.--Isotope23 14:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Eep²

This editor continuously ignores standards for disambiguation pages, revert wars to put his/her idiosyncratic ideas about how things should work into disambig pages, formats lists articles into two columns despite being told that that is not done. User then repeatedly reverts to non-standard, idiosyncratic versions of the article. There has been a long-standing user conduct RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep on this user for these reasons. More and more editors have been experiening disruption caused by this editor. I think it is time for a community ban if this user will not desist. IPSOS (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

First, IPSOS, on my talk page, you claim the reason for this community ban request is because I was "stalking" you, when I wasn't (and am not). (Add I don't know why your delusioned mind would think otherwise since you're the one who who claimed I "vandalized" Ob simply by adding compound words to it, which you then reverted a few times, including a legitimate "See also" section correction). You have an odd definition of vandalism if you think that is vandalising--cuz it ain't. Then you claim I insulted you regarding this edit to AfD: Inner (I guess you considered the edit comment "replies to the hypocracy" an insult, or something--gee, with such a loose definition of "insult" just about everyone I've ever dealt with on Wikipedia would be warned and already banned!). And then, here's the clencher, you go on to actually vandalise Closed (which I warn you about on your talk page--and then you immediately delete--more hypocracy, incidentally), Gaff gives you some tips on how to be civil (or something) after you directly insult me in your AfD reply on AfD:Outer (which I warn you about on your talk page--and include the vandalism warning--again--and which you, again, convienently and quickly delete, and then more convienently and quickly archive). Then, ironically, someone else creates an RfC for you (and your "whatevah!" reply to it). Then you get a sockpuppetry accusation (which is then revoked, oddly, but the accusation of you stalking someone else is made). So, in all of this, where have I stalked you, IPSOS? Seems like you're projecting your own stalking behavior, or something..."whatevah!" ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Eep. this is not about IPSOS. If you have things to say about him, the RfC is a better place to do so. Taemyr 00:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been time enough for Eep to desist. I propose a partial ban preventing Eep from editing Dab pages. Taemyr 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Even a cursory review of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep is telling. Eep has not bothered to issue a response to the RfC in the appropraite section. Rather, the RfC documents an escalation of name calling behaviors and editing persistently against consensus under the misguided impression that the user is some sort of martyr for a cause. He has been blocked at least once since the RfC was initiated. While he did stop calling other editors "wikitators" and has stopped adding "duh" to his comments and edit summaries, there are still problems: the newest being <eyeroll> over and over. There is a pattern of 1)incivility and 2) refusal to accept consensus, editing against consensus and being pointy, instead of say bringing it up as policy proposal at Village Pump. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, the duh behavior is still going on: [40]. This RfC was opened 7 May 2007, which to me is ample time for a user to "get it." —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Right; interested parties should review the RfC and its talk page. Eep² has resisted extensive attempts at reasoning with him; the only apparent effect seems to been firming his resolve to continue disrupting disambiguation pages, damn the torpedoes. As he most recently said:

"People still aren't getting it and, until they do, I will persist. I know what I'm doing is the correct and efficient way."

--Piet Delport 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No compelling or reasonable purpose can be construed for an indefinite ban. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with comments by Wooyi, this isn't enough for a community ban. Addhoc 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Eep is dismanteling the dab page system by his own. Something should be done. Taemyr 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not dismanteling anything; I'm improving it. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what WP:VANDAL is for? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL is not really appropriate. Every indication is that Eep believes his way is better for Wikipedia. Taemyr 23:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Point noted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He/she/they/whoever has always been that way on other online communities including Usenet, where (s)he insists on posting in a non-RFC-compliant format (with excessively long lines) and telling everybody who objects to "just get over it". *Dan T.* 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, bring in non-standard Usenet line lengths into this discussion (which I explain here). <chuckle> Sad, Dan, sad... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And I explain here why the standards are the way they are (for e-mail in this case, but newsgroups have similar standards in this regard). It looks like you're engaging in the same old behavior here on Wikipedia... ignoring all standards when they don't suit your own preferences. Yes, I know we've got an "Ignore All Rules" policy, and even a "Be Bold", but when lots of other people revert you because they prefer the standards as already set here, you shouldn't keep fighting them uncivilly. *Dan T.* 00:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not Usenet. We don't import Usenet battles here, and we do not have Usenet's standards of behaviour. Uncle G 14:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We can bar him from editing dab pages. As far as I can recall, this person has not disrupted pages outside of the purview of dab. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The question remains: can he be barred from creating dab pages? He's created a few that don't need to exist (and have been subsequently speedied under G6, near as I can tell). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about duplicated dab pages? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, no, I'm referring to dab pages that don't need to be there. Case in point, see this AfD, in which such a page was turned into a dab page. But see my response to him defining "disambiguation" - the stuff in there was nothing more than a list of loosely-related items that were in no need of a dab whatsoever. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That list is certainly counterproductive, but other ones are fine and should have been kept, like outer (disambiguation). I find this overzealous deletion to be disconcerting. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, name one entry that should be on outer (disambiguation)? Taemyr 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't happen to have the list of entries that were on there, do you? Perhaps there's an admin that can do this? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The list is somewhere still, in the user's user space (don't delete it). For example, outer space and outer coat that should go in that supposed dab page. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a context in which you would refer to outer space merely by outer? Taemyr 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• As has been xyr common practice (as was noted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eep², q.v.) xe made copies of the deleted articles at User:Eep²/Inner and User:Eep²/Outer. Uncle G 14:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It can be kept as a stand-alone list: the point is that it is not a disambiguation page.

For an accessible example, compare Eep²'s Within to Within. --Piet Delport 23:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that besides filling DPs with non-ambiguous entries, Eep²'s edits also include adding dictionary definitions, sub-words (With and In on Within), compound words (Object/Obsess/Obfuscate/... on Ob), random related concepts, Wikipedia search links, and generally any number of other things that are irrelevant to disambiguation, and expressly counter-indicated in the policy and guidelines.

He defends these additions by edit warring, ignoring consensus, and grossly misinterpreting Wikipedia policy (such as Ignore all rules and Consensus can change, which are favorite citations of his in defense of any policy violation). --Piet Delport 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Wooyi and Addhoc about there being no reason to take action: Eep² has stated that he believes not only that Wikipedia should be a dictionary, but that it should "contain everything--and I mean everything (including all content from all other wikis)".

He states that he will continue enforcing this view until we "get it". What are we supposed to do: respond to his edit wars unto oblivion? --Piet Delport 00:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Eep² for a week. If he continues this behavior in a week, contact me.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncle G, please do not change other users' indentation from simple indents to bullets. Both forms are acceptable, and there's no reason to force a change, and doubly so when the other user has expressed a preference for the original style. -- JHunterJ 00:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys

(Moved to WT:CN) Navou 19:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Akc9000

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

Already blocked. Pointless bureaucracy to continue. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

• Akc9000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Dynamic Submission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - has been deleted multiple times
• Search engine submission software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - has been redirected and protected to prevent spamming

This COI editor has used every process and tactic available to recreate Dynamic Submission, an article about the software that he apparently sells. One recurring tactic is that he plays the part of clueless newbie and asks an uninvolved editor to help, thereby taking advantage of our tendency to assume good faith. I fell for this ruse myself. See this discussion for all the evidence. Incidentally, the user becomes very belligerent with anyone who attempts to stop his COI spamming activities. He recently received a short block for WP:NPA and WP:COI.

I am requesting a topic ban to prevent this editor from engaging in further abuse of Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Historically, you will garner more discussion if you post your case in full w/ evidence here instead of directing the participants to evidence located elsewhere. Navou 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you all can help me figure this out, because it's just too strange to be true.

1. The editor's first contribution is a post to WP:RfA. He reveals his COI, and at the same moment claims to be with a different company having the same name.
2. Third contribution to Wikipedia: creates a template. Maybe he's edited before under another username??
3. The domain name registration records show that AKC Consulting is intimately involved with Dynamic Submission. AKC Consulting = AKC9000? I think so.
4. Next he tries to create a cozy nest for his linkspam [41]. Changing the category will allow him to insert a link to Dynamic Submission.
5. Asking an Admin to explain why both spam articles were deleted. [42]
6. Goes to help desk. [43]
7. On to deletion review [44]
8. Appeals to one admin [45]
9. Getting help from another admin [46]
10. Later, questions another deletion of article. Disavows COI. [47]
11. Back to deletion review. [48]
12. I meet Akc9000 when he nominates Search engine marketing for deletion. I oppose this, but try to reconcile, and even defend him from another hostile user.
13. At this point, I've offered to help Akc9000 restore his deleted article. An admin moves the article to my userspace, and I restore NPOV. It gets moved back to main space.
14. Meanwhile, Akc9000 has been making a bunch of apparently constructive edits. I feel like things are going in the right direction.
15. After Dynamic Submission is moved back to main space, Akc9000 starts turning it into an advertisement. I ask him to stop, but he proceeds. At this point I start digging, and find out that he controls the domain name of the software he's writing about. Obviously there is a serious COI, or appearance of COI, so I reported this again at WP:COIN
16. The user's response is to launch a personal attack against me on WP:COIN, after I've tried to help him!

My sense is that we have been played for fools by a user intent on link spamming Wikipedia who will do whatever it takes to get his stuff into the encyclopedia. If we allow him to continue editing, he should be paired with one mentor so he doesn't keep shopping around for sympathetic admins. Jehochman ^Talk 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this per Jehochman. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A topic related ban would seem to be the answer here. SirFozzie 01:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just block them indefinably, no need for this. I gave them one chance, thats it. Blah he is already indeffed, no need to formally "ratify" it. Close this discussion. Durova we really don't need to vote on already banned users ya know :) (yes before this discussion he was effectively banned, after failing to shape up after my unblock) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Asgardian

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

This editor has no recent blocks. If he's disruptive in some way, please report this in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). If he's edit warring, consider compiling a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (WP:AN3)). --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Twice now, last year and this year, this disruptive, contentious editor, who follows policy and guidelines only at his choice, has frustrated the WikiProject Comics community to a point where we have long, involved debates, with him and a several other regular editors, trying to find a way to work together.

After last year's attempts and promises, in which the issue arose that he might have been disrupting Wikipedia as a school project, he remains as contentious, defensive and frustrating as ever — engaging in revert wars, blanking his Talk page (where he has suffered Admin sanctions), and blaming everyone but himself for the difficulties.

It's gotten to a point where other editors are tearing our hair out. We cannot go on this way. For a year now, we've done everything we could.

I will dig up a link for last year's debate. In the meantime, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian.

One continually edit-warring editor who refuses to consistently follow consensus — even consensus to which he's agreed! — is creating huge frustration and aggravation for many editors. This is not right, and we need help. Thank you for any consideration you might give this issue. --Tenebrae 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his history, I see an awful lot of instances where he's deleted talk page warnings. Not promising. I would think a one-year ban on editing comics-related articles is the way to go, plus an indefinite ban on removing talk page warnings. Contrary to what your colleagues said on the RfC, the community can impose topic bans. Thoughts? Blueboy96 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae, a community ban objectively exceeds the conduct in question. Until every possible option has been exhausted...you are now at RfC stage...imposing a ban is preemptive and counter-intuitive of what Wikipedia represents. At this point we need to allow process to work. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We have done RfCs with User:Asgardian. Fellow editors disagree with his edits, and he keeps making them anyway.--Tenebrae 01:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I could support that, although the user does contribute useful information. The other option I could see is a revert parole. If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period then brief blocks could follow, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month, and after 10 blocks increase to six months. Any thoughts on that? Hiding Talk 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very creative, fair, and — equally important — quantifiable solution.

The one workaround I can foresee is his making the usual big revert in steps instead of all at once. --Tenebrae 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Per arbitration rulings,

“ The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is intended to include both absolute reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as de facto reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ”

I think that covers any workarounds. Hiding Talk 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:CyclePat

No action taken, Pat is indefblocked and will not be unblocked until he accepts the terms put before him, that any discussion of unblocking does not begin until he promises to not bring up AMA (or similar "groups" again. SirFozzie 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

As I'm sure most people are aware, CyclePat is currently indefinately blocked due to trolling over WP:AMA, he will be unblocked when he agree's to stop this behaviour. Unfortunately this promise to stop has not been forth coming, so let's help him on his way. CyclePat can be a constructive editor, so I propose lifting the block, and a community ban from discussing AMA on wikipedia indefinately with a block of upto one week by any administrator if he breaks this. Thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why only one week? Why not indefinite? He's already indef. blocked, and he has to agree to the condition to be unblocked, if he violates that, why not put him back to the current status? Corvus cornix 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He's only indef blocked to get him to stop the trolling, a week block should be enough of a deterant, and he'll keep on getting them if he violates the ban. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Stronger... Indef block if he disruptively revisits AMA/EA. Under this context I can support unblocking per my rationale at WP:AN (disclosure: I did vote on the MFD's). Navou 01:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• No disrespect, but given that an indefinite block hasn't succeeded in getting through to him (see his talk page for evidence), how would a one-week block -- or even a series of them -- accomplish that? --Calton | Talk 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he'd be community banned, if he continues to troll over AMA then he gets blocked for a week, simple as that. Maybe some limit of blocks could be put on it e.g. After 3 such blocks, he gets his indef block reinstated. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Calton above. Lets give him the unblock out of respect due his useful past contributions. With the assertion that this area will not be explored. I do not see any reason why an editor should not be given a chance to learn. Anyone can return from the edge, to contribute usefully to the project. If he returns to the same past behavior at AMA/EA, then back to the indef block. Lets not take take time with multiple chances after all the warnings and the current blocking. I think we all understand that this editor understands what is expected. Under this context, I can support an unblock. Navou 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat has been offered just about exactly that several times over the last week, save for the one-week cap; he seems unwilling or unable to understand or accept those terms. Pat's reading of "dropping it" is "..Let's assume I'm unblocked and get 3 other users interested in the AMA by specifically talking to them on their user page..." [49]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I say lay the terms to him, tell him it's a community ban and the consequences of mentioning it again, if he agree's with the community ban, he gets unblocked, if he doesn't he stays blocked - simple really :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Those terms are 3 chances or 1 chance, so I'm clear? Navou 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus here, it seems like 1 chance, I guess he's had enough chances already (although I would prefer the firm 3 strikes and your out rule to be used - but I'm not questioning consensus). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Terms of unblock have been given to him [50]. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am notifying JzG of this discussion, as he has had interactions with Pat in the past. Riana ⁂ 03:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

His whole premise of being unblocked is that with jsut one more chance he can demonstrate the necessity of AMA. His quixotic obsession will earn him an indefinite ban. I suggest a long block right now so that his obsession can subside somewhat. Unblocking now is like giving heroin to a junkie. Let him come down for about 2 months and see if he is still obsessed. I suggest a 2 month block to see what happens. But unblocking now will only end in a permanent blcok in 1 week. --Tbeatty 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The last time he was topic-banned here, he did honor that. He's certainly not someone whose sole purpose is to disrupt; unfortunately, some of his actions have had exactly that effect regardless of intent. Still, I believe a topic ban (with quickly-escalating blocks should it be violated, and a very explicit warning that it means "Stay away from the subject, period, end of the story") may be the least harmful way to stop that disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I support unblocking if CyclePat agrees to a topic ban, but I do not support an immediate indefinite block if he violates that. Immediate escalation provides no time for contemplation and improvement; short, then escalating blocks, do. --Iamunknown 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd chime in here, because I have a long history with CyclePat. I tried my best to mentor him when he first started with the electric bicycle article in late 2005. I've been saddened by the recent turn of events, because he is very passionate and when he's editing instead of trolling, he's a very useful member of the project. The problem is the passion. It's wonderful when it's put to good use. But when it isn't, he's become prone to Wikilawyering to get his way. That has always been a part of his MO on Wikipedia, but it seems to have become dominant. He has a difficult time listening to others. He's very stubborn (and admits to being so) and very hard to suade at times. I think that the block should be lifted if he agrees to leave AMA alone. He has been at times a very valuable member of the community. And I think he can be again. But he does have an obsessive streak. Until he agrees to the topic ban, I don't think he should be let back onto the project. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Woohoo. All Pat has to do is agree to leave it alone and he can be unblocked. Unblock him without that assurance, and I'm pretty confident he will continue his crusade. Pat is not evil, but is is incredibly stubborn. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Given the latest posts by Pat on his talkpage, it appears that he rejects the idea of dropping AMA altogether. He appears to wish to try and discern why AMA was closed as well as contact other editors to gauge interest in restarting it at a future date. As I said on WP:AN I want to unblock Pat so he can continue editing, but not if he is going to just be reblocked for AMA related editing. I don't think a WP:CN resolution to bar him from discussing AMA is going to have any effect and my reading of what he has stated on his talkpage is that he rejects any sort of unblock that comes with the stipulation that he must not discuss AMA. I'll wait to see what his response to Calton and Ryan is, but at this point I think Calton summed it up at [User talk:CyclePat]]; Pat wants option C and that simply is not on the table here, so a WP:CN resolution won't be necessary.--Isotope23 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Following the AMA's closure I haven't noticed a 'gap' in the dispute resolution process - we clearly don't require the association to be restarted. When Pat finally appreciates this, he can be unblocked, but not before. Addhoc 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This thing about banning somebody because they hold and express an opinion that most others disagree with seems a bit unsettling to me... why not just ignore him when he talks about his pet obsession, and hope he moves on to something more productive eventually? Why the need to put him under threat of re-banning if he so much as mentions the subject again? *Dan T.* 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Durova^Charge! 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems primarily concerned with somebody pushing a viewpoint in articles, not in Wikipedia-internal debate, though. *Dan T.* 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Certain areas of DE can be applied to this, even though AMA/EA is not in the article proper. Navou 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as one of the editors who coauthored that guideline, I don't recall any discussion that would exclude it from applying to Wikipedia namespace. It just usually happens in article namespace. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat is a disruptive nuisance who does the project more harm than good. I support a community ban. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Tom harrison's comments, and add that CyclePat has made no indication he intends ot drop the AMA matter completely.--MONGO 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the offer's moot until Pat indicates that he will accept the terms offered, that he will not be unblocked until he agrees not to bring up the AMA again, PERIOD, so therefore, marking as complete SirFozzie 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gurch

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

No consensus to ban. Addhoc 13:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Gurch (talk · contribs · count) is a former administrator and is/was a highly regarded contributor. Their recent behaviour suggests a growing bitterness towards the project which once again culminated in a curious but most undesireable incident tonight which saw Gurch repeatedly adding a indefblocked template to the userpage of CharlotteWebb. This follows a number of unhelpful comments left on Requests for Adminship. I'm proposing a novel-ish solution which would initially see Gurch indefinitely blocked until such time as they accept and admit their recent behavior is unhelpful and unacceptable and agree to some form of parole which is acceptable to both them and to the community, such as short blocks leading to longer blocks and finally a final ban should the behavior continue. Nick 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this one, he's been trolling, but he's not going to agree to parole - he'll leave simple as that. He has the potential to be a constructive editor again, I think any indef block or parole will act the same as a ban. It seems premature at present IMHO. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to support that. It sounds like it's devised to be humiliating. I'm certain it's not been, but that will be the perception and I'm fairly sure Gurch will see it in that sense, thus there's nothing to be achieved in taking this approach. We already have a process for dealing with disruption and POINTy behaviour and I feel we should stay on this path. I don't see why anything further is needed here. - Alison ☺ 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Growing bitterness towards the project is unlikely to be ameliorated by an indefinite block. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Allison and everyone.. SirFozzie 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He may not have been terribly helpful, but he's still being genuine, not malicious. If he's responding to the perception that wikipedia processes are becoming broken, then bullying him into admitting that they aren't isn't going to accomplish anything but pushing him away entirely. Would it really be terrible to just put up with it for a while, until he calms down? Bladestorm 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want Gurch to admit our processes aren't broken, I want him to stop trying to break process even further to try and force across his point. It's disruptive, discredits those who believe process is broken and makes it hard to see if a process is genuinely broken. The last thing we need at the moment is Gurch running around adding indefblocked templates to userpages and proclaiming Charlotte to have been banned by a Checkuser. It might be how Gurch sees things, but it's confusing for editors and the whole WP:NOP thing is heated enough without this going on. Nick 23:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but we already have a well-defined mechanism for dealing with disruption - Alison ☺ 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a look through his contribs and I dug these diffs out myself. Gurch's comments at WP:RFA like "I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits" [51] are definetly tendentious and considering that his vote has an effect on the candidates' RFA's is pretty serious.

The vandalism on Charlotte's web's userpage [52] and the 7 reverts back to the vandalized version[53] is unacceptable, as are the taunts left on his own talk page [54].

That said I can't support your solution Nick. I agree with Alison, & recommend following the process for dealing with disruptive editors--Cailil ^talk 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alison and Anetode. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't support this, and agree with Ryan and Alison. While Gurch sometimes may be pointy, he is just to trying to show how broken/abused our processes are. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, "please don't ban Gurch" - Alison ☺ 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that is very premature, I agree with Ryan Allison and R. Viridae^Talk 00:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gurch makes comparatively harmless WP:POINTs and assumes relatively little bad faith, seeing as such interactions as discussed here are all "on behalf of" editors in good standing. What he does may be unhelpful, and even detrimental to his arguably good-faithed cause, but that —essentially good-faithed— is what I perceive his actions as. Assuming good faith such as required by policy equally with all people may be impossible in some situations, especially polarised situations that are the one thing that is really broken about RfA (there is no discussion in the section labelled "Discussion"). He is ignoring some rules for what he (obviously in my opinion) honestly perceives as being the greater good for Wikipedia. His being mildly wrong and somewhat stubborn doesn't make him worse than a regrettably high percentage of people on Wikipedia. So he's a gadfly, but at least he is trying to make an actual point (the validity of which is not to be decided upon here) with his WP:POINTs. —AldeBaer 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's please not criminalise Gurch for sarcasm. There's seems to be well-meaning opinions underlying his remarks and behaviour, not just cranking -- and I even see some small dissent value for the longterm benefit of the project. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, maybe we should even reward Gurch. After enough of his comedy, sarcasm, and points about how everything is broken, we may actually fix RFA and other things. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Also, reading this may provide some helpful stimulations. You see, we have all this knowledge assembled in one place, available to serve and guide us if we let it. Isn't that a great thing? It has the capability of actually extending our individual horizons, provided that we don't think of ourselves as being reduced to a POINT. —AldeBaer 01:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, how about not? Per everyone who has commented here. --Iamunknown 05:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually read this noticeboard, but as soon as I saw Gurch's name I thought, "That doesn't look right." I don't condone everything he's written, but a block of any length would be completely out of proportion. YechielMan 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No need for a block....a few off colour opposes at RfA are best left ignored. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a look through his contribs and I dug these diffs out myself. Gurch's comments at WP:RFA like "I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits" [55] - the context of this comment is interesting. Another user had already opposed saying "I don't support editors with less than 10,000 edits" - In that light Gurch's neutral is not damaging and is a funny way of pointing out how broken some comments are. Dan Beale 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing

The above named arbitration case has closed. TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for 1 year. Please be advised that TingMing is already indefinitely banned, so the one year ban will not commence until the indefinite ban is lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Community ban on User:Nationalist

No action needed. If someone "unbans" Nationalist/TingMing, he will still need to serve a one year ban at that time. SirFozzie 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for one year by ArbCom for edit-warring and soapboxing on the China-Taiwan issue. However, TingMing was indefinitely blocked on June 14 after Checkuser evidence confirmed him as a sockpuppet of Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nationalist has had an RfC out on him since February, and has made only a cursory effort to participate. He's been blocked seven times since it opened. No need for diff-digging--all the necessary diffs are provided at TingMing's RfAR and Nationalist's RfC.

Given the fact that TingMing is a proven sock of Nationalist and that Nationalist has no regard for consensus, a sanity check of the case on my part convinces me it's time to help Nationalist, alias TingMing, find the door. Blueboy96 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See above, Blueboy.. he's already banned, in fact, his one year ArbCom ban does not start until someone unbans him. This is unneccessary. SirFozzie 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.