Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue. Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this. If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked. We do not have time for this. -Scott P.21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the noticeboard for requesting community bans. Is that what you're asking for? Since User:Scottperry has never even been blocked, that seems unlikely. Any disputes about lists of affiliations can turn very messy. (Lists of affiliations annoy me as well). Unfortunately this is a case where tons of patience and diplomacy are needed, and I imagine yours is probably exhausted by now, since you keep coming back here. Respectfully, I suggest that you take a couple of days off from fighting this one. You're probably right, but it's a no-win situation for you at the moment. EdJohnston03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an irrelevant incident. But I feel he is on a mission to be abusive and provoke me and then use his superior knowledge of how Wikipedia works to report me for an infraction. I am trying to keep my cool. But I am not unaware of what I believe are his intentions to provoke me. I am not asking for any sanction to be taken against him. Clearly what he said, above, is minor. But I want to register this problem somewhere, with someone. Just in preparation for a continuation of this. It is found here. Below is the entirety of his post:
Considering every statement you have made on this page or elsewhere is based on your subjective opinion, emotional interpretation of events and an apparent personal agenda regarding Jews and Christianity, you are extremely poorly placed to use words such as "evidence" or phrases such as "wikipedia's purpose". We build articles here based on references. There are many pointing to Dylan's conversion including the Encyclopedia Britanica. Until you can indicate contradictory "evidence", i.e. printed sources, stop wasting our time. --JJay17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply point out that the evidence pointed out above, and several other pieces of evidence, have been supplied, which were sufficient at the time to have almost all printed sources found stating what the above editor has repeatedly said is non-verifiable. I too would contend that his insistence on asserting what is clearly a POV which has no substantiation, and actually runs contrary to, several printed sources which went without documented dispute from the subject (again, the above editor has refused to provide any documentation whatever of his own position), and a subsequent book of the subject's own words as delivered in public from stage could reasonably be interpreted by many people as "a waste of time." Perhaps the language is a bit harsh, but adamantly continuing to say that we have to abide by a standard of evidence which the majority of the larger, more prosperous news media in the country did not abide by at the time the incidents in question occurred, and that they have (apparently; again, no contrary evidence has been put forward) not been criticized for their own crossing their own, generally stricter, guidelines for such content can be seen by many people, and has been seen by many people, as being probably at least a bit excessive. Particularly when the person raising the post above has clearly and explicitly stated that his own point of view on the subject is so pronounced that his objectivity in these matters can be at least questioned. John Carter20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above report, which was opened by User:Bus stop, does not appear to be a well-formed request for a community sanction. Any needed discussion should take place elsewhere. I suggest that this thread be closed. EdJohnston20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is added by JJay, here, not for a constructive purpose, but to silence discussion:
Current revision (00:54, 1 May 2007) (edit) (undo)
JJay (Talk | contribs)
(add off-topic warning- it would be helpful if talk page guidelines were followed here- i.e. This is not a platform for personal views)
Please indicate to me how placing a box indicating official policy, that a talk page is not for personal views, as a reminder to all parties involved is somehow an "objective" example of "harassment". John Carter01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Miaers is engaged in a long term edit war that has disrupted pages relating to University of Wisconsin. They have gamed the system to disrupt wikipedia. They have abused WP:AN and WP:AN/3RR. They have already been blocked 3 times in March 2007 for disruption (the latest ban was for Continued violation of 3RR, now on University of Wisconsin System). They haven't learned from these blocks [1]. They have launched personal attacks against the admin User:Akhilleus[2] and have misrepresented comments by User:Orangemikeaspersonal attacks.
Cosign and agree. I haven't been involved in the majority of the debate, but the degree to which this user has been shown to be willing to waste admin's time is shocking. Continually disruptive and unhelpful. JuJube02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User registered in September 2006. Until March 2007 he didn't had any block, then suddenly something appeared at an article and he engaged in edit-wars, being blocked 3 times in less than a month. Maybe he is not the only one guilty of this edit-war, there is an other part involved. Blocks for edit-wars were deserved, but a ban seem excesive to me.--MariusM20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the data in User:Cailil/Miaers_disruptive_behaviour represents a fair summary, then this is indeed a serious case. Miaers's editing and aggressive style of argument seem to have caused a big waste of time for other editors. I trust that input will be sought from several of the admins who have dealt with User:Miaers and that Miaers will have a chance to respond. EdJohnston02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the header on this page again: this is not a vote. "+1 ~~~~" style comments without contributing to the discussion are unnecessary since we don't count numbers to determine consensus. Dmcdevit·t08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any compelling reason to think that there's any hope for a constructive turnaround. And plenty of compelling reasons in Cailil's evidence page to go ahead and ban. The pattern here exemplifies an intent to waste everyone else's time and simply draw attention to one's self. Frankly, the complaint today about John Reaves was absurd. And while I am not at this time an egg, I used to be one, so I can speak with some authority on the matter. ··coelacan03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that Miaers is currently blocked for 3RR, and so cannot participate in this discussion. S/he should probably be given a chance to speak in self-defense. I also think we might want to explore the possibility of a topical ban; Miaers has some constructive edits, and might still be a valuable editor if we can keep the problem area off-limits. So perhaps we can just ban Miaers from articles that have to do with the University of Wisconsin. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Miaers needs the opportunity to speak here or to have their defence posted here. Personally I think their abuse of AN is extraordinary bad faith and warrants more than a topic ban. If their behaviour was limited to the edit war alone I wouldn't have made this report. That said you do have more expeience of their behviour Akhilleus--Caililtalk14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting...I was just about to add a new entry for Miaers here, when I noticed this one! I have been involved in many of his disputes since January 2007, and I support a topic ban. Please note that he has been suspected of using anon edits during previous bans, and I see no reason that he would stop doing so if banned again. It is very hard to assume good faith in his case. – Lordmontu(talk) • (contribs)03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random and probably pointless note: Miaers is a female, she said so in her frivolous WP:ANI complaint where she whined about John Reaves "calling" her an "egg". JuJube00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Miaesrs has made constructive edits outside their "war-zone" I would change my suggestion to topic ban with probation. They do deserve another chance, their disruption of WP:AN was all related to the Univesity of Wisconsin edit-war--Caililtalk15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. User was not the only one who engaged in edit wars on that topic. She received blocks for that, is enough, I don't see any need for further action on this moment. There are worse users in Wikipedia then Miaers whch were not banned.--MariusM15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for MariusM - the report isn't about the edit war alone. As stated in the report it is the waste of time they caused by gaming the system that is the primary issue. BTW I'm sure you realize that this is not a vote--Caililtalk16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mudaliar and User:Venki123 are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is posted by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad15:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mudaliar and User:Venki123 are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is posted by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad15:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ygr1 (talk·contribs) has been tendentiouslt editing the Claudette Colbert article and rather subtly inserting their own point of view while removing anything that does not conform with that point of view, even if it is reliably sourced. Normally I would just say this is worth a block, but the editor has repeatedly created new accounts to get around blocks or edited from a dynamic IP, necessitating the article to be locked from editing. a ban would allow for immediate reverts on the article per WP:DENY and I think that is exactly what is needed in this situation; this individual isn't improving the article and is simply "poisoning the well" so to speak for other editors who are trying to improve it.
Some of Ygr1's other accounts include:
Strongly support. I agree that this user is doing more harm than good, and with all of the comments made by Isotope23. I feel that the community has been more than patient with Ygr1, who has shown a complete disregard for our policies and guidelines, especially in relation to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OWN. We're still experiencing the same POV pushing that was taking place two months ago with an earlier account. We've made no progress at all, and although the users have been invited to take part in discussion, they have failed to respond. They have also failed to discuss points raised on their talk pages. I think if they had demonstrated any willingness to negotiate or discuss their opinions we might have a chance of resolving this without taking the extreme step of banning, but the main obstacle seems to be their consistently blinkered attitude and unwillingness to engage in any meaningful communication. I see banning as a last resort, but the logical next step in this case, as everything else has failed. Rossrs15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out the current line of argument this individual is using on the Claudette Colbert talkpage, essentially arguing that editors from AU should not be editing the article because Colbert's movies are not shown there (apparently Ygr1 has not heard of this new-fangled "cable TV" they have down there, including Turner Classic Movies). This sort of argument suggesting that nobody should be questioning Ygr1's POV pretty much sums up why this editor doesn't get it and should at the very least be banned from this article.--Isotope2323:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness it should be noted that Isotope23(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), who is proposing this ban, was the administrator involved in many of the page protections for the Claudette Colbert article and some related blocks, and that gives him the background for the list of user names he offers in this nomination.
The extremely incivil edit summaries are very easy to see in Special:Contributions/Wptfe. User:Ygr1's comments on Talk:Claudette Colbert seem peculiar and uncooperative. Even the limited evidence offered here should be enough to justify an indefinite ban of this user from the Claudette Colbert article, though not from the Talk page. After three months he should be allowed to make his case here on this noticeboard to have his full editing rights restored. It is possible that his behavior is bad enough to deserve blocks on other grounds, but whatever enforcement that entails could happen in parallel to this editing limitation, which would allow reverts per WP:DENY on the Claudette Colbert article. EdJohnston04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous IP, 219.104.31.80 (talk·contribs) is now copying and pasting chunks of text from the Claudette Colbert article into Bette Davis and All About Eve, seemingly without reading either the articles, or the text being added, which is being inserted without even rewording it so that it makes sense. Considering that it's the same information he's been disputing for the Colbert article, I can't imagine it's not the work of the same editor. Also reverting edits I have made to other articles despite my explaining my reasons for my edits on the talk pages. (Talk:Carole Lombard and Talk:It Happened One Night). This is the same behaviour that happened a couple of months ago when he was blocked from editing Claudette Colbert and started tenditiously editing Vivien Leigh. As soon as one avenue is shut down, he just finds other articles to mess with. The individual edits are trivial but the overall effect is damaging. Rossrs13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that puts matters in a new light (a topic ban would not be enough). Don't administrators have the authority to take action when an editor misbehaves this badly? Maybe the nominator, User:Isotope23, can comment on whether he thinks this request for a topic ban is still necessary. It might be better to just do what's needed and then ask for review at WP:AN, providing a list of accounts that were blocked or articles that were protected. EdJohnston17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can be blocked for this kind of thing, but I listed this here for a ban discussion because given the nature of the IP this individual is contributing from, blocks are not going to be a very effective solution here. It's either semi-protect every article he/she starts editing in such a way, ban so the editor's contributions can be removed per WP:DENY, or simply live with the fact that the editor is going to edit articles however they see fit, sockpuppet, and generally be querulous about any criticism or questioning of their edits. To me at least, a ban is the simplest and most effective solution to this problem that has the least amount of impact on any other editors here. Originally I thought a topic ban on Cladette Colbert would be sufficient, but now I'm leaning more towards a total Wikipedia ban as it appears this individual has taken an interest an a wider range of actor and actress articles.--Isotope2312:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this editor seems rather nasty and the evidence suggests that a complete community ban would help out the administrators working on this case. Since a full ban is appealable either to Arbcom or to us, if it turns out to be mistaken, does anyone object to issuing a full community ban on Ygr1 (talk·contribs)? EdJohnston22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:LionheartX, a ban-evading sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotXUser:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tHUser:Guardian_TigerUser:Apocalyptic_Destroyer and User:ApocalypticDestroyer's was previously community banned (or indef. blocked)[3] per this thread on AN/I for being an abusive, disruptive sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template Here's what arbitrator and admin User:Dmcdevit had to say about one of the socks. [[4]] After multiple attempts to wikilawyer and as well as abuse of the unblock template on User talk:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tHUser talk:Guardian_Tiger, his talkpages were protected by admins, [5][6][7] which resulted in more sockpuppetry and evasion. Admin User:Nlu was lenient and agreed to give LionheartX another chance despite all of these violations, disruption, and sockpuppetry (ban-evasion). [8] But also made it clear that LionheartX is on a very short leash and that other admins are not bound by his decision. User:BenAveling, the main advocate who campaigned for Lion's unblock also made it clear that Lion is on a very short leash [9] After more disruptions followed, admin User:Durova indef. blocked the sock account User:LionheartX per [10][11] The block was overturned one week under cloudy and controversial circumstances. Nevertheless, Lion was advised to stay out of trouble [12]. I have always been a victim of Lion (and his previously socks) tendency to stalk, spam, and harass. Several harassment campaign has been launched by LionheartX to drive me out of wikipedia. The newest one started couple of weeks ago even though he was advised to stay away from me and to stop harssing me. [13] This didn't stop him to orchestrate an anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign by proxy. (spamming usertalkpages to campaign to ban me)[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Spamming in my arbCom case with User:Ideogram [[25]] (there are way too many diffs so just glance through his contributions and you'll see it) and stalk my contributions and POV pushing . [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]], disrupt Wikipedia:Changing username [[30]] [[31]] [[32]], wikilawyering, and spamming/canvassing [[33]] [[34]] [[35]]. These are the very reasons why he got banned. I strongly urge the community to community ban this user. This isn't about me (even though I am his favorite target), it's about exhausting the community's patience and abusive/disruptive/ban-evasion in general. We should enforce the ban and resolve this issue once and for all. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This community ban request is clearly vindictive and is highly inappropriate. Certified.Gangsta is filing this community ban request in response to evidence submitted during his ArbCom case. Certified.Gangsta is currently facing strong ArbCom sanctions and is not in any position to attack other editors. Certified.Gangsta is clearly misrepresenting the situation. My account was never banned. See the dates on the WP:ANI threads, the most relevant and recent WP:ANI thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. My account was clearly unblocked with the support of many other administrators[36][37]. Certified.Gangsta has no evidence for his allegations of policy violations from my account, but is making unjustified accusations. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram for Certified.Gangsta's ArbCom case, which is still not over, and see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Workshop for diffs of his site violations. The only person violating policy here is Certified.Gangsta, who has extensively made personal attacks, aggresively edit warred, and has a long history of policy violations. Certified.Gangsta has extensively canvassed in an attempt to have my account blocked. Certified.Gangsta is filing this in an attempt to gain leverage in a large number of China-Taiwan content disputes, and this request should definitely be dismissed as such.
Note: Certified.Gangsta previously edited under the following names:
Agree with Ben Aveling, and suggest that Certified.Gangsta should try a user conduct RFC or mediation. It's not easy to judge the validity of a lengthy case made here by someone like Certified.gangsta who has a record at Arbcom. Certified.gangsta himself has been the subject of a user conduct RFC and a discussion at this noticeboard in March, which ended with the transfer of his case to Arbcom. LionheartX's block log shows that Durova undid his sockpuppet block in March as a mistake. Background on the reasons for his unblocking is at [43]. If LionheartX did misbehave on the Arbcom pages, Arbcom will surely be able to deal with that. It is clear that there have been edit wars between Certified.Gangsta and LionheartX in the past. If there is any problem with LionheartX's editing that deserves to be brought here, someone else should bring it. EdJohnston00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Juan Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been fully protected for over two weeks due to a "persistent edit war" involving Commodore Sloat and Armon. Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon/Outside comments contains an extensive argument between these two users, with no apparent end in sight. Additionally, both Commodore Sloat and Armon appear to have an extensive history of edit warring, having both been blocked many times for 3RR violations. Rather than locking the entire community out of Juan Cole until (or if) the users responsible for the edit warring can negotiate a solution, I suggest that the article be reduced to semi-protection, and that Commodore Sloat and Armon be placed on community revert probation for a period of three months. They would be limited to one reversion per page per week, except when reverting under the circumstances described in Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions. Such a remedy would effectively prevent Commodore Sloat and Armon from participating in edit wars for the next three months, and would allow them the opportunity to develop proficiency in more harmonious editing techniques. John25402:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the claim that there is "no end in sight" is inaccurate; a different solution was recently proposed on the CEM page, and I accepted that solution (though we have yet to hear from Armon). I'll abide by whatever the community supports, of course, but the current mediator on the CEM page is User:Durova, and she has proposed a different approach. John254 is not someone who has participated on that mediation at all, so I'm a little unclear why this is being proposed now. In fact, the page could have been unlocked a few days ago (as I proposed) since the specifics of the edit war have been sorted out in the mediation discussion. I think the action proposed above is premature. csloat04:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this suggestion for several reasons. First, it ignores the relative merits of the argument(s) and proposes a sanction on both of us without any attempt to sort it out. Two, if the delay in unprotecting an article which is the subject of mediation leads to this sort of a "pox on both your houses"-type sanctions on the participants, that hardly going to encourage people to attempt mediation in the first place. Finally, I don't see the pressing need to edit the Cole article, but if sloat is happy to refrain editing that article until we've sorted things out, so am I, and we can unprotect it. <<-armon->>05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to this as well. Although this dispute has been deep and long-lasting, both of these editors are also articulate, educated, and deeply knowledgeable about the subject. I would hand this dispute to the arbitration committee if mediation fails to solve it, but it is counterproductive on many levels to propose sitebanning community sanctions at this juncture, especially while mediation is ongoing and both parties are actively participating. DurovaCharge!22:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No administrators have indicated that they would be willing to enforce such a probation; however, if such a probation were enacted, it is likely that there would be administrators willing to enforce it. Nonetheless, in light of this commentby Durova, I am temporarily withdrawing this proposal. John25402:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I detailed a report of long-term disruption by the then dormant user:Anacapa two weeks ago. They are the user who attacked project gender studies [44][45] manipulated criticism sections in women's studies[46][47] and have bullied other editors on a rewrite of misandry[48][49].
Anacapa uses the alias "(drop in editor)" to sign-off while using anon IPs and has used this identity to Troll gender studies related articles.
The previous report on Anacapa did not receive enough support for a sanction. This may have been due to Anacapa's dormancy. I do apologize for having to make a second report but Anacapa has returned and is wasting editors' time and creating a poisonous atmosphere in the articles they are involved with.
The updated report page is here (perma link), detailing the connection between Anacapa's POVpushing and disruptive behaviour. I urge users to review the report (apologies for its length) to understand the depth and scope of Anacapa's disruption since September 2006.
I'm requesting a site ban for Anacapa and their IPs. They have bullied and disrupted across a number of articles for months, switching from their account to multiple IPs.--Caililtalk12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose. Banning should not be used to resolve content disputes, except if the dispute has become more than a content dispute, generally after all else as failed. However, I do not see evidence of other dispute resolution methods having been attempted, or of incivility that would make this more than a content dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Content dispute. Edit war after account reactivation not enough documented with only two diffs. Switching from their account to multiple IPs not proved.--MariusM12:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out this is not a content dispute. This is long term complex disruption. I do understand this page is not for content disputes, I have only provided 2 diffs for Shunning here because I have at least 6 on the report page. The evidence of account switching is there too. Some of this ground is covered in the previouis discussion. Pesonally I consider remarks like "What childish crap from both edgarde and poole." [52] to be extremely uncivil, more evidence of incivility is once again in the report. I would also just add for clarity I am not involved in the Shunning content dispute--Caililtalk12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No previous blocks for Anapaca and you want him banned? Take a rest. If he engage in edit-wars, try a 3RR report.--MariusM13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised at the negative reaction this time around. The only reason Anacapa wasn't topic/site banned last time is due to lack of urgency due to the fact that the account had been dormant. Now that it's active again, needs to be shutdown quickly. I do support a community topic ban from related articles. SirFozzie17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yours was just the one right before I hit reply, sorry. The comment by Marius was primarily what I was responding to. SirFozzie21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the report here has not been laid out obviously if people are getting the impression that this is a content dispute. "Drop in editor" trolled WP:GS for months with off-topic badgering, and the project page had to be semi-protected to keep them from disrupting it. There are many diffs in the evidence page; I like this one for its condensed trollery: "totalitarian thought control", "man-hate", "fascist gender-feminists", "ugly totalitarian tactics". These are not the words of a person willing to work with others to build a collaborative encyclopedia. This is only incitement. I do not read WT:GS so I have not been an ongoing witness to this; my patience is exhausted by these diffs alone. ··coelacan19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy essay you link POVpush to encourages fair representation of all majority and significant minority viewpoints, and was written in order to help editors with opposing viewpoints reach a consensus. By asking for a block for "point of view pushing", you are asking us to block an editor over a content dispute. The quotes you refer to as "flamebaiting" look to me like they are opinions about article content, not personal attacks against individual editors. Certainly, you could call those opinions morally offensive, but it is still basically a content dispute. What is lacking is evidence that this has escalated far beyond a content dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC), 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Armedblowfish I made an incorrect link - shouldhave been WP:POVPUSH (all caps). And I respectfully disagree, as I think do Coelacan and Sir Fozzie, and the others who supported the last report - that's flamebaiting. And no I'm asking for a ban because of complex disruption or complex vandalism - which ever wording you prefer. "What is lacking is evidence that this has escalated far beyond a content dispute" This is about edits, over months, to a number of articles - some I am not involved with some I am involved with. Sources have been misrepresented as stated in the report. The WikiProject Gender Studies was vandalized. SecondSight's rewrite of misandry was stymied by Trolling. This is not a content dispute this is disruptive behaviour. If you disagree that's fine that opposition is recorded and noted. PS I didn't know you were an admin--Caililtalk01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this reaches the level of an indefinite ban yet, I don't see any previous blocks. I would certainly caution Anacapa, though, that blocks and bans are not too far down the road he's walking along. I would much advise he slows down. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "complex disruption" over "complex vandalism". Vandalism is reserved for a conscious effort to hurt encyclopaedia articles, not just an incorrect idea of what helps encyclopaedia articles, e.g. a skewed idea of what neutrality is. Disruption can have the same effect without that kind of negative intent.
In case it makes the idea more palatable, private mediation would give the mediator a chance to rehash arguments to make them less offensive. (P.S. I didn't say I was an admin.)
I respectfully disagree with the view that this proposal is about a content dispute. Cailil contacted me several times during the preparatory phase and modeled it after my report on the Joan of Arc vandal. Sneaky vandals often attempt to dodge scrutiny by trying to mask a disruptive campain by trying to give it the superficial facade of an edit dispute. Although I did not recommend that Cailil begin a new ban thread at this time, I do think she has identified a genuine vandal and I support the siteban proposal. DurovaCharge!04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me dropping in unannounced, but I had to chuckle at the irony here... Durova, according to Cailil's user page, she's a he :-) --YFB¿05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose we tell the difference between sneaky vandals and those with minority opinions? If it is indeed vandalism, I am sure mediation would fail, although it could fail anyway. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Armed Blowfish is asking a good question what is 'minority opinion and what is vandalism?' The line was crossed in this case when sources were misrepresented and when policies (WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS at the time) were quoted ad nauseum to Anacapa were ignored or mocked by them (ie their characterization of consensus as 'bad group think'); when they disregarded WP:AGF by calling other editors fascists when they asked for sources. I'm concerned that Anacapa knows Wikipedia's rules and knows how to attack pages and avoid detection. They first had an edit war on Feminism in February 2006. At that time they were asked for sources. People are still asking them to source material 15 months later. Either this is a blatant disregard for policy or it is bad faith POVpush. The multipost, the repeated attacks on WT:GS & WP:GS (throwing NPOV templates on the project page for instance), all point towards breachs of WP:AGF rather than a newbie NPOV mistake.
There would not be a complex issue if Anacapa had used their own account to make all of their edits, but they used multiple IPs so that the edits (and any warnings associated with them) could not be attributed to one user - which would have resulted in obvious need for a block. The question has to be asked why didn't Anacapa create a legal second account or just use their own account for these edits? I believe they know exactly how disruptive their edits have been & made a calculated choice to use anon IPs because clearly they hadn't forgotten about ther account.
The reason I made this submission at this time was because I wanted Anacapa's input here, I felt it proper they answer this report if they can. I hope they do. I would also just like to apologise to Armedblowfish in case I was agressive in last nights posts, no matter how serious this case is its not worth falling out with a good editor. I would also take on board Seraphimblade's point if it is considered a topic ban is more appropriate I will alter my request to that. I would urge ediors that this is a serious and complex case, as Durova has pointed out. IMHO Anacapa has been careful to mask their behaviour - hence the length of my report. I would also like to mention SirFozzie's point, the previous report wasn't seen as urgent becuase Anacapa was dormant - they are active now and their behaviour is just as bad as ever. I'm sorry for the length of this post but my opening request may not have been as clear as it could be.--Caililtalk14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A further note. Taking on board Seraphimblade's points, an alternatively if we can agree that Anacapa is the user behind the IPs in the report and the edits by them, I would propose warning Anacapa (and making them aware that their IPs are included in that warning) about their behaviour (past & present) per WP:DE, WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:POVPUSH & WP:TEND/WP:SOAP. If that could be agreed I will withdraw my site ban request--Caililtalk22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was any checkuser or other evidence linking Anacapa with the IPs? In my first comment I pointed that this was not proved. Anyhow, the idea of mediation, suggested by Armed Blowfish, seems reasonable. As a general rule, before a ban, other steps in dispute resolution should be tried, and also some blocks of limited period.--MariusM23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your post MariusM. I do understand usual proceedure but this case is unusual. As regards Anacapa's link to (drop in editor), did you look at the report section detailing the 3 IPs used by Anacapa & drop in editor. If needs be I could list all the pages used by Anacapa and used identically by a number of the IPs. I have also shown in the report where Anacapa and (drop in editor) use the same phrases to describe feminism. Also as stated in the report no checkuser has been requested--Caililtalk23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support any/all remedies except banning (mediation, arbcom, topic ban, term block). I have observed Anacapa's ownership and POV issues on the incest article, and I think it's regrettable that matters weren't proceeded with during the time prior to his sabbatical from WP, because if he had been sanctioned or if sanctions had been agreed-upon, I would support a ban. As it is, because of the lack of mediation/escalation of intervention/sanctions (despite the evidence, which I feel is persuasive), I think a community ban is inappropriate at this time. Let this be an addition to the body of evidence that it pays to proceed with formal complaints etc even when a contentious editor seems to have left. Anchoress01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last night User:Jbolden1517 dicovered another IP Anacapa was using. 12.107.17.150 (talk·contribs) - this is the 14th IP that can be linked to Anacapa/(drop in editor). Jbolden1517 identified similarities in the content 12.107.17.150 was adding and that which Anacapa added. I've found some other diffs that show they are both focussed on "relational aggression" and that 12.107.17.150 editting style and use of mark-up (caps) is the same as Anacapa's the new report section is linked here.--Caililtalk11:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing this report, at least temporarily due to the uncertainty about this board and its function and its future. Thanks for all comments and for taking the time to read the report.--Caililtalk17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Freedom skies shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. Pending selection of an account Freedom skies may not edit Wikipedia.
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Betacommand's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted this request - it's precisely the sort of odious lynching request that got this board nominated for "delete it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." This sort of thing is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Bans are not votes, and they're certainly not votes here. WP:ANI for live incidents kthx - David Gerard19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But imagine that he had had a good point. If that fellow was messing up an article, should we hold a pitchforks and torches session and chase him out of the village? --Tony Sidaway21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe we should hold a discussion, and see if a ban is warranted? And maybe hold off on the hyperbolic analogies in the meantime? There have been plenty of people "chased out of the village" based on discussions in other venues, and plenty of other cases where, like this one, the response is "Content dispute, go get a mediator." We chase people out for messing up articles at WP:AIV all day long, and we'd be pretty hurting if we didn't! But really, would this not go better on the talk page? SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case this one is probably better going through dispute resolution. The arguments here were one sided, we did not see if the requester had any involvement etc. Its just a better case to go through dispute resolution and assume good faith in your fellow editors. Who knows, perhaps after mediation they will find a point of agreement. —— Eagle101Need help?00:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Robdurbar is now banned from Wikipedia.
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. Our rogue administrator, Robdurbar, is apparently a sockpuppet of Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, who is known for similar actions (deleting the main page, blocking administrators, and other very disruptive things) in two rampages on Wiktionary. I propose that this person be banned for his disruptive actions. Others have hinted at starting this banning proposal based on the checkuser results, but I thought I would get it going a little early. I also wanna say, this is a bizarre way of trying to create havoc... Making good edits for a long time, becoming an administrator, then coming back and going on a 20-minute rampage. Very strange... Grandmasterka08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't there are few other indiscretions, for example blocking Jimbo? Overall, I'm not sure a discussion is required. Addhoc08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is among the most abusive use of sockpuppets I have ever seen, and if this is the same person which went on a vandal spree on Wiktionary, I don't think we can continue to let him edit. The RFA illustrates how the user was able to deceive the community. The damage is simply too great. Support ban. Sjakkalle(Check!)08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt a full community notice is needed. The person has proven that he/she can not be trusted on Wikipedia. Abuse of sockpuppets, a slightly maniacal vandal spree, blocking of respected Wikipedians... Ban supported. --Kzrulzuall08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)An other question: He became an admin in last August. What caused him to wait this long and do it now?
My opinion of what happened: He uses a public computer in the same place that Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous is. One day he forgot to log off, and Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous took over the account. Since Robdurbar was leaving, Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous could get away with this without anyone else realizing it. In this case, the situation would be:
The user left Wikipedia, and then appeared all of a sudden when Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous thought it was safe for him to do this at the public computer.
Since Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous and Robdurbar use the same public computer, the IP address may not reveal anything about such an incident.
Even if I'm right, the account should be blocked, since it's been compromised by a dangerous vandal and the user seems to have no intention of returning.
That would explain why Robdurbar waited so log to do this, which is a mystery to me too. Only one problem: Why would Robdurbar be logged in on a public computer a month after his last edit? Grandmasterka08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are some things wrong with that theory, Mishehu. How unlikely is it that Robdurbar and Wonderfool were, coincidentally, in the same city, and sharing the same public computer. The odds of a previously desyssoped rogue admin, and him meeting like that is probably one in a billion.... Keep in mind that about 0.00000002% of the global population are Wikipedian admins. --Kzrulzuall08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he was logged in for that long. If you find a computer with a user logged in, you can change the e-mail address even without the password, and confirm it probably at the same sitting. Then at any later point you can, on login, press the e-mail a new password. After that, you have the other account for abuse any time you want. If you're on a public computer, you probably do want to wait a while, so that the other user can't trace you anymore.
Although a tiny population of the world is, in fact, Wikipedia admins, it's also true that most of the users with enough access to the web to be Wikipedia or Wictionary admins is not 100%. If Wonderfool lives in the same city as Rodburdar, then a chance meeting in the public library isn't out of the question - and probably a high percentage of Wikipedian admins are from the US, where public libraries with internet access are common. OdMishehu08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Robdurbar already is effectively community-banned, I can't conceive that anyone would possibly unblock him, especially given this. But I certainly support any such ban. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and thank Grandmasterka for bringing this to the attention of the noticeboard. Unanswerable Question: were the good contributions just a sham, or does the guy flip between light and dark? Answerable Question: Were there any warning signs we missed? Ben Aveling09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the MO of the problematic behavior at the time does look the same, the Wictionary admins didn't have a long break before the trouble. This brings back my theory presented above that the account was compromised, so we wouldn't find any warning signs. OdMishehu09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absent some very convincing evidence, the chance of an account being physically compromised by a different, malicious editor is very low indeed. Slightly more likely is that robdurbar had an obvious password and the account was remotely compromised. In the latter event, it isn't acceptable behavior for an administrator to leave a weak password on his account.
The matter is moot, in any case. Robdurbar was banned before ever this discussion began. The consensus of the community is strongly against unblocks in such cases. --Tony Sidaway09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these users appear to have been pretty uncontroversial prior to adminship, and during adminship, and seem to go out with a bang. It would be quite difficult to identify sockpuppets - "Hey, keep an eye on that guy who keeps his head down and doesn't kick up a fuss, he's just waiting to explode!" Also the crosswiki vandalism is disturbing. Someone should alert the more prominent Wikis about the possibility of this occurring again (although, as I say, it would be hard to pin down who would do this, as there seem to be no warning signs). Oh - and support ban. – Rianaऋ09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if this thing does happen again, I agree that it is nearly impossible, as stated, to detect a user such as this, before gaining adminship... But the good side is that we will know what to do to counteract it. A bigger problem will be if a steward goes on a rampage.... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could conceivably pay attention to the areas Robdurbar contributed to and look for similarities in new editors. I'm willing to do a little investigation. We still have to assume this was all caused by one person without any account hacking due to the positive checkuser results. (If Od Mishehu's hypothesis was correct, the hacker would live in the same town near the same computer... Pretty long odds.) Is there a mental condition that could produce this odd behavior? Grandmasterka10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing what his intents were, any amateur diagnostics of mental conditions would be pointless. If he'd intended from the beginning to do this, and spent all that time and effort to become an admin just so he could wreak havoc, that would probably indicate perhaps some type of compulsion. On the other hand, if he just snaps under stress, well, some people snap under stress, and there are quite a few possible reasons for that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that CheckUser already determined that he did not have his account stolen, as, among other things, he still edits from the same university that he claimed to have been attending in his original user page (now deleted).
Tony, just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't that make it more likely if you follow the 'theory' outlay at the top of the section? somebody in the college library jumping on after him and changing the email? I admit, long shot, but more likely then 'random cities one day in a cybercafe' -Mask?19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be difficult, but that only increases the improbability slightly. People attending the same small-town univ are quite likely to live off-campus in the same student-y area, and therefore have the same local dynamic IP ranges. Hornplease05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I first mentioned a community ban proposal on the CheckUser request is that I needed to know which target to aim at. The threshold for a code G request (does not fit any other reason for using CheckUser) on CheckUser is probably much higher than the threshold for a code F request (we think that the account is a sock of a community banned user). If it is Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, then the community ban's scope will be wider than if we just targeted Robdurbar. I was sleeping when Grandmasterka created this community ban proposal. As for how I feel, I wholeheartedly endorse the ban because Wikipedia will suffer a perfect storm of PR nightmares if a member of a big newspaper, news magazine, or television network noticed what was going on. Jay Leno, David Letterman, and other late night jokesters would be making jokes about how it was becoming hard to tell the administrators from the vandals on Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I forgot to mention that there is no current community ban on Wonderfool (the previous one was rescinded), nor any ArbCom ban on any of the accounts, so we need this discussion for formality's sake and CheckUser's sake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Discussion seems unnecessary. He went on a destruction spree as an admin, and checkuser revealed abusive sockpuppetry. Nobody in their right mind would unblock the main account, and new accounts can be blocked as "editing by a banned user". If you feel the need for a community ban, Tony Sidaway just gave the declaration and I'll second it: He's banned. --kingboyk18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I filed a pro forma arbitration case to confirm Robdurbar's desysopping (a Steward had performed an emergency desysop but involuntary desysopping on En-Wiki can only be officially done by ArbCom), the arbitrators said "fine, desysopping confirmed" but I got some very strange (metaphorical) looks along the lines of "why are you bothering with this silly formality?" I suppose the same attitude would obtain here. If necessary, support ban. Newyorkbrad18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robdurbar won't be entered onto List of banned users unless this step is taken, right? If that list is to have any value, and since this is a highly bannable case, I don't see why we don't do it. I gather than this is *not yet* a ban request for User:Wonderfool. I trust that one of the proponents has verified that enough data has been collected to justify a permanent ban. If any hesitation is needed, it's because everyone seems to have a different view of what is going on. EdJohnston19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. The only necessity for a community ban is community support, not useless formalities. When it is blindingly obvious (read: deletes the main page repeatedly and goes on a blocking spree, after doing it on Wiktionary, after doing it on Wiktionary, after being banned by the ArbCom once before for creating nihilartikels) there is no legal proceeding necessary. Please read Tony Sidaway's insightful comment above. Dmcdevit·t19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not permanent even if they're on that list. They can appeal. They could come back in a few years time and say "sorry guys, I had problems but I've treated". Whatever. The point is that nobody but nobody can reasonably object to a ban at this point in time, and if it takes adding it to that list for it to be "official" (sigh) consider it done. --kingboyk19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whats stopping him from being added without this? Were not a beauracracy, and you are free to ignore and formalities of process. Don't go wonky. He was banned, we dont need any more discussion really. Add him. -Mask?19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that we know the sockmaster, this is a ban request for Wonderfool. Robdurbar is considered one of his socks. Jesse Viviano19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it slightly silly that we're considering the fact that someone from Wonderfool's same home ISP and same university, with the same interests in pop music and English national football team-related articles, with French also as his secondary language, who complains that his IP was blocked from Wiktionary, and so on, happened to have his account compromised in some way, and it happened to have been taken over by Wonderfool himself. "Why did he wait so long" comments are missing the point that he's done this twice before, and has in each case been a diligent admin for months. I don't see the point in trying to psychoanalyze him. Now, he caused a fewminutes of chaos, but let's move on. No one (who doesn't wan to get immediately checkusered upon suspicion of being another Wonderfool) is going to consider unblocking him. Dmcdevit·t19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way you look at it, this looks bad. At best, you've got a guy who's clearly got a serious mental problem. At worst, you've got an admin who had no business being an admin. I also noticed he didn't give any reasons for these mass blocks. In either case, this can't be tolerated. Ban--and if someone hasn't contacted his school, get on the horn. Blueboy9619:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that I could say the same about a discussion not being necessary, but I noticed that the CheckUser clerks are extreme sticklers for formality. Some CheckUser requests on User:Bobabobabo got either derailed or seriously hindered because there was no community ban discussion. That is why I wanted to propose the community ban myself. However, Grandmasterka beat me to it while I was asleep. Jesse Viviano20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred the text "List here with proof beyond all reasonable doubt that this user is banned by the community or by Jimbo Wales." This way, some simple vandalism block will not trigger code F, but Robdurbar's admin log, block log, and his user rights log where he lost his sysop bit would have been admissible for code F. Also, this will allow ban discussions and canonize the use of code F that was used for Jimbo Wales bans like the one on Primetime. Jesse Viviano14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To a naive observer, it might seem that this thread has reached a conclusion. Does anyone have more to say? Would there be a consensus that I can apply the templates to 'close' this thread? EdJohnston19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderfool was previously caught creating hoax articles. He bragged about how his university had a single IP shared across the entire campus, so there's no way we would dare block it, and that he planned to continue doing it. Well, long story short, I did block the university, with a message for the university tech people to email me. 12 hours later, I got an email from their sysadmin asking what's going on, I explained the problem to them, and they were *VERY* angry with him. He later apologized, and asked to be unblocked, which (feeling generous) I did.
Given the latest events, I'm tempted to dig up my old contacts with his university and let them know what he's been doing now. Raul65417:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I said I would never log on again acting as Robdurbar, but I would like to make it clear that I am not Wonderfool, or related to him in any way. The fact that he went/goes to the same university as myself (as it would appear) is coincidence, but that is all it is. Clearly there is no way that I can prove this, other than to note that I e-mailed dmcdevit yesterday noting this and so he does have my e-mail address; he and Raul (who I presume has the details of Wonderfool) could possibly contact each other and cross check to see that we have different ones; OK that doesn't prove anything, but then two users using ip addys open to ~15 000 people doesn't prove anything either.
When I e-mailed dc it was more a minor pride thing (I don't want to be noted as a sock of some other guy!) but I really felt I had to speak out now. 129.234.4.7621:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if this is really Robdurbar, while you're here, would you mind explaining exactly what the heck was going through your head that morning? Newyorkbrad21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not, it seemed much more funny with all the wild rumours going about. Truth be told, I was bored revising and thought 'that'll be a 10 minute laugh'. Nothing more, nothing less. Frankly, I'm surprised no one's done it before - after all, it stands to reason that anyone who gets bored enough to edit Wikipedia enough to become an admin must get bored easily. I was intrigued as to how quickly the community would react, what would happen if there was no main page (I was a bit disapointed it just went to the normal 'this page does not exist' thing), etc.
Actually, the weird thing is that Wonderfool has edited a lot fairly similar articles to me - on football, cycling, places etc. Still, afraid it's that dull - no illnesses, no high-jackers, no 'wikisuicide', no agenda, no disgruntlement and no sockpuppets. --Drinkheavy21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you two are separate, we will need an email to the unblock email address from your network administrator's address at postmaster@... vouching for you and showing that he or she saw you logging into the Robdurbar account and Wonderfool logging into his or her Dangherous account (he or she claims to have lost the password to the Thewayforward account). Do not try to forge the email because we can examine the headers to see if you are faking it, and we will send an email to your university's postmaster@... address asking for verification. Otherwise, your actions here and on Wiktionary, your ISPs, and your interests cause us to believe that you are Wonderfool because of the duck test. Jesse Viviano17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that as Raul's noted, the check user case seems to be highly flawed: we wern't even editing from the same universities. So all its established is that we both use Tiscali at home? Not the most convincing of proof. See Thewayforward's contributions: he does the sort of methodological editing which I rarely did, such as the repeated additions of interwiki links. As I've noted, it's not really that important as I'm banned anyway BUT it does bring up a few flaws in the checkuser procedure, if nothign else. --129.234.4.7610:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People move from university to university. I graduated from Mississippi State University with a B. Sc., and am going for my master's degree at North Carolina State University. Wonderfool may have moved from Cardiff University to Durham University. Jesse Viviano04:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the unlikely event that we really had had two people from that university with almost identical interests go through an adminning and then delete the main page of Wikimedia projects, that would be a good case for treating the university as a kind of madhouse and permanently blocking the IP. However it seems more likely that here we have an exceptionally stupid and sociopathic editor who couldn't tell the truth to save his life. The home ISP data supports the latter conclusion. --Tony Sidaway07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that people might have leapt to conclusions on shaky evidence, here. Dmcdevit states above that Robdurbar used the "same home ISP and same university" as Wonderfool. Having cross-checked the two, I disagree (whilst, I, too, noted the shared languages and interests). There is strong evidence that Wonderfool edited from 131.251.0.7 (talk·contribs), an IP address assigned to Cardiff University. And as any administrator can check (although I'm not going to provide detail), Robdurbar's deleted user page mentions an entirely different university (in a different country, even). Similarly, 129.234.4.76 (talk·contribs), claiming to be Robdurbar above, is an IP address assigned to Durham University. I strongly recommend, Raul654, that you double-check the university before assuming that this is Wonderfool. Uncle G00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means certain, but didn't WF claim he left Cardiff some time last year? I can't find or remember where he said that [probably on wikt, I'd guess, since *I've* seen it], but if anyone else remembers, it may be worth checking it out. \Mike(z)03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-ran Dmcdevit's checkuser, and frankly, I'm having trouble making heads or tails of it. I suppose it's possible they (Robdurbar and Wonderfool) are related, but it's less than clear to me. Raul65415:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the reason you are having trouble is that this CheckUser required access to the tool on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Wonderfool's primary target is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Either a steward at Meta or someone who has CheckUser on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia would be needed to make sense of the CheckUser. Dmcdevit has access to CheckUser on both projects, so he is the only non-steward who can run the CheckUser investigation and make sense of it. If you need independent verification, please ask one of the stewards at meta:Stewards to rerun the CheckUser. Jesse Viviano16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone likes, I will attempt to discuss this with the universities - you can email me privately if you wish to discuss this off-wiki. I haven't done this kind of WP:ABUSE report before... --SunStar Nettalk12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone asked Dmcdevit about this? I'm sure he would be happy to share his reasoning, and any confidential data he may have, with his fellow checkuser Raul654. --Tony Sidaway12:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the ceiling cat watching dmcvit anyways? :P I really think stewards should be given a more prominent role in interwiki checkuser afairs rather than being banned out of it. -- Catchi?17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I propose an article ban of the Wikipedian Ned Scott from the Wikipedia community article. At the very least an article ban is warranted. His background behaviour could warrant further restriction in editing on Wikipedia. Please review and make an honest judgement.
I have brought it up on the RfC on QuackGuru, and yes, this smacks of attempting to win an edit war through the backdoor rather than an actual issue with regards to other editors. I will close this discussion if there are no further objections. SirFozzie22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brilliant example of why this noticeboard was MfD'd - someone involved in an edit war trying to win the dispute via the back door. – Steel21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a brilliant example of why it shouldn't be deleted, as the community is not stupid. I see a RfC open on QuackGuru, so let's let DR take its course SirFozzie22:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Request for blocking permanently user:Biggy_P[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
My name is Joe Rodriguez and I am an audio engineer. I own a mastering facility in New York, and I am in charge of its administration as well as its operation. I am also responsible for all statements that were made by the User:Evinatea, which was my first account at Wikipedia. I feel it's important to come out clean about who I am, and explain the frustrating circumstances that I find myself in. Even our clients have taken notice of what's happening at WP, and this is totally unacceptable (See: [55]).
On February 28, 2007, I used my mastering engineer's (Mr. Edward Vinatea) articles on the subject of music mastering, but without his knowledge or consent. I created, one article called "Music Mastering", complete with its reference links, and two Spanish versions. I did this, totally ignorant of the rules and procedures. To accomplish this, I used the User:Evinatea account (See English article: [56]). I was so naive and new at Wikipedia, that I even signed my reference links with my own username! (See: [57]). Some editors were fine with the description I provided for the mastering article, however, any hints at spam and the links were promptly deleted the following day (See: English article: [58]).
As you can see, I posted Mr. Vinatea's name, title and company name. It was an error on my part which I am sorry and deeply regret. However, by March the 2nd, I had learned most WP rules, and even though I tried to correct my mistakes by allowing edit reverts, and asking other editors to help me erase the "Music mastering" page (See: [59]), I had no choice but to create this new account (User:Jrod2), because my Evinatea, was completely useless due to Biggy P, Mike Sorensen and all his sock puppets and meat puppet attacks and accusations (See a few examples: [[60]][61][62][63][64][65]) , continued even after I asked of him civility (See: [[66]]) and now continues under "ProperManner" [67]).
It's very apparent to me now, the reasons for his vicious attacks: the diversion of attention from past, present, and probably future spam and vandalizing activities at WP. This user must be stopped and your help is needed a.s.a.p!
Evidence
According to a checkuser on May, 5 2007 by administrator Jpgordon (See: [68]), Biggy_P matches all the listed suspect sock puppets above, therefore, a CONFIRMED vandal, highly disruptive and a deceptive spammer. He has been using Wikipedia, apparently from 2 detected locations in California, or uses the aid of a cohort, to spam and promote a business website at the Audio mastering page (See: [69] and [70]). He goes as far back as August 2006 with sock puppetry and meat puppet activities with cohort account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts" (See:[71] and [72]}. His previous meat puppet accounts were permanently blocked (See: [73] and [74])
Biggy P's account main purpose is to give support to the reverting a of a deleted article {"Artmastering"), which had raised concerns in the past, of just being a biased promotion of a mastering studio, and particularly, of its engineer (See: [75])
. Because of his conduct, I believe that Biggy P is obsessed about the inclusion of this article, but I wouldn't be surprised, if there are more hidden agendas, and even more sock puppet accounts. At the moment, it looks like his cohort Voy7, is no longer using IP address 66.214.253.51, which confirmed him in the past as a vandal. His last use of WP was seen here in March 22, 2007 to give support to sock puppet Mike Sorensen (See: [76]).
The contribution history on this known IP address 66.214.253.251 (See: [77] and [78]) indicates a relentless need for the deception and manipulation of WikiPedia and the inclusion of the so called article on "Artmastering". Nevertheless, the accounts that are popping up recently, were created to intimidate (See confirmed sock puppet account (ProperManner), give credibility or support (See confirmed sock puppet account SciFrutto) to the inclusion of said article, complete with external link to its business site (See: [79] and reference link). This raises the concern that Biggy P and his cohort are still trying to use Wikipedia for pure financial gain and self promotion. For more information on the spam article a/k/a "Artmastering" see [80]).
Comments
His main tactic: he regards me an outcast who is here to vandalize, and constantly reminds me and everyone, of my article submission errors. He is always calling it "spam" in order to create a disruption and a diversion from topical questions, while antagonizing me with his sock puppets's multiple role playing (See: [81]). In the end no one desires to participate in any discussions for fear of being tagged a sock puppet. That's how he has managed to drive everyone away. He would tag me, and everyone that opposes him, with sock puppetry accusations. At some point, I learned to do the same, but the difference is, I did it in self-defense.
His sock puppet User:Mr.Strong account, summarizes and accentuates Biggy P's frustration to get rid of me and along with my remarks at the audio mastering talk page (See:[82]).
I believe the main reason for Biggy P's anger, and his need to get me blocked or vanished from WP, is the deletion of his "Artmastering" reference link, and my opposition to the inclusion of its article section. He has shown that he won't stop harassing me for that, and unless you block his sock puppets, he will never stop his deceptions to antagonize me. Making him pay with the loss of his puppets might make him see that, deceptive tactics and disrupting behavior, doesn't pay, and has no place at Wikipedia.
Conclusions
I therefore request, that Biggy P a/k/a Mike Sorensen, Mr. Strong, ProperManner, Scifrutto and his meat puppet account Voy7 along with the associated IP addresses 66.214.253.155 and 66.214.253.51, be blocked forever and for good. Thanks very much for your attention..Jrod219:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counterargument
The users cited above have made substantial contributions to wikipedia particularily User:Mike Sorensen and User:ProperManner. None of the accounts cited above have ever vandalize main pages or engaged in policy violations. The sock puppets were mainly used to combat massive vandalisn and spam of User:Jrod2 and sock puppet User:Evinatea.
User:Jpgordon has verified accounts of User:Jrod2 and User:Evinatea to be sock puppets of the same person [83]
Evinatea have been engaged in spamming wikipedia from day one [84]in two different languages. His spam was exposed by user Biggy P [85] which resulted in disruptive reprisals by user Evinatea against Biggy P and everybody who agrees with Biggy P on any topic. Some references cited by Biggy P here [86]have since been deleted from Spanish wiki by admins along with entries by user account 162.83.209.26 , so diffs are no longer available but you can verify that with Spanish admins, the deleted spam articles were titled "Masterizacion" and "Masterizar". Compare with the same IP contributing in English 162.83.209.26 (English and Spanish wikipedias are using different database so you have to look in each wiki separately to find contributions made from the same IP address).
Reprisals and attacks were continued by his proven sock puppets Jrod2 and IP accounts to which he admitted 162.83.209.26, and user 162.83.209.26 contributing in Spanish.
Evinatea aka Jrod2 was warned [[87]] by Omegatron and his spam was moved to his userpage [88]. after that account Jrod2 was created and continued the same spam and accusations.
User Jrod2 is a single purpose account with almost zero constructive contributions. Its only purpose is to defend user Evinatea and attack everybody who helped to expose spamming by Evinatea aka Edward Vinatea ("aka" comes from this edit [89] with his own signature here )
User:Jrod2 diregard to facts is best shown by his own comments, here is his post where states: "All opinions, POVs, anger, frustrations and accusations, should be made known to others. Even if these are not factual ... signedJrod2" [90]. This pretty much sums up the contributions of Jrod2 and his sock puppets.
User:Biggy P used the name of Edward Vinatea in some of his comments only after User:Evinatea decided to disclose his own name in this post [91]. And yes, Edward Vinatea aka Evinatea acknowledged his spamming and apologized and immediately created a sock puppet and continued to spam under different names as Jrod2, 162.83.209.26, 162.83.209.26 .
The most insidious part of complaint by User:Jrod2 aka User:Evinatea is that he used wikipedia to promote his own business and when he was exposed he went into a accusation rampage.
User:Jrod2 just deleted from this noticeboard, my entire response to his accusations [92] . This is blatant vandalism and total disregard for wikipedia policy. Not even mentioning attempt to silence the opposing point of view. --Mike Sorensen07:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I erased your "counterargument", because I didn't know that you could disrupt me in here as well. Also, you conveniently placed your arguments in a way that covered SirFozzie's comments from being viewed (See:[93])
In any event, the admin you made your complaint, already sees you for who you are. (See: [94])
You used sock puppet accounts to make contributions on other topics, but that does not give you license to create false consensus, make personal attacks and disrupt Wikipedia. The way you did role playing with each sock puppet, shows that you are a disturbed person, who has the need to slander and intimidate other editors. IT CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR PERMANENT BLOCKAGE.
You have been editing WP at least since August 2006, and did nothing but disrupt the audio mastering page (See [95]). Your are also very deceptive and still use this sock puppets to antagonize and manipulate everyone who opposed any articles you proposed for inclusion (See evidence [96][97])
The fact that you operate with 5 confirmed sock puppets, and you are still suspected of having even more, along with meat puppets, says it all.
Every link that you show on your "COUNTERARGUMENT", only leads to nonsense, to nowhere, and every spam accusation made by you points at only one date: February 28, 2007, the date I posted the articles (All deleted almost immediately by Wikipedians). That's one day. Unlike you, who doesn't admit of any wrong doing and have kept the spam article going for 8 months with the aid of your sock puppets and meat puppets, until finally deleted by me, the community and another admin (See: [98])
In effect, my first contribution as Evinatea was deleting and opposing your article's inclusion, which was an obvious biased promotion of the mastering studio "Artmastering". This unleashed your personal crusade against me with accusations of spam.
I have revealed myself and explained everything on my talk page User:Jrod2, because I just can't allow you to continue slandering an innocent living person with false accusations. Yet, you still continue this illogical view that I am here to spam, and you continue attacking Mr. Vinatea. I won't have that. The real reason you continue all of this, it's to make sure you divert attention from your obvious serious violations. I hope this board can see that. (For more on the matter of his article inclusion, see [99])
Whether it's you or not, or it's you and someone else, you just can't justify having this many user accounts all agreeing with the inclusion of "Artmastering". It's unacceptable and too obvious.Jrod208:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.
Mcconn(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
The following discussion 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.
Yes, this is probably in the wrong place. A ban is only used as a last resort. In this case, I'd probably take this to Wikiquette alertsorRFC. Please read the instructions for RFC however if you take that route. Thanks, Kesac22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest we archive this - looking the history for Ultra megatron's talk page, I don't see any necessity for further action beyond the sensible comments from ObiterDicta. Addhoc23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 is banned if none of the 855 administrators are willing to unblock. However, relist this discussion if there are any substantial objections to the block or ban. Users are listed here for proposed sanctions or block reviews. Regards, Navoubanter20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
If you've been indef blocked, your sockpuppets are blocked on sight, and your userspace has been killed, you already are banned. --tjstrftalk20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The checkusers are sticklers for procedure, and he isn't listed at WP:LOBU. Plus, this guy claims to be the leader of a network of vandals--how many more of them are out there? Blueboy9620:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next step is to formalize this, since we'd then be able to checkuser him into oblivion. He claims to be the leader of a network of vandals--how many more of them haven't been caught and blocked?Blueboy9620:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins block persistent vandals on-sight, no matter which vandal "network" do you belong. If you belong to a vandal club but don't actually vandalize, there wouldn't be any problem. WooyiTalk to me?20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to help you admins out by making it easier to whack this clown ... plus, it would be easier to complain to his ISP once we knew where he was located (according to his Myspace, he's in the UK, but that doesn't do much good). I would hazard to guess that he's violated his ISP's TOS several times over.Blueboy9620:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the userlist, it seems Bobby Boulders has made at least 20 socks that start with "Bobby Boulders" alone. I would say Bobby Boulders is already de facto banned by the community (see Bobby Boulders 35(block log)), but might as well make it official (Endorse ban) Kesac20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
InPalestineRemembered(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)'s brief history on Wikipedia he has been blocked for total of four months for a series of egregious personal attacks. Soon after he returned from his most recent one-month block, he started inserting POV material into an article, claiming that he had gotten his material from the "Evening Star of Auckland, July 2, 1975". He continued to revert-war the material into the article over the next three weeks [100][101][102] I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review: [103] The reason he doesn't give the article title, author, or page number is because the source, Roger Garaudy doesn't. In 1998, a French court found Garaudy guilty of Holocaust denial and racial defamation, fining him FF 120,000 ($40,000) for his 1995 book Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne, which the article in question is taken from. Not only is this a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, but passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research, and trying to insert it into articles, after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks is, in my view, the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point. Jayjg (talk)17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately support permablock, I actually had a weird email off him a couple of weeks ago basically saying that all western admins were POV pushers and asked my to join his crusade to stop this (I declined and tried to explain things - obviously to no avail). I think he's lost out patience. RyanPostlethwaite17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the material added is irrelevant. We should evaluate this as we would for any editor doing this with any POV and must not block based on the POV in question being more repugnant. That said, this editor has been repeatedly abusive and POV pushing and looking through the user's contributions list, I see only a handful of genuinely productive edits. Deliberate lying about the nature of a source is the last straw. I agree with Fozzie that this may not be the appropriate location to discuss this. JoshuaZ17:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support on grounds of disruption and improper citation per JoshuaZ: if I saw the same misuse of sources in an academic setting I would certainly refer the person to an academic disciplinary hearing, and in light of previous problems there's no need for leniency. DurovaCharge!18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User has fundemental issues "getting along" with other editors:
User seems to have failed to understand basic principles of WP:OR and WP:RS on various articles (for example [104][105]) when it relates to material HE has added, but is quick to point it out when edits are not to his liking.
Whoa. Sorry to sing off-key in this choir, but what exactly is the evidence that PalestineRemembered "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review"? I've read this discussion through and followed every link provided, and have not found the assertion even supported, much less proven.--G-Dett18:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fraudulent citations corrupt the encyclopedia. Unless the user can show us chapter and verse where s/he saw the citation, given past behavior, I support indef blocking. Crum37518:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the source I've used for "killers of Lord Moyne in 1944" re-buried at Mt Herzl in 1975 is untrue, then the project has my apologies. I've never been challenged on it, here or elsewhere. I've attempted always to be careful about my sources, many of which come from books in my possession. PalestineRemembered18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that someone just block this fellow indefinitely if he's back to his old tricks. Jayjg blocked him for a month in March and if that isn't a last chance I don't know what is. He's about as banned as you can get. That it's a self-declared single purpose account is worrying, and if the owner of the account can be found and verified we should probably closedly examine his other edits. --Tony Sidaway18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the long history of misbehavior and the recent evidence of fraudulent citations, I've indefinitely blocked this editor. Neither academic fraud nor chronic incivility are things we should be prepared to tolerate. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, this user has a barnstar in his userpage, means he's a pretty decent editor. And what's the fraud? I'm not defending him, just want to know what happened. WooyiTalk to me?19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar from User:Ssd175 who, while not a "one issue editor", does however have a definite POV which seems to align with User:PalestineRemembered:
I would like to see Jay's evidence provided in detail. Note that the entry for Walter Guinness in the French edition of Wikipedia has this same citation. And note that this citation circulates online on sites other than the IHR (for example see this usenet thread). From the online evidence (books are another thing entirely) the original source in every case does appear to be Roger Garaudy, but I for example learned who Garaudy was three minutes ago, and have no reason to believe his name meant more to PalestineRemembered than it did to me – that is to say, if this was even his first- or second- or third- or fourth-hand source. Jay has shown us nothing, and I find this collective rush to judgment extraordinary.--G-Dett19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of digging I'm not so sure about unblocking, as the reporter does seem to be ok (does have quite a long block log, but its all very old stuff). I am going to note that with the speed that this happened, this could have taken place at WP:AN or WP:ANI with the same result. —— Eagle101Need help?19:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your objection I've reversed it, but I had a pretty good look through this guy's contribs, and I don't see a single reason to think a change in behavior will be forthcoming. But if you think a longer discussion is necessary, we'll do that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blocks in question aren't "old stuff". He's been an editor for 7 months, and blocked for a total of 4 months of those 7. He just got back from his most recent block a month ago. Jayjg (talk)20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PalestineRemembered gives his source here: Bitter Harvest: a Modern History of Palestine, by Sami Hadawi, p.59 [106]. I'll verify the reference at my university library tomorrow morning, not that any good reason to doubt it was ever offered in this extraordinary episode of near-lynching.--G-Dett19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been finding weirdo remarks, POV-pushing, and downright lying from this editor for months now. He is one of my "featured accusers" on my user page. PalestineRemembered has been criticized as a single-purpose account, but it is not to further the Palestinian cause or even to educate others about it. It is to denegrate and demonize Israel, often with underhanded techniques. PalestineRemembered has accused Israelis of being "proud ... of their murderous racism,"[107] being " lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945 [referring, of course, to a Nazi-style genocide],"[108] and being unreliable.[109] --GHcool20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only Lynching going on is Eagle and Tony's continuing crusade against CN. "This could have been handled by ANI." "Don't Vote" (funny, the "support" vote actually came from ANI, not from when it was here on CN). At this point, it's probably obvious to all that Eagle and Tony are not working towards making CN a useful noteboard (which was their stated goal), they want CN eliminated and it folded back into AN/ANI and if it was anyone else, I would say they are actively sabotaging the board. SirFozzie20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the civility and behavior issues, having only crossed paths with PR a couple of times (the first of which – full disclosure – was when he left fan mail at my user page). I do know that serious charges were leveled here – that PR had "copied" Holocaust-denial materials into Wikipedia, making "fraudulent use" of them and misrepresenting his research, etc. These charges were asserted as conclusive but accompanied by no evidence whatsoever, and yet were enthusiastically taken up as sufficient grounds for banning the user. The charges now appear to have been not only unsubstantiated but entirely false. If "weirdo remarks" were the issue here, then "weirdo remarks" should have been discussed – rather than spurious charges. PR's editing past may be everything that you suggest it is, but with regards to the present episode, it isn't PalestineRemembered who should be doing the apologizing. --G-Dett20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the charges were accompanied by evidence, and they appear to be as true as ever. He's now claiming that he misrepresented a different source, which I suppose is possible, but only if his new source was copying Garaudy as well. Jayjg (talk)20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You provided no evidence, let that be clear. If you think you have evidence of any kind that PR "misrepresented" his source, give it. Otherwise, be a mensch and apologize, even if you despise the editor you've wronged.--G-Dett20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's admitted it himself!! He now claims he got it from some other source, but he's admitted that he didn't get it from the Auckland newspaper. And do you really think that Auckland newspaper referred to these Israelis as "terrorist assassins"? I don't have any particular feelings about PalestineRemembered, other than I don't think he has added anything of value to Wikipedia during his turbulent time here, nor, based on his statements and actions, do I think he will be able to. Now be a mensch and apologize, even if you despise the editor you've wronged. Jayjg (talk)20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, when I reviewed the contrib history, I see a lot of issues. Have a good look here: ownership and effectively stating that editors of a certain nationality should be forbidden to edit an article: [110], divides along nationalistic boundaries again [111], referrals to "apartheid" in terms of Israel [112].
Now, let's go to the edit in question, here. If PR can show that an Auckland newspaper actually called the people in question "terrorist assassins"...well, I'll eat my monitor. But regardless of that, I've not once so far seen such things end well. And a serious comment that those of a certain nationality should be barred from editing a certain article is just...beyond it, especially after previous warnings and blocks. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the source was Garaudy or elsewhere is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he didn't get it from the claimed source. This is an unacceptable deception about where the user got the source from. The user cited something he had not looked at. The user has a long history of problematic editing and issues. Enough already. JoshuaZ20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Holocaust-denier business wasn't germane to your case, Jay, then you shouldn't have emphasized it in your opening remarks against PR. If the real issue was merely the distinction between citing an original source vs. citing where you found it, then it was irresponsible of you to bring in something so prejudicial, especially when your conclusions appear to have consisted of nothing but speculation. If you seriously intend to pursue the citation protocol issue, then as a minimal show of good faith you ought to be forthrightly clearing the air of the spurious guilt-by-association with which these proceedings were initiated. Regarding the citation issue, Jay, Joshua, Jossi, are you all now telling me that pulling a Dershowitz is a ban-worthy offense?--G-Dett21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support a community ban. Fraudulent citation is far more corrosive than vandalism, incivility or almost anything else which we sanction around here. Simply, nothing this user adds can be trusted.Proabivouac21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As PalestineRemembered has explicitly denied the specifics of the charge, and as this denial is, at least on its face, credible,[113] I no longer have a strong opinion on this matter. Of course, it is still not proper protocol for sourcing, but I am not convinced that it rises to the level of deliberate fraud that would justify a community ban based on this event alone. (although there are other complaints here which I do no mean to address.) As a matter of principle, deliberate fraud, or a pattern of misrepresentation, are strong grounds for the ban of any editor.Proabivouac00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how Jay presented his case initially:
I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. After doing some investigation, I discovered that PalestineRemembered has never read the Evening Star of Auckland; rather, he has copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review: [4] The reason he doesn't give the article title, author, or page number is because the source, Roger Garaudy doesn't. In 1998, a French court found Garaudy guilty of Holocaust denial and racial defamation, fining him FF 120,000 ($40,000) for his 1995 book Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne, which the article in question is taken from. Not only is this a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, but passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research, and trying to insert it into articles, after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks is, in my view, the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point.
Here's how he ought to have presented his case, if indeed "whether the source was Garaudy or elsewhere is irrelevant," as he now maintains:
I was rather suspicious that PalestineRemembered, an editor not noted for his research abilities, would somehow have access to an obscure publication printed over 30 years ago, but not know the name or author or page number of the article he was quoting. I suspect that he has taken it from some other source that in turn quotes the Auckland paper. If so, this is a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, and after PalestineRemembered's long history of tendentious editing and blocks, this is in my view the last straw. I am proposing a permanent block at this point.
mmm ok, let me ask this, if this user is willing to listen to concerns in a request for comment, and more importantly learn from that request for comment, I'd suggest giving him that chance. if he is not willing, then I guess a ban will have to do. :S —— Eagle101Need help?21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, actually, such an issue has arisen before. But the issue here goes far beyond "say where you got it" (though misrepresentation of what source material came from is an issue, and should be taken seriously). I already posted some additional issues above. But I am absolutely in support of taking decisive action against those who misrepresent a source or claim one supports their view when it does not, and from the user's block log, this doesn't look to be the first instance of problems. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask before we ban a user from editing wikipedia ever again, does anyone think a request for comment might help? That would allow him/her to learn from this, and perhaps be a useful contributor. —— Eagle101Need help?21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think would be learned from an RfC, that wouldn't have been learned through repeatedly being warned, blocked, etc.? Honestly, I've never seen anyone who's already had repeated problems with something, and been repeatedly told to stop, turn around after an RfC and say "OH! I really was in the wrong all along!" Every time I've seen, it drags out the inevitable. If the editor were going to realize he's wrong, and turn about and apologize, wouldn't you think a strong showing that quite a few people have had quite enough at this discussion would inspire that? SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Did PalestineRemembered affirm that he had taken the material directly from that source, or did he only copy the citation? That would seem to make a difference. Mackan7921:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Seraphimblade. As I've said, I don't know PR's editing past. Given, however, that the explosive charge which initiated this discussion – that PR is getting material from Holocaust denial sites and loading it into Wikipedia – has proven to be unfounded, wouldn't it make sense to table abort this discussion for now, and revisit it in a week or two (if necessary), when the spurious cloud of guilt-by-association has evaporated? If PR is such an incorrigible editor (and he may well be, for all I know), then he will certainly provide you, in due course, with a fresh occasion to consider permanently banning him. The advantage of waiting for such an occasion is that the process – and any decision it produces – will not be tainted by irresponsible and totally unfounded accusations, the way this one irrevocably has been.--G-Dett22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that Eagle did object earlier, he is unblocked now. I still do myself feel that the block was warranted at this point, regardless of whether or not Jayjg was exactly correct. (I hope you don't think I would block someone without actually bothering to go and look at their contrib history, just on taking someone's word for it!) However, if there is still disagreement, it should be discussed further. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both your block and your unblock strike me as considered decisions; I haven't and won't second-guess them. What I'm suggesting ought to be tabled aborted for the time being is this discussion of a permanent ban. Any decision to ban issuing from a discussion that began with a false and incendiary charge about Holocaust denial will be tainted, and will have a far more corrosive effect on the community than giving an allegedly disruptive editor another chance.--G-Dett22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support G-Dett's sugestion, and would like to thank her for her considered, carefully-argued and courteous contributions here. I agree entirely with her characterisations of Jayig's accusation as "false and incendiary". (Incidentally, it is worth noting that in British English "to be tabled" means the exact opposite of what is intended here - best to avoid it in this type of discussion, tho' it's actually quite clear in this case.)
Not sure I was clear earlier but: Support permablock. PR is a self-avowed single purpose account for the purpose of pushing POV. Should be blocked solely on that. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two issues here. On the question of incivility and POV-pushing, I agree that this appears to be a real problem. I had an odd unsolicited e-mail from PalestineRemembered about problems with "the Zionists" on Wikipedia, and the evidence does seem to indicate difficulties in working constructively with other users. I'm not so sure about the claim of falsely attributing sources; see his comments at [115]. The explanation given is reasonable, and I see no reason to assume that the information in question came from the IHR rather than another source (the IHR didn't originate the cited newspaper article, after all). The basic premise of Jayjg's initial post in this thread appears to be faulty; I suggest that editors should focus on the problem of incivility and POV-pushing, and whether that merits a ban. Personally I believe a RfC would be more appropriate at this stage as the last step before either an arbitration or a community ban. -- ChrisO23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with ChrisO. I've followed the various links here and agree that there are civility issues, chip-on-the-shoulder issues, etc. As far as POV-pushing goes, though he's done his share PR is not a stand-out on Israel-Palestine related pages. The say-where-you-got-it infraction looks very minor indeed. A scholarly citation from Sami Hadawi, after all, carries much greater weight in Wikipedia than primary-source material from an Auckland newspaper. Why he cited to the latter rather than the former is anyone's guess, but it doesn't look to me in the slightest bit like dishonesty, POV-pushing, or "fraud" (as the more breathless here would have it). It looks like a silly mistake. Correct it, direct PR to WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, fix any POV-phrasing issues, and get on with the hurly-burly of Israel-Palestine editing – that's how this should have been handled. PR may be banned yet from Wikipedia, but it won't be for jay-walking, not if I can help it.--G-Dett23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, there is no consensus here for an immediate ban, Jayig's initial accusation has been shown to be false, and from what I've seen of PR's edits, yes there are problems, but they are nowhere near as bad as has been made out, and in any case that is not the issue here. PR has been appallingly badly treated here, and I hope someone will promptly reverse the ban.
Good lord, what a mess. I think there are several different issues that need to be addressed here.
(i) I have some familiarity with User:PalestineRemembered's editing history. When he first turned up on Wikipedia, he struck me as a skilled writer and researcher who didn't quite grasp the nature of the project. Events since then have done little to change my opinion.
It's sadly true that his editing style has often been problematic: he has made several edits in a very polemical style, and has violated the principles of NPOV on several occasions. He has been sanctioned for his errors more than once, and seems to have taken some steps to improve his behaviour -- although whether or not these steps have been sufficient is obviously a matter of some dispute. It's entirely possible that his posting habits have tried the patience of other contributors beyond a reasonable limit.
This, however, is not what the current discussion is about.
(ii) As has already been noted, the "explosive charge" that PalestineRemembered copied information from a Holocaust denial site has been shown to be unfounded. PalestineRemembered has indicated that his actual source was a book released in 1975, and I cannot see any reason to doubt him on this front.
I am familiar with Roger Garaudy, and I suspect that PalestineRemembered is as well. However, I have seen no evidence that Garaudy was his "real" source, nor that he was even aware of Garaudy's citation of the same material. The most likely explanation for the coincidence of events that started this controversy is that Garaudy used the same 1975 book for his website.
I consider User:Jayjg's original accusation against PalestineRemembered ("passing off Holocaust denial material as your own research") to have been both reckless and irresponsible, and I believe that an apology is in order.
(iii) PalestineRemembered's actual offense in this instance seems to have been a citation error: referencing a primary source that he did not directly consult. While this is not proper form, I have heard anyone suggest that it should necessarily result in community sanctions, let alone in a permanent ban.
(iv) Finally, I have some concerns about the fairness and transparency of this process. The motion against PalestineRemembered was brought forward by someone whose objectivity on matters relating to Israel has sometimes been called into question; I believe a reasonable case could be made that there is at least the appearance of unfairness in the way this matter is being handled. CJCurrie23:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, your personal bias against Jayjg is showing, again. It's not as if you've never had issues with Jayjg. And the vast, vast majority who've offered opinions on the ban have had nothing to do with him or the article topics. So, we have broad, neutral support for the ban, and on the other hand we have your objections, and you have a history of personal ax grinding against Jayjg. Don't let your personal issues with Jayjg or anyone interfer with Wikipedia's community processes. FeloniousMonk00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct to note that I've objected to other decisions made by Jayjg in the past, although I would obviously disagree with your characterization of my last edit as "personal bias" and "ax-grinding".
I recognize that most of the editors who have written in support of a community ban are not themselves connected to PalestineRemembered or the pages he has frequented. It's entirely possible that their objections toward PalestineRemembered are valid, and you may take note of the fact that I have not taken any position on whether or not he should be community banned. Nonetheless, I have concerns about this process, and I fear that some aspects have at least the appearance of unfairness.
CJCurrie, you have a tendency instantly to spring to the defense of anyone Jay takes or requests admin action against, regardless of the issues. SlimVirgin(talk)00:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "ax-grinding" is going to be taken into account in this way, then it should also be factored into Jay's original complaint. FeloniousMonk, you may think you have consensus, but this process has been fatally tainted by the false and explosive charges that gave rise to it. Your decision will cause much more damage than whatever POV-pushing PR may get up to if he were left unblocked. And as I've said, if he really is so incorrigible, you will by definition have a future opportunity to ban him – in a clean, ethically uncompromised way.--G-Dett00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to cast aspersions at Jayjg, CJCurrie is factually correct to say that Jay's "objectivity on matters relating to Israel has sometimes been called into question"; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26. During that DRV quite a few users, including well-respected admins such as Fred Bauder and Cyde Weys, alluded to what Cyde described as Jay taking "controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in." Fairly or otherwise, Jay has acquired a reputation of being (inCalton's words) "a partisan editor". It's unfortunate that Jay has chosen to propose this community sanction himself, as that leaves the door open for his motives to be questioned. It would perhaps have been better to have raised this matter with some unquestionably neutral admin first and for that admin to have proposed the sanction, thus avoiding raising questions about motives. -- ChrisO00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Jayjg were a "a partisan editor" on the topic, a point I am not qualified to judge, it's hardly relevent here, since the evidence presented against PalestineRemembered stands on its own. And it was that evidence that brought the community's sanction, not strength of jayjg presenting. By your reasoning any editior contributing more than lightly at an article would have their filings or opinions here heavily discounted, if not dismissed. Is this what the community wants? FeloniousMonk00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The counter-argument is that something as serious as a community ban needs to carry the appearance, as well as the reality, of fairness. CJCurrie00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the evidence should stand on its own. The problem is that this case arises out of the endless partisan edit wars on Middle Eastern articles, and that Jay seems to have been directly involved in clashes with PR. There's clearly a possibility - which CJCurrie alludes to - that this could be seen as an attempt to get rid of a troublesome political opponent. We should avoid any such appearances of unfairness and for this reason I think Wooyi's referral to the ArbCom (see below) is appropriate. -- ChrisO
I agree with FeloniousMonk that Jay's alleged bias isn't relevant, while wondering why he doesn't apply the same logic to CJ's alleged bias. But all of this is beside the point, as are any questions about the "strength" of Jay's presentation. The issue here is about fairness and the appearance of fairness. When a debate about whether to ban a user begins with a false (and still unretracted) allegation involving Holocaust denial, can the user in question possibly get a fair hearing? To ask the question is to answer it.--G-Dett01:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the former followed correct procedure by bring a relevent matter to the community's attention whereas the latter sought to derail the community consensus, which stood (and stands) at roughly 75 percent swing for blocking, a clear consensus, and has history of interfering with any community discussion involving Jayjg. In other words, Jayjg sought to properly apply the community's processes, CJCurrie sought to undermine that. FeloniousMonk02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk, this distinction strikes me as more convenient than compelling. If CJ's previous feuds with Jay are relevant here, then Jay's previous feuds with PalestineRemembered are also relevant. It really is that simple. The fact is that there are any number of background feuds here, some personal and some ideological, involving many of the editors participating in this discussion, not to mention the admin who opened this complaint and the editor whose future hangs in the balance. You've highlighted as relevant only those that advance the argument for banning, while speciously ruling out the relevance of those that undermine that argument. And the distinction you've articulated in support of this inconsistency isn't cogent, or frankly even comprehensible, except as rhetoric.--G-Dett04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly did CJCurrie seek to undermine the community consensus, may I ask? By raising concerns about the process? By suggesting that PalestineRemembered's "policy violations" may not have been what they seemed? Or by having the temerity to suggest that Jayjg's editing history could raise concerns about fairness?
It's quite obvious that this entire matter is degenerating into the usual partisan bickering. I don't need to waste time justifying my actions; if anyone wants to discuss issues of substance, I'm more than willing to participate. CJCurrie02:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are that there is a roughly 75 percent swing for blocking, a clear consensus, Jayjg hasn't done anything wrong by bring this issue to AN/I's attention. FeloniousMonk02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are valid concerns about how the proposal for a ban was raised, and equally valid concerns that this entire process is simply degenerating into partisan bickering. CJCurrie02:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) None of which are material to evidence the evidence presented and considered that resulted in the broad consensus for the ban seen here, 2) appear to based more on personal animosity toward Jayjg than valid concerns relevant to the issue at hand, PR's chronic misbehavior at articles. The fact remains that well over 75 percent of the respondents favor a ban, and I've yet to see anyone change their mind since you and G-Dett raised your objections. FeloniousMonk04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this logic (well, one of the problems) is that "PR's chronic misbehaviour at articles" was not the reason given for a community ban. As I've said before, this entire discussion has long since degenerated into partisan bickering. CJCurrie05:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CJCurrie, you have a tendency instantly to spring to the defense of anyone Jay takes or requests admin action against, regardless of the issues.
It's interesting that you should say that, Slim. Just yesterday, I noticed that Jayjg had contributed this post to the AN/I noticeboard. I reviewed the matter, and found that his comments were entirely valid. It's true that my past interactions with Jayjg have left me concerned about his behaviour in some circumstances, but you shouldn't portray me as someone compulsively driven to oppose him.
Just a word: the basic factual detail - the reburial on Mount Herzl - that PR was inserting seems to have been widely known; other than the discussion in the Commons, it seems to have been discussed in the Canadian Senate [116], by well known terrorism expert Bowyer Bell [117], and, rather amusingly, is mentioned on the JDL's website [118]. I can't see any particular reason why the citation needed to have been from a primary source. That being said, a violation of citation regulations seems to not be enough for an indefblock. If the user meets the pattern set out in WP:DE for tendentious editing, that evidence should be presented as well if a block is requested. Hornplease00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you all should make statements in the requested ArbCom case, since if they are going to hear the case it would be moot to discuss here. WooyiTalk to me?00:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support permanent ban. I live in NZ and could theoretically look the cite up if not for the fact that the newspaper in question doesn't exist. We don't need "editors" who pov-push and insert fictitious cites. The whole point of this exercise to create an encyclopedia. An arbcom case would have the same result and is an unnecessary abuse of process. <<-armon->>00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't live in NZ, but I do have google, and using it suggests that the Auckland Evening Star existed at some point. Hornplease00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is puzzled by this, the issue has since been easily resolved: the Evening Star became the Auckland Star and stopped publication in 1991. Hornplease19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Bearing in mind that the ban of editors who resort to fraud, or who repeatedly violate policies of which they are aware, should be uncontroversial 1) any any point, was PalestineRemembered pointed to or warned about WP:CITE#Say where you got it or its substance, 2) is there any evidence of intent that fraud was intended - for example, did he ever state that he read the news article himself, or had anyone previously complained about the use of Sami Hadawi as a source, such that he would have the motive to conceal this?Proabivouac01:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't understand how this discussion has already closed despite the fact that discussion has not ended. Moreover, I want to hear more of what the user had to say for himself. I don't like this process, especially if arbcom already began dealing with the case. BTW, WorldCat lists only two libraries worldwide that archive the Auckland Star (formerly known as the Auckland evening star). One is the library of congress and another is in Texas. nadav01:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the British Library catalogue, under three names: The Evening Star (24 March 1870 - 7 March 1879), Auckland Evening Star (8 March 1879 - 12 April 1887), Auckland Star (13 August 1887 - 31 May 1977). -- ChrisO01:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, there was no paper call the Evening Star in Auckland in 1975 when the cite is supposedly from. The closest was a provincial paper called the "Greymouth Evening Star". This proves that PR did not find the cite himself. <<-armon->>04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want/need to "prove" this, when PR has explained that his citation came from a 1989 work of scholarship? This sort of "proof" is entirely redundant, and seems to serve the rhetorical purpose of suggesting deception on PR's part, for which there is no evidence and no plausible motive. The seemingly gratuitous insinuation is of a piece with the spurious allegation regarding Holocaust denial, and is representative of exactly what has tainted this process from the outset. PR may yet give you a reason to permanently ban him, but this infraction wasn't it; a little more candor about the issues involved, and a little more restraint when it comes to stocking the streams with red herrings, would be welcome at this point.--G-Dett04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, there's a dispute about whether the violation in question represents a "fraudulent citation" or a minor infraction. The indisputable red herring here, however, is that you go on "proving" again and again what PR has long since forthrightly conceded, that his source for the newspaper quote was not a primary source but rather a work of scholarship. I cannot (and therefore don't) believe that an editor of your intelligence can't see that these "proofs" are utterly superfluous at this point, and seem to serve the purpose solely of insinuating dishonesty on PR's part. Unless you can put forth some plausible motive of PR's that would suggest he made this error in bad faith, then your hyperventilations about "fraud" can only be seen as rank opportunism. I'm afraid it really is that simple, Armon. In any event be assured that any further researches into the publication dates of New Zealand regional newspapers is fantastically beside the point now, a vain pursuit of the reddest and rottingest of rotten red herrings.--G-Dett05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. Arbitration Committee follows a different process, and has a different set of remedies available to it.Proabivouac01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arbcom can do what CN can do, as far as topical ban and site bans. Historically, complex cases and discussions have been closed once they have been referred to arbcom. Navou01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Navou's comment copied by SV from talk) Note this discussion where community sanctions were not effected due to the case requested by arbcom. [119] ban request deferred to arbcom. Here is another. Very respectfully, Navou01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also appreciate no one ending this discussion prematurely. I almost didn't comment when I saw the shaded box. And, FWIW, my comment is this: As I look at the opinions above, I see them running (with my own emphatic suport for a ban) at about 19 to 5 in favor. That's around 75%. That's consensus. No need for time-consuming, aggravating arbcom process at all. We can't tie ourselves in knots every time a single-issue, abusive, disruptive editor comes along, just because he's editing on a controversial subject. Of all the ways I would like to see WP improve, showing these people the door ASAP is at the top of the list. IronDuke01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there are also legitimate concerns about the presentation of the case and the process we are using. For example, I haven't hear PR's side. I don't think I can judge a person without hearing his defense. nadav01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have actually heard from him [120]. But we don't have to hear from someone who has already proven so disruptive. That's what I was trying to get at in my post above. It sucks up so much time and energy, and the only serious objectors to his being banned come from people who are concerned about process; no one here defends his actions. IronDuke02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sure can be. But we can't let it bog us down in obvious cases which, to most of the community posting here, it is. IronDuke02:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be obvious when the claim of using Holocaust denial material has been discredited? Sure, my limited experience with PR has been negative, but a permanent ban is capital punishment on Wikipedia. There should at be room to hear a defense and to give a fair hearing, no? I know the alternative, having been traumatized by Kafka's The Trial when I was young. nadav02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most/many people supporting the ban have remarked that POV/CIVIL/Single Purpose Account issues are more than enough. This is my position also. IronDuke02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was fraudulent. He cited it to a source he hadn't read. This is a massive violation of WP:CITE. As I observed even before you started commenting on this matter, where he actually got it from isn't what matters at all. What matters is that he didn't get if from where he said he did. JoshuaZ02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's a divergence of opinion on this point: some consider it a "massive violation", while others regard it as a citation error that's been blown out of all proportion. (Mind you, most contributors to the present discussion seem to be ignoring the issue entirely.) CJCurrie02:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, we know that because PR has since given his source, a 1989 work of scholarship. Next to this infraction we have Jay's spurious charge relating to Holocaust denial. He presented this assertion as a conclusive finding and then, when it was shown to be false, refused to retract it and instead argued that PR's 1989 source may have lifted material from a post-1995 source. [121]. --G-Dett02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The only evidence presented here was the violation of WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it. If this is indeed a disruptive editor, I think that assuming that consensus exists in the absence of evidence of disruption for the uninvolved community to scrutinise is a little worrying. In the absence of this evidence a fair number of votes will come from those already familiar with - and perhaps irritated by - PR's behaviour - as indeed appears to be the case, judging by the number of people who have name-checked other violated WP policies. That's not consensus in any sense. Hornplease02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support closure. Arbcom has not accpeted and, even if they did, we would still be free to impose a community ban. We don't have to wait for them to do it. IronDuke02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If process is important, then the process of discussion on WP:CN needs to be allowed to continue. The community may discuss the necessity (or not) of excising a member seperately from ArbCom, unless I have misread policy somewhere. -- Avi02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Kendrick, but that makes no sense to me. Misrepresenting sources is not an example of improvement, it's an example of things getting worse. If PR was abiding by policy in the first place, he'd have no reason to it. <<-armon->>04:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've dropped (but not retracted) the charge that PR copied Holocaust-denial materials, do you have any theory to offer for why PR would have made this citation error in bad faith? Do you actually believe he did it in bad faith, and if so what would have been his motive? What would he have to gain by citing a primary source (a now-defunct regional newspaper) instead of a secondary source (a respected and even seminal work of scholarship)?--G-Dett05:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that this seems a very minor infraction for the imposition of a permaban. I also agree with Kendrick that if this is the worst he can be charged with, he's "arguably come a long way".
Bear in mind that he's only been an editor for seven months, and apparently been banned for four of them (probably for incivility) so he's really only had three months editing on Wiki in total (I can't help but wonder also, if his incivility has not been seized upon by his political opponents as an effective means of muzzling him with long bans).
I'd also like to compare PR's summary treatment here to the example of a user like Zeq, who has been adding unsourced or badly sourced, heavily POV edits for literally years before he's finally come before arbcom in the last couple of weeks for a proposed permaban. Seems to me there's quite a double standard at work here.
Furthermore, I note that many of the folks here who have supported permaban are from the usual pro-Israel crowd who have an obvious motive for doing so.
Finally, a quick look through PR's recent edits suggests to me that PR is an articulate editor who has the capability to become an effective user, assuming of course that he learns to control his tendency for incivility (which he seems to have done in recent weeks).
So I certainly think this move to permaban is overhasty, distasteful and as G-Dett suggested, more reminiscent of a "lynching" than a considered judgement. I think Wooyi's move to have this case considered by arbcom is probably the right one at this stage. Gatoclass05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arbcomm is free to consider the case (in which PR can be unblocked for the purpose of defending himself) or they can choose to do nothing and leave the block in place. I think that characterising this as a "lynching" is highly distasteful - for one, there are considered arguments here, not mob hysteria, and for another, it's in very bad taste - lynching was a horrible, murderous crime. I hope you aren't comparing your fellow editors to murderers, or trivialising the deaths of so many people. Guettarda06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you aren't comparing your fellow editors to murderers, or trivialising the deaths of so many people -Guettarda
What an absurd, not to mention offensive, inference. Of course I'm not comparing editors to murderers. You know perfectly well what I mean by a "lynching" in this context. I mean a rush to judgement without due consideration of evidence. Gatoclass06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, while it may be true that there are some users who are pro-Israel and are supporting the ban, the vast majority of the support is coming from people who do not generally edit in that subject at all. On the other hand, almost every single person who is opposing the ban could accurately be referred to as "anti-Israel". I think the latter says much more than the former.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly we editors who do edit in Israel related subjects but don't share a pro-Israel POV are looking out for our own necks here. If y'all succeed in banning User:PalestineRemembered for incorrectly citing a reliable source today, we all have to wonder which of us could be next tomorrow. First they came for PR, and I did not speak out, because I was not PR..., as it were. -- Kendrick7talk07:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically abstained from comment until now because I had found myself in content-dispute with PalestineRemembered on a few occasions, but seeing as how so much of his support is coming from people who often agree with his views, I suppose my disagreement with those views shouldn't stop me from voicing my support for the ban. My sentiments are of course based on this being the last of many disruptions, and my lack of faith in him changing his stripes specifically at this point in his wiki-career. TewfikTalk07:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious objections to letting this debate continue while PR is blocked and cannot respond to accusations against him. At the very, very least, someone familiar with him should play devil's advocate and give whatever counter-arguments are possible. nadav06:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I will not get into trouble for it, the user has emailed me on this issue, and I will see if he wants me to act as a proxy for his comments. That way he can get his side of the story out, if that is permissible. SirFozzie06:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, posting as a proxy for a blocked/banned user is a no-no. Just wanted to make sure that was an exception to the rule, since he cannot participate directly in the conversation. SirFozzie07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People have written scripts for this board in the past that specifically reposted defense statements from blocked users who were up for banning. We could certainly note and link to the editor's defense statement. In broader terms, I prefer to let a user remain unblocked during this type of discussion unless ongoing abuse makes intervention an urgent necessity, but that has been overruled at policy level. DurovaCharge!07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie, please go ahead and post. I will specifically oppose any action against you for doing so. I do support banning him at this point, but while the discussion is ongoing, he should be allowed his say. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the record, per the political bias allegation above, I'm about as neutral as they come on Middle East political issues. Sometimes editors seek me out to settle disputes in that area. The regional dispute might just as well have been Northern Ireland or Chiapas in terms of my evaluation. DurovaCharge!08:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef block. The grounds for the block (plagiarising a Holocaust denial site) have turned out to be unproven false [122], any refactored rationale is post-hoc and the punishment disproportionate. --Coroebus08:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those not monitoring the arbitration page, PalestineRemembered has posted a small defence on his talkpage:[123]. All I have seen above has been evidence of gross incivility. If the user now clearly claims to understand that this is counterproductive, impermissible and just plain rude, and there have been no major examples of such incivility since his last ban, I fail to see the logic behind an indefblock now at all. Hornplease09:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. While superficially complex, this case is actually quite simple: PalestineRemembered is, by his own admission, a single-purpose account created to promote an agenda. As such, we can expect (and have seen) large numbers of strongly POV edits, with nothing positive to counter their detrimental effect on the project. It's a no-brainer. POV-pushing single-purpose account, please close the door on your way out. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually it's not a crime to have a "single purpose account" on Wiki and the edit histories of some of those who have accused him of such would appear to be remarkably "single purpose" themselves. Or are you only considered an SPA if you are honest and upfront enough to admit it?
Apart from which, PR has shown an interest in some other subjects recently, and he's also said (before this latest ban) that he sees himself making a broader contribution.
Furthermore, if permabans on "POV-pushing single-purpose account[s]" are a "no-brainer", does that mean we can have the same summary justice for users like Zeq and Amoruso please? (Just to give a couple of examples). Because as long as we are going to apply the principle consistently, I will have far less objection to it. Gatoclass11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be all for showing anyone who exhibits clear POV-pushing over a long period of time to the door. We don't need anyone that's not here to write neutral articles based solely on sources. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly oppose ban I have already commented above (twice, but only very briefly, so they could easily have been overlooked), so this is just to make my view clear. I don't think we can assess consensus simply on a count of "support" or "oppose", we also need to take into account the quality and worth of the respective contributions. On the one hand we have a false claim by Jayig, and on the other we have careful and thoughtful contributions, notably from G-Dett, but also from others. I have looked briefly at some of PR's recent edits, and it is clear that he needs to learn to be more civil, and to take more care over citing sources, but these are hardly hanging offences. He has stated that he intends to modify his behaviour, and we should allow him the time to demonstrate that. I believe he has the potential to be a very valuable and useful editor. --NSH00111:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments.
As Kendrick7 pointed out above, WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy, see the header of that page. I was the editor who introduced WP:CITE#Say where you got it in the first place, and I have argued that it should be a policy, but apparently it isn't. (Can we fix that now??) PR's violation of it was mild by the wild-west standards of the middle east section. For example, shamir1 and isarig violate this rule over and over, while Amoruso violates the rule and lies about it (this will be proved in an ArbCom case I am preparing; I find the summary justice of this page quite distasteful).
The proof that PR did not copy from a Holocaust Denial site is presented here.
Someone above noted that the Auckland Evening Star does not exist. That is interesting and surprising, but also irrelevant. PR's real source (a book) actually does say "Evening Star of Auckland" (I'm looking at it), and it isn't PR's fault if the book is wrong. As to "fraudulent", absolutely not since the information is 100% factually correct. Both The Times of London and the Jerusalem Post of Israel carried the same story on the same day. Probably the book meant the "Auckland Star" (which continued the "Evening Star"), or the "Evening Star" of Dunedin (NZ), or a different "Evening Star" (there are many).
Oppose ban on the grounds that PR was not given a chance to correct their wrongdoings. We all know that a few other editors got trapped in similar problems such as User:Zeq. Other cases were/have been handled in a different way. A RfC would have been the first process to follow. If not, the arbcom could have maybe put them on probation or ban them. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban which seems severe given that the allegations agains him (taking sources from pro holocaust sites) is unprovenhave been conclusively disproven. Due process requires that he at least be allowed to answer the accusations here. Attacks on editors who dissent this ban are worrying. One of the great things about WP is that it contains both pro Zionists and pro Palestinians. The interaction of the two groups helps us learn more about the other side. I would oppose the banning of those who have an opposing POV to my own, and I would hope that Israel supportes have enough confidence in their cause to debate and work with those that disagree with them rather than winning these debates by means of banning opponents.ابو علي (Abu Ali)13:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban per many above. I'm having a very hard time seeing how people are arguing that to copy a citation from a book is now a first-time bannable offense. If we're talking about general disruption, on the other hand, it seems that should be discussed in its own right, with more evidence than we've seen here. Mackan7913:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much that "to copy a citation from a book is now a first-time bannable offense", as that it shows a general deep lack of attention to the basics of accurate sourcing by "buffing up" his edit obtained from a secondary source, particularly one that might be deemed unreliable by some, as being from a primary source; and sticking to the story. Whether from POVness or just lack of grasp is irrelevant. Gzuckier14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hadawi's book is a seminal work of scholarship that's gone into several reprints. The Evening Star of Auckland is an obscure regional newspaper long since defunct, as several here have pointed out. Secondary sources, moreover, are preferred on Wikipedia to primary sources. Your "motive" theory is ridiculous and self-imploding; please reconsider the conclusions you've evidently based on it. Thanks, --G-Dett14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?? If you are citing a webpage that says some the new york times had an article on Richard Nixon eating a live puppy, then your source is the website, not the newspaper. Seems pretty clear. Kind of thing you have to drum into students very often, for precisely the reason that they are making some statement in a paper which they want to buff up by making it look like they've tracked down a primary source. And it goes through a similar process: "Johnny, how did you read an article in the 1970 New York Times?" "I found it in the basement". "Can I see it?" "No..." "Well, can you tell me what page number it's on?" "No" etc. Gzuckier16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell it to Alan Dershowitz, Gzuckier. I know the distinction very well. My point, which you've studiously avoided, is that the secondary source that PR was late in providing in this case is vastly more impressive than the primary source. It's one thing when Dershowitz, for example, neglected saying-where-he-got-it because where-he-got-it was a discredited piece of pseudo-scholarship widely regarded as worthless. Or when editors cull things from propaganda websites and then cite them to the original source (which happens all the time on Israel-Palestine pages). It's different because in this case, no plausible motive for bad faith has been offered. To go back to your bad example and make it workable, if you quote the New York Post on Richard Nixon but it turns out where-you-got-it is in fact a highly regarded book by, say, Richard J. Hofstadter, then it doesn't look much like dishonesty, does it? It looks like a citation error. Previous complaints against PR have to do with civility, not innocent citation errors. I know you and others want him thrown out of Wikipedia, and the reasons will be transparently obvious to all editors age 12 and up, but don't kid yourself that this grossly misrepresented episode constitutes probable cause.--G-Dett16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The mind boggles. Your position is that it's unreasonable for me to attribute anything worse that sloppiness to PR's imaginative sourcing; OK, I disagree, but that's just a matter of opinion and not defective reasoning. As the night follows the day, however, it's followed by attributing to me not only the desire to throw PR out of Wikipedia, which I have never stated since I have not so decided; and not just for sloppy sourcing, but for presumably evil reasons which "will be transparently obvious to all editors age 12 and up", no less. Toss in the third reference to Dershowitz's alleged plagiarism, whose relevance is obvious only to those who see all the Jews in this together against PR, and your POV now becomes so pathological as to be discardable. Gzuckier17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"those who see all the Jews in this together against PR"...yikes, Gzuckier. The point about Dershowitz was only that a) this sort of citation issue isn't even a settled thing out there in the real world, much less in the fast-and-loose world of Is-Pal Wikipedia editing (where say-where-you-got-it is a guideline not a rule, much less a ban-worthy offense); and b) that no one has yet attributed a motive to PR that could make a case of "bad faith" plausible (which is nicely illuminated by the contrastive case of Dershowitz/Peters). The covering-up-his-Holocaust-denial-tracks theory has been demolished, and your 'buffing'-up-his-source theory doesn't even pass cursory inspection. Because it is "defective reasoning" indeed: secondary sources carry greater weight than primary ones, and scholarship counts for more than po-dunk regional newspapers. I like the energy of your response, and I can't say I didn't ask for it, but please don't whip up nonsense about "the Jews" and stuff it in my mouth.--G-Dett18:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gzuckier, I don't understand how you can say it doesn't matter whether he understood the rule or not. You're saying that if somebody accidentally flubs a citation rule, this is valid cause to permanently ban that person? Also, I'm not sure where PR actually "stuck to the story." Jay says PR "claimed" to have gotten the material from the Auckland newspaper, but all I see is PR adding the citation.[124] Is there something I'm missing? There seem to be an unfortunate number of misunderstandings floating around here. Mackan7918:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support permablock per JoshuaZ. Being repeatedly abusive and POV pushing, while rather unproductive elsewhere, is enough by itself. G-Dett's claim that it has been proved that PalestineRemembered did not use a Holocaust Denial source has not been proved at all. Actually, it cannot be proved, and is still the most likely candidate. In any event it is a red herring. He contravened WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, and that adds up here. The issue is settled, taking this to ArbCom would be abusive. --tickleme14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken, Tickle me, and the mistake doesn't reflect well upon your judgment. Consider the following. PR's source (a seminal work of scholarship by Sami Hadawi) was published in 1989; Jay's Holocaust-denial source (by Roger Garaudy) was published in 1995. There is a 1998 edition of the Hadawi book but the pagination is different, and PR's page citation settles conclusively that he used the earlier edition. There are scattered pages from PR's source that are available online (on Amazon and Google Books), but not the page he cites from. This strongly indicates that the actual book was his actual source, and not something he quickly tracked down online to cover his tracks. From the time that Jay made his initial accusation [125] to the time that PR provided his complete and accurate bibliographic citation, [126] two hours and 14 minutes elapsed. It isn't conceivable that in that interval PR hustled down to the library and began rummaging through books at random, looking for and finding a citation to substitute for his Holocaust-denying sources. It is possible that PR's source was a tertiary source citing Hadawi citing the NZ paper. However, this seems unlikely to me, because a) I can't find any such source online, through various search engines and databases both popular and scholarly; and b) PR has quoted the Hadawi passage at some length. It would not even be relevant if PR's source was such a tertiary source, so long as the tertiary source wasn't the Holocaust-denial source from 1995. And it can't have been, I should stress, because Garaudy does not cite Hadawi.
So much for the forensic proof. For compelling textual proof that PalestineRemembered's source was Hadawi, see Zero's long post at PR's talk page. I hope Tickle me will have the grace to retract his statement and reconsider his recommendation for banning, as it was explicitly based on a spurious and thoroughly discredited assumption.--G-Dett14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. The crowd here is demanding PalestineRemembered be indefinitely banned -- on what charges? Mainly for misquoting (which is very rare on Wikipedia, of course), with the speculated and completely unfounded association to Holocaust denial thrown in for good measure. Oh, and we are also told that he's a single-minded POV-pusher (another rarity) and prone to polemic (unheard of), and a nasty fellow in general. Indeed grave accusations, which demand justice and deserve such an orderly process as exhibited above.
Support permanent ban - Continuous disruptive behavior, of which this recent violation of WP guidelines and repeated lying about it is merely the last, but certainly not only, one. Isarig14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People have now repeatedly claimed that the accusation against PR has been "conclusively disproven", this is completely untrue and I have trouble believing that even the people repeating it believe it. A couple of people may have come up with an unlikely alternate possibility, but the original explanation about the holocaust denial website is still far more likely. I would encourage people to think about this whenever they read the words "disproven" on this page again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the evidence provided by Zero it really has been conclusively proved that PR's main source cannot be the Holocaust denial site because the direct quotations included by PR in his edits are not available on that site. I think it is unfair and unwise to be repeating the accusation of plagiarising Holocaust deniers. --Coroebus15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put differently, Moshe, you are talking out of your hat. Deal with what's been presented if you wish to be taken seriously.--G-Dett15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still only 348 edits to the encyclopedia from G-Dett in one year, but 1,381 to talk pages. [127] Wikipedia's not a discussion group or a playground for you to cause trouble on. SlimVirgin(talk)16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, that's nasty. If you have trouble with this editor, launch an RfC, don't clutter up community noticeboards, please. Hornplease19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have something relevant to say about the PalestineRemembered issue – the proposal to ban him for life, the spurious and as yet unretracted accusations against him, etc.? If not, please use my user talk page as your pet-peeve doodle-diary. We've been through this before. Thanks Slim,--G-Dett16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A woman who talks too much? This defies all my gender related expectations. Get thee to a burqa shop, G-Dett!! -- Kendrick7talk19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC) with apologies to Hamlet Act 3, sc. i -- though I haven't looked at the primary source![reply]
I don't think that's fair, Moshe. Anyway come on, flirt a little. I just went through some of your edits looking for something to throw back at you, but I'll have to confess you're pretty good. Though you do have a bias towards removing things. On the cheetah page, for example; readers use to learn there that cheetahs accelerate as fast as sports cars; you removed it saying lots of animals do.[128] BS! Which ones? Then here you removed what strikes me a good solid piece of information, and true to boot. But on the whole, I'll grant you're a good editor.--G-Dett21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To retort, lots of animals do indeed accelerate that fast, they may not have near as high of a top speed, but even quite a few non-flying animals can accelerate even faster than cheetahs (its a lot easier when you don't weigh very much). Also I stand by my comment that most people who don't know to avoid eating fecal matter (except when they need the water contained in it so bad they will imminently die of dehydration without it) probably cannot read.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk22:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for that last point, you don't need to convince me, but tell it to William Burroughs and the Marquis de Sade. Now, I'll name four small animals and you say which ones can go from 0 to 70 mph in 3 seconds or whatever. Bee, fruitbat, wiener dog, sea monkey.--G-Dett22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, just for the record, I've done an exhaustive search of all 97 of PR's comments on article and user talk pages since his last ban, and could find only one comment that might conceivably be construed as a little uncivil (and that an older comment). So given the apparently bogus nature of Jayjg's initial charge on this thread, what justification is left for a permablock? Gatoclass17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban Reading the discussion, this looks like an attempt to railroad a ban through false claims, followed by a subsequent attempt to use the partial railroad as the basis for a ban when the actual problem was much smaller than originally claimed. The first actual evidence of a mis-cite was done by ChrisO at 23:09 13 May 2007. Additionally, the bit about being a single purpose account is totally irrelevant. Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts, one legitimate use of a single purpose account is to participate in areas with high levels of controversy. So if this was a single purpose account of an editor with other accounts, that would be legitimate.
I hope that the nominator is not normally this sloppy and lacking in evidence for the actions they take, or the nominators actions will need much more serious review than they have been getting. This having been referred to the arbitration committee, it is more appropriate for it to be discussed there than here, so my first choice would be to end this as referred to ArbComm. But since some people are fighting that concept tooth and nail, I want to make it clear that I am opposed to a ban based on the inadequate (and sometimes false) evidence presented here. GRBerry19:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is at stake here is nothing less than Wikipedia's neutral point of view. If an anti-zionist editor can be give a permanent ban on the basis of accusation of refering to a Holocast denial site, (an alegation which has since been disproven), then what hope is for myself and for others who do not want Wikipedia to be an Israeli propoganda site. You may as well ban me and all Arabs, anti-zionists and non zionists, and rename this project Zionipedia. I note that the two Israeli editors who commented here to their credit opposed the ban. I can only agree with Doron's comment [129] that this page is a disgrace to wikipedia. ابو علي (Abu Ali)19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that comment is intended in a humorous vein. This is based upon policy, in my opinion, and per WP:NOT#Not a battleground this site certainly can't resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. I posted my original support for this ban proposal before PalestineRemembered clarified which source he had misrepresented, and as you can see from that post my reasoning had nothing specifically to do with a purported connection to Holocaust denial, rather it hinged on the very substantial block history and misuse of citations - neither of which reasons are affected in any way by arguments about Zionism. If the same issues surrounded Western Sahara or the Spratly Islands I'd address them exactly the same way. DurovaCharge!21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. However, do you still wish to maintain your support for a ban on the basis of the block log given Fayssal's statements below? Hornplease21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe having a block history is a good reason to permanently ban an editor either. Abu Ali is, I believe, speaking to the chilling effect banning PalestineRemembered for violating a minor clause of the WP:CITE guideline will have on this area of the project. -- Kendrick7talk22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about the block log as well.
Durova, I appreciate the spirit of your comment, and hope that others can disentangle the sourcing issues from the incendiary charges as well as you can. I have two questions however: 1) If WP:CITE#say_where_you_got_it is a bannable offense, why has it not been raised to the level of policy? 3) Do you know of any other examples of an editor with a spotty record being banned in the end because of a violation of a guideline (as opposed to a policy)? Thanks Durova.--G-Dett22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose ban It is still unclear on what grounds PR is banned -- whether the spurious trumped-up charge of quoting from a holocaust denial source, alleged incivility, single-purpose account or whatever. It looks as though every possible charge has been thrown together in the hope that some mud will stick in this kangaroo court. I too agree with Doron that this process is a disgrace.
Whatever the validity of any other accusations (which I would dispute) against PR, this whole proceeding has been tainted by Jayjg's initial categorical, but false, assertion that PR had quoted a holocaust denial site. PR's convincing rebuttal, backed up evidence from Zero and others, has been brushed aside. It's almost like the trial in Alice in Wonderland: Sentence first, verdict afterwards. The initial false charge has served to discredit everything that follows it. The only way we can recover from this, in my mind, is to exonerate PR and close this case. If anyone then wishes to make charges over incivility, single-purpose account, misleading citation or whatever, then they should do so; but without the false charge of holocaust denial, which has clearly prejudiced many editors against PR. RolandR21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first block by FeloniousMonk is questionable. Can FM please justify the 1 month block especially that it was the first block.
The second block of FeloniousMonk may be justified only if the first one is.
The third block by Jayjg is unjustified. Jayjg referred to a talk page comment as a justification. Can you explain Jayjg why did you consider this link as a justification for another 1 block? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'm closing this because it's inappropriate. The user in question has never even been blocked. Cool Cat has been given some good advice in this discussion and he only needs to try it out. --Tony Sidaway02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
With statements like "Cat does its Turkishness again" ([137]) in response to a mere move suggestion user is being highly problematic and falls under creative trolling IMHO.
I inquired on IRC and was asked to put this here. I removed this from arbitration because I felt it wasn't going anywhere. -- Catchi?23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not desire to get Ozgurgerilla "punished". That isn't the point of this process. I feel Ozgurgerilla is being disruptive and would like the community to review his behaviour and if necessary enact sanction(s). I would however hope to get a community sanctioned civility warning at the very least, perhaps a topic ban too. -- Catchi?23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cat, the review you want is exactly what RfCs are supposed to do. Sanctions are unlikely to be decided on in the absence of an RfC picking over the user's behaviour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Because my past experience with User RfC's had been most pathetically useless, I have no intention of starting one. Anyone else is welcome to start one, I won't. If the users behaviour is acceptable, I am cool with that. Conclusion of this discussion should determine that. Would anyone object if I commit similar behaviour as Ozgurgerilla? -- Catchi?02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool cat, now you are trying to make us discuss it here, when the correct place for it is at a request for comment. I'd ask him if he would learn from a request for comment, or if you are having problems in a dispute related to an article, I'd suggest that you go to the mediation cabal, or MEDCOM. —— Eagle101Need help?02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I was wondering if this would be warranted. Checkuser requests since the conclusion of the arbitration case was a rather long list. User was banned by arbcom for a year. Users are banned for a year or more by arbcom to cease disruption. More severe mesures should be taken into account if users behaviour does not improve.
User has more sockpuppets than I'd care to count. One of the check users comment was: "I spent half an hour tracking down this checkuser. It is ridiculous. Here is the tree as I have constructed it. It is incomplete".
How often does he use sockpuppets? For example, every week, every day, or...? When was the last time he used sockpuppets? —Kyриx14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this guy's sockdrawer, it's definitely warranted. Once you use a sock to get around an ArbCom decision, you're effectively telling the community you're not going to follow the rules. 2321 socks? Indef ban.Blueboy9615:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Catchi?15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he was making socks even while the arbitration was underway, from looking at all the block logs for this guy. That only clinches it--he's effectively thumbing his nose at the community. We don't need him.Blueboy9602:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is really simple, if you can come up with valid evidence that (s)he was/is using multiple accounts abusively, I have no qualms with blocking this user indef. Oh, and please block the open proxy. —— Eagle101Need help?04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy9604:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he used 10 of them after the end of the ArbCom case (two of them only hours after the decision came down) and four in the week before the case was underway. Like I've said before, when you're making sockpuppets while there's an arbitration underway, you're telling the community that you're not going to follow the rules. 10 socks after the final decision? Indef him.
Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -Mask?18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't get why he was even allowed back. Revealing personal information? By all rights he should have been reported to his ISP. I would think someone ought to report him now.Blueboy9623:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The User in question has been indefinitely blocked by two admins (JzG and Friday) for his latest disruption, and has exhausted community patience. For all intensive purposes, User:GordonWatts is banned from editing Wikipedia. SirFozzie20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The user in question is a habitual and perpetual edit warrior, who was blocked for a time after a discussion on CN back in March. The sanctions were appealed by Gordon to ArbCom, and the punishment (as well as the rights of the community to present alternate sanctions) was affirmed, as ArbCom rejected Gordon's case.
Short-term blocks have been tried, and failed. Alternate sanctions have been tried, and failed. Gordon Watts is not here to build consensus and more importantly, an encyclopedia. I suggest re-imposing a community ban, but if anyone else has any suggestions, feel free to discuss. SirFozzie20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I have no objections to anyone adjusting as needed (altho it seems unlikely). I just didn't want there to be fuel for conflict of interest complaints. Friday(talk)20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why based on your knowledge of the situation and the past history? You feel that Gordon is about to make some positive contributions that involve building a encyclopedia? --Fredrick day20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Coming back after a previous community ban on articles and then a fairly long block, and attempting to have an admin sanctioned for implementing the Community's consensus (which ArbCom explicitly endorsed) and throwing in other things doesn't seem to be a very good behaviour. Combine that with wikilawyering and constant disruption, and I'd think this was a no-brainer. However, since there is an opposition to me closing the discussion for archiving, I have removed the archived discussion tags. SirFozzie20:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me explain, there are too many issues here and I really can't elaborate. The Wikipedia mess of blocking/banning is one reason why I almost decided to leave Wikipedia (check my userpage for explanation). I just think this ban is not justified...for reasons hard to say. I stayed as of now only because all the WikiFriends urged me to. It's time to move on, we are building a database of human knowledge, no need to be fighting, it's the time for the improvement of the encyclopedia. WooyiTalk to me?20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I understand where you're coming from. We are building an encyclopedia here, and that is a totally inclusive thing. We want as many eyes as we can on our work. However, when we take a look at the history of Gordon's edit warring on Terri Schiavo, placing undue weight on a discredited theory, and inability to BUILD a database of human knowledge, unfortunately there is no working with folks. Hopefully that alleviates your concern. SirFozzie20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about peace or fighting, as though those are the two choices we have. It's about removing obstacles to the project. Gordan made himself an obstacle. Friday(talk)20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I understand, but sometimes it's necessary to have the occasional little purge of those who do not wish to build this wonderful, free, neutral database of human knowledge. Those who come here as flamewarriors need to be shown the flame-retardant door. It used to be called ostracism, now it's called banning. It's an idea with history that works pretty well. MoreschiTalk20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what you seem to saying is that you are against on what seem to be POINT reasons rather than the merits of the case? would that be fair to say? If we are building an encyclopedia, why would we want to encourage distruptive unproductive editors who don't assist in that goal? --Fredrick day20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For all intents and purposes, let's just consider Gordon Watts banned. The only instance that he will become unbanned is if an administrator believes that he should be unblocked (or if Jimbo does it himself). I seriously doubt that anyone will be unblocking this user in the near future.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Mr. Watts e-mailed me stating that he believed it was unjust he had been banned under these circumstances. Since he had not had an opportunity to participate in this discussion, I advised him that I would be willing to forward a brief statement from him to this noticeboard. His statement is below. Newyorkbrad21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing since my return to warrant discipline, thus any discipline is unwarranted. (This is "defense.")
Also, it is my right to bring an action as I did. (I defend myself in the action itself:
Now, the offense speaks for itself: My prosecution of the case might not rank alongside with 'smoking gun evidence for a murder' or the like, but a crime is a crime, and, here, in Wiki-Wonder-Land, we still have laws and rules and policy guidelines.
If we throw these to the side simply because we "don't like gordon," then we become a lawless anarchy -or, perhaps, a dictatorship.
For those that "decide" on my case without actually reading it, they are *not* psychic, and this is an insult to my intelligence -and to the supposed "rule of law" we supposedly endorse here is Wiki-Wonder-Worlds or Wonder.
I tried contributing (see my recent edit history), but the continued violations of policy by several admins made me get to the root source, which was Guy.
One LAST thing: Here is proof I am not on a witch-hunt: I did not seek action against Bish or Nande, the other two admins who very recently vandalized my pages: Reasons: I believed in good faith that Guy's false claims about supposed, alleged consensus misled them.
Wikipedia has angered a lot of people. Want a shovel? They need to just dig a little deeper: Dictatorships Government have never worked: (Good thing an admin can't put my in jail, or we'd all be in bad shape.) Why does Wikipedia think that it will be any different: If admins don't follow the same rules they demand of others, it is NO BETTER than a dictatorship -and probably worse.
The fact that a "consensus" of a few admins replaced the more valid consensus of the many who voted in the action (which JzG Guy closed) is "not counting the votes" right -dishonesty.
That is my statement: It is dull, but it is the truth. I stick to it.
Gordon Wayne Watts
complete bollocks of course (I had a similar email as I guess others did) - he tried to get arbcom to take on his ban from various pages and adding links and they rejected it out of hand. The idea that Guy is acting as some form of rogue admin in this matter is just nonsense - there was lots of debate and at the end, even his supporters lost it at the end with his constant wikilawyering. Let's put an end to this here and now. This drama has nothing at all to do with improving or producing an encyclopedia - some editors just don't fit in here, they are incapable of being part of such a project - sad but true. --Fredrick day21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never had any direct interaction with this user before, but he did send me an abusive e-mail a while back after I made a simple, honest mistake. This user is not here to be helpful, and may go down in history as our most prolific Wikilawyer ever. Full support. Grandmasterka22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Deskana. It's telling that his explanation for why he shouldn't be blocked consists solely of attacking someone else, ignoring the actual issues. -Amarkovmoo!00:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked his edit history, and I think he has added some good contents to Schiavo article. Of course there are mistakes, but I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, a caution is enough. WooyiTalk to me?01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The value of the content is actually arguable, but it's also irrelevant: the reasons for the banning include exhaustion of community patience for endless and relentless wikilawyering, the complete unwillingness to follow the most basic guidelines regarding reliable sources, the complete inability to take "no" for an answer, the tireless self-promotion, the king-sized axe-grinding this was all in support of, and the gooey bath of smarmy passive-aggressive false humility it was all coated with. He's also been community-banned from Schiavo articles -- a proper ban, upheld by ArbCom, no matter how much Gordon tries to spin it -- so his contributions, whatever they may be, to Schiavo articles mean even less, since that means that that aspect has already been weighed by the community and found to be insufficient. "Caution" is meaningless, since he's had a month's worth of "caution" (i.e., a block) and his immediate response on his return is a transparently ludicrous and smarmy attempt at revenge with his community-ban proposal against JzG. Enough is enough, and as far as I'm concerned, that point was reached months ago, let alone now. --Calton | Talk01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the explanation, I still really cannot support such a ban. The mess of blocking/banning was one of the reason I almost left Wikipedia. Let's move on. Maybe my reason is kind of pointy, but can't help it. WooyiTalk to me?01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me a ban is justified. While Watts' contributions have some value, there have also been problems with his contributions. However, from what we know about the way he communicates, it is clear we have two options if he is not banned: (1) just let him do whatever he wants or (2) engage in endless wikilawyering. Neither one is acceptable. Wooyi, your well-meaning "caution" would simply lead to him challenging it and then discussing it with you at length and drawing in other editors for a month, not in him taking it as a legitimate concern. The same kind of thing has happened too many times for us to ignore that, IMO. Mangojuicetalk03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what Wikipedia is for.It's like this: GordonWatts thinks he is right, and he also thinks he should be allowed to link his own site to the Schiavo article. We've tried reasoning with him, we've tried telling him outright that his edits fail WP:NPOV, we've tried being nice to him, we've tried being firm with him, we've tried restricting him from the articles he disrupts, but none of that works because Watts is absolutely convinced that he is right and anyone who disagrees is therefore necessarily wrong. Worse, he will epxlain to you why he is right and you are wrong at incredible length, and go on doing so until you die of boredom or lose patience with him - either of which results in him becoming even more convinced that he is right. The one thing he absolutely will not do, however often and however firmly he is asked, is to drop the stick and step away from the horse. And that, as noted above, makes his presence on Wikipedia intolerably disruptive. He absolutely will not accept consensus where it conflicts with his agenda, and he absolutely will not shut up about it until he gets what he wants. And at some point - this being, I think, that point - we just have to say sorry, Gordon, we are simply not interested any more. Actually, this is so blindingly obvious by now that I cannot imagine why we are still being sucked into Watts' endless Wikilawyering. We have bent over backwards to be fair to him - so far backwards that at times we have been in danger of sticking our heads up our own arses - and nothing has changed, Watts still thinks he's right, still asserts his right to keep doing the things that exhausted everybody's patience before, and still seems to think that Wikipedia is the place to Right Great Wrongs. He also seems to think we are in a court of law, or are legalistically regulated. We're not. This is a volunteer-run project, and those who come here to pursue an agenda and obdurately refuse to work collaboratively and consensually with other volunteers, get shown the door. Usually a lot sooner than this. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been involved in the Schiavo articles, but I've seen this user's disruptions to the community for the past two years. There is no longer a prospect that the user will change his behavior and the community needs to accept that fact. We've been very patient. It's time to put this behind us. ·:·Will Beback·:·11:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Wikipedia from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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." SirFozzie19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Returned from an indefinite block due to his persistant legal threats, Merkey has been singularly unable or unwilling to remain civil and assume good faith with other contributors.
In his short time back, he has engaged in stale revert wars at Cherokee and Mountain Meadows massacre. He has additionally created a BLP-violating hit-piece on one of his political opponents - David Cornsilk. In doing so, he has remained singularly unable to do anything but fight, even with users (such as myself) who have not expressed a preference either way regarding the topics he cares so desperately about.
In attempting to discuss this with Merkey, he is instantly beligerant - accusing any and all users who disagree with him of being "trolls" "SCOX trolls" "well-known trolls," and the like.
Merkey is also generally unable to assume good faith. In response to an edit conflict in which a comment of his was accidentally removed, he stated "You removed a comment from a talk page then disguised it as a request for page protection. I tend to see things the way they are rather than how people wish to see them. You are trolling, IMHO. Troll elsewhere and stop wikistalking me." Of course, the "removal" was a bog-normal edit conflict.
This is a pattern of behavior that shows no signs of abating, no signs of changing. Merkey is not here to build an encyclopedia - he is here to play internet fight with his opponents, and push his POV on article relating to his political struggles. While the behavior of some individuals harassing him has been innapropriate and unnaceptable, there is no evidence that Merkey is remotely interested in working on the encyclopedia.
The community should place Merkey under standard civility and revert probation - preventing him from reverting any change (including vandalism, as he has demonstrated an inability to tell "vandalism" from "people I dislike") more than once per day, and providing that any adminstrator can block him for any violation of civility for 24 hours, extending to one month after the third such block, one year after fourth and indef on the fifth.
Because this situtation does not require substantial fact finding, I am hopefull the community can impose this protective measure, which in no way prohibits whatever useful cooperative editing Merkey might choose to do, without the difficulty of a long, drawn out arbitration with a foregone conclusion (single purpose trolls get banned, Merkey is either banned or gets civility and revert probation).
Given his obvious good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia I would recommend dispute resolution processes possibly leading to arbcom restrictions of the type proposed by Hipocrite, but would oppose these restrictions being imposed by the community. Such restrictions when imposed by arbcom tend to be more effective and would be more appropriate in this particular case, SqueakBox17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in general with SqueakBox, with a bit of caution for Jeffrey with a request to WP:AGF more in the future. Yes there are users who are here in general to wind him up, but that is not all of the people who are disagreeing with him. SirFozzie17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had an epiphany today after interacting with FYCTravis about the use of various terms on Wikipedia, such as the definition of "bad faith" used here, which differs significantly from the legal use of the word I am familiar with. It appears part of this is my own understanding of the pecking order on Wikipedia and its interpretation. As far as Hipocrtie goes, I would like a reciprocal sanction, with Hipocrite staying away from me permanently. His temper explosions are dificult for me to deal with. I have run companies with upwards of 500 people reporting to me and I have generated over 10 billion dollars in revenue for various companies over the years, so I am not a stupid or brash person. I have a lot of experience both dealing with others and managing others. That being said, Cabal attacks and agendas aside (which this post by him appears to me to be just that, but I will attempt to AGF here), I think I can work on these issues and fit in. I have a lot of folks who troll me around the internet just to get money from me or push me away out of jealousy and I have a hard time sorting these folks out from those of true good will. This has caused me to always assume the worst about people, and I have a sixth sense about what motivates others subconsciously. This case feels like some sort of jealousy, but I have to try to AGF no matter what my past conditioning. Part of my frustration are the double standards I encounter in this English Wikipedia. Rules are rules, and they should be absolutes and apply to everone equally, not subject to change beause enough people "wikiality" them away or bend them for others. That's my major complaint about the English Wikipedia -- a lack of consistency. At any rate, FYCTravis helped me see some things from a different perspective today, which I appreciate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to the post by Hipocrite, David Cornsilk is not a political rival, he is a Cherokee Brother. Hipocrtie does not undersand our society if he makes such a statements. We view ourselves as brothers and sisters always. This statement is so far from reality its sad. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merkey specifically asked to return to the English Wikipedia because he wanted to correct what he said was erroneous information in articles about the Cherokee. His first 70 or so edits were on Cherokee articles or his own user page, but then he started making accusations of trolling and sockpuppetry onto other users' pages (sans any checkuser results, I might add).
On 4 May 2007, Merkey made a series of edits to Eric Schmidt's biography, in gross violation of WP:BLP, placing unsourced or badly-out-of-context quotes into the article. Merkey's defense of his libelous statements was, paraphrased, "I worked at novell, I have inside knowledge, you can find this information if you look hard enough."
From his behaviour on the Eric Schmidt and Mountain Meadows Massacre pages, and his "non Cherokee people are not allowed to edit articles about the Cherokee, no matter how well-cited their edits are" attitude, I perceive a serious case of axe-grinding.
I agree with Hipocrite, that he should be prevented from reverting others' changes. I'm not sure how that's 100% possible, since the difference between a revert and a cut-n-paste is which keys you press, even though the end result can be the same.
I would further support a ban on Jeff editing any article that does not directly relate to the Cherokee; that was his stated reason for wanting to return, so let him edit those articles, but leave the previous indef ban in place for the rest of English Wikipedia for his ludicrous legal threats and his libelous statements made on Wikipedia and elsewhere, including merkeylaw.com. Whether such a ban can be enforced by completely automated means, or a bot has to do a daily dump of his contributions for a human to examine, I don't know, but I think it's an excellent idea to hold him to his word and keep him off everything but the Cherokee pages. Pfagerburg19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some of the threads at WP:AN/I, Jeff is better described as the victim than the party at fault. Have the early stages of dispute resolution been tried since his return? Is there anyone willing to act as a mentor? (I do think an experienced mentor could be a help here.) GRBerry20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an experienced adminstrator were willing to act as a critical mentor, with the authority to use tools as they deemed necessary (unconstrained by standard blocking policy), per other mentorship agreements, I believe that would solve the problem. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentoring sounds a good idea to me, it would be nice to see some kind of dispute resolution between Jeffrey and Hipocrite happen as well, SqueakBox20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If merkey wishes to make his accusations that I am a troll, following him around with the intent to harass and what not against me, he can certainly file an RFC. In fact, if you'd like to file that RFC for him, I would be happy to comment on both your conduct and his conduct. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[You] referring to who precisely? I personally think an Rfc would not be appropriate at this time but mediation to clear any bad blood between Jeffrey and Hipocrite could be very positive, SqueakBox20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You refering to you, Squeakbox. I have comments. I will engage in no mediation with either you or Merkey, as there is no issue to mediate. Hipocrite - «Talk»20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly unaware of having any issues with you, Hipocrite, and wasnt suggesting mediation with yourself. My only desire here is to ensure that Jeffrey continues editing in positive ways, SqueakBox20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to close my part of this discussion with my findings after examing all the facts here, as a neutral party as much as I can.
1. The encyclopedia anyone can edit is just that. There are no requirements for any consideration for my rights to edit here based upon representations made by the foundation to the general public.
2. There are a large number of trolls on SCOX who have followed me to this site. Their general message seems to be, "we are here to save you from Merkey" or messages to that affect. They approached me before I edited on this project in forays on SCOX and Groklaw they would post an article about me on Wikipedia unless I did "X" or "Y" or some other thing, then proceeded to do so and use it a platform for extortion. Almost all of these folks at some point or another sent emails or letters or other demands for money or favor or jobs or some other huey, claiming everything from back pay and percentages of profits for various projects, to be cut in on ownership of companies or other nonsense.
3. It's a repeatable pattern. Someone lays in wait gathering up "Drudge Report" nonsense, then tries through simply yelling louder than I do on a blog or wiki somewhere to get me "under someone's thumb" in exchange for some online "privilege" like editing -- usually with the end goal of getting close enough to me to hit me up for money or some other subtle form of control.
4. This most recent event involved Hipocrite gathering a hit list with edits before anything occurred, then revert ambush wars and logging the results. This seems a little spooky and creepy to me. I note one comment where he is "saving Wikipedia from Merkey" or words to that affect. Needless to say, I've heard this before.
5. As for saving Wikipedia, I donate many thousands of dollars to the project and plan to continue to do so. I think I am "helping Wikipedia" already, and I am under no obligation to do so nor is any consideration required for the same right to edit as advertised by the Foundation as anyone else.
Given these facts, I consider this posting at the community sanctions board to be an attempt to require consideration for editing, i.e. an admin with Hipocrite holding his leash to follow me around to deal with the trolls and scammers trying to either rile me up for entertainment purposes or disrupt editing to gain control of articles or me. I have to decline to go along with Hipocrites charade to protect the freedom of the project. I already know what to do to resolve most of this and I think I am doing it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to work out what you are saying here. I don't understand what you mean. People are blackmailing you? Who has done this to you? If it's true, it sounds outrageous. Have you reported them to authorities? ChurchOfTheOtherGods01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely puzzled as to why you keep bringing up your purported donations to wikipedia. Does wikipedia grant immunity from policies to anyone who makes a donation? Are you arguing that you should be treated differently to any other editor because you have donated? What exactly is your point? ChurchOfTheOtherGods01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation Policies are preemptive over this project. It's not a community. No community I know of has drumhead trials and executes its members arbitrarily except for primitive societies with no concept of human rights. Wikipedia is a project, not a community. You understand full well what I mean, and no, we are not all equals here, except for our equal right to edit based on Wikimedia Foundation Policy, and that settles the matter. I have actual content to work on this evening for a company I am launching. Have a great evening. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
