Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive12
Block review of Peroxisome
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Consensus is that an indefinite block is not appropriate and the checkuser request has not produced evidence of sockpuppetry. Accordingly, I am lifting the block to take into account the five days this editor has already been blocked. Sandstein 11:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Peroxisome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely by Raul654 (talk · contribs) for trolling an article talk page. Peroxisome has requested to be unblocked, arguing that what he did was merely presenting his arguments. The unblock request has gone unreviewed for nearly 24 hours. This seems to indicate that deciding whether or not this block was appropriate is a somewhat complicated matter that requires the attention of more editors. This board seems to be a good place to gather consensus on this. Please also read the blocked user's talk page for any arguments he may offer in his defence. This is a procedural post; I have no opinion (yet) on the merits of the block. Sandstein 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Additional note: like the above thread, this involves the article Steven Milloy. Sandstein 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dang. What is it about Milloy that brings out such love in people. I've never even heard of the guy (guess I need to watch more TV). Anyway, while Peroxisome focuses almost exclusively upon the Steven Milloy and John Brignell pages, I am not seeing enough strong evidence to convince me that Peroxisome is a troll. In fact, I see where issues raised by Peroxisome with regards to the article have been addressed by editors who disagree with him (such as Mastcell at [1]) and that Peroxisome appears to be part of a edit dispute over this article. While Peroxisome has made borderline legal threats[2], I'm not sure there's enough there for an indefinite block. In addition, since Raul654 has edited the Milloy article a few times, I wish he'd let someone else block Peroxisome because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. So I'd say lift the block.--Alabamaboy 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from a non-neutral editor: While Peroxisome (like NCdave) has occasionally raised very valid issues about the article, they are drowned out (particularly recently) by accusations of defamation and plain argumentativeness. This thread comes to mind; when it became clear that he hadn't actually read the source he was arguing endlessly about, he changed the subject and kept arguing. His posts and edit summaries tend to contain legal threats and accusations of dishonesty ([3], [4], [5]), and he consistently accuses editors of defamation ([6], [7]), without troubling himself to bring it up at WP:BLP/N as has been repeatedly suggested. He has the de rigeur 3RR blocks (though none recently, I should note). Would I have blocked him for his behavior, were I an uninvolved admin? Probably not. Am I sorry to see him blocked? Not at all; he seems to revel in provoking a reaction and his constructive input is far outweighed by his approach, in my opinion. Let me be clear: I welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, because without them the article tends to drift too far in one direction. But NCdave, and to a lesser extent Peroxisome, are not hapless editors being persecuted for holding a minority viewpoint. Their behavior in advancing that viewpoint is at issue. That's my 2 cents as an involved and obviously non-neutral editor; I'm glad that this is up here, though, because I would prefer to see some objective feedback about this block. MastCell Talk 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, MastCell's accusation that I have been pushing my POV is untrue. I have always sought to make the Milloy page (and every other article to which I've contributed) balanced and neutral. MastCell does not welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, he routinely deletes information that does not support his POV. In contrast, I rarely delete anything, I just try to make the article factual and balanced, and include both sides of each issue. NCdave 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unblock, I reviewed his comments on the talk page in question and it does not appear to be trolling to me, I honestly think those are his thoughts, regardless, it is a pure judgement call. Additionally, the fact that admin who blocked him was actively engaged in the discussion and editting of the article is I believe a clear violation of the rules and calls for an immediate unblock. Don't they de-admin people for that? --Theblog 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support changing to temporary block. Like the above two editors, I am involved in the dispute and non-neutral. I was a bit surprised to see an indefinite block dropped on him (though I'm still a newbie, and maybe this is standard practice in cases like these). I support a temporary block to allow him another chance, but I do think that it should be some sort of longish block. I agree that in the past he made some useful contributions to the article, but as of late he's been nothing but tendentious. Arguing ad nauseum that 1 + 1 does not, in fact, equal 2—as he was doing in this thread—is not useful, doesn't help the project, and is only disruptive. Action against such behaviour is called for, though perhaps not as strong the one that was doled out. Yilloslime 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. While Peroxisome's behavior over at Steven Milloy has been less than helpful, NCdave's conduct was much worse. The fact that NCdave only got a topic ban for his bad behavior, reinforces my view that Peroxisome's full-site-forever ban is too harsh. I favor instead a topic ban like that issued for NCdave, or a shorter site-wide block. If, however, the suspicion of sockpuppetry on part of peroxisome turns out to be founded, then I would favor the indefinite site-wide ban.Yilloslime 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support changing to temporary block. I'm also involved. I don't find Peroxisome at all helpful, and he's clearly a single-purpose campaigner (I've also encountered him on these topics outside Wikipedia). Still, I'd prefer to reserve permanent blocks as a last resort, for cases like that of NCDave.JQ 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support changing to temporary block per Yilloslime and JQ. Unlike the case of NCDave, there is a non-negligible possibility that Peroxisome could become a constructive editor. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I almost unblock this fellow earlier, but I couldn't get a good enough handle on the contentious article in question. I'd support making it a shorter block. --Haemo 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support indef on the basis of this post.[8] Would agree with shortening it if the editor withdraws it and pledges to stop posting legalistic arguments. DurovaCharge! 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did ask him to stop with the charges of defamation (or go to WP:BLP/N), and this was his response. Of course, maybe the community will have better luck. MastCell Talk 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- What is your complaint about this post by Perosisome, Durova? It is a very gentle and polite explanation of one of the reasons for his article contributions. The warning tag about WP:BLP says, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Are you suggesting that it is some kind of offense to allude to that policy in polite Talk page comments? Peroxisome's measured comments are well-taken and reasonable. NCdave 08:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Given how often and opportunistically the BLP card has been played, I feel compelled to point out that WP:BLP also says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MastCell Talk 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- And if it isn't it doesn't. NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Given how often and opportunistically the BLP card has been played, I feel compelled to point out that WP:BLP also says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MastCell Talk 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- What is your complaint about this post by Perosisome, Durova? It is a very gentle and polite explanation of one of the reasons for his article contributions. The warning tag about WP:BLP says, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Are you suggesting that it is some kind of offense to allude to that policy in polite Talk page comments? Peroxisome's measured comments are well-taken and reasonable. NCdave 08:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did ask him to stop with the charges of defamation (or go to WP:BLP/N), and this was his response. Of course, maybe the community will have better luck. MastCell Talk 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note that Peroxisome has commented on this thread on his talk page. MastCell Talk 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note regarding abusive sockpuppetry: I asked Peroxisome directly whether he had any connection to the two brand-new accounts which commented on NCdave's proposed ban above. This was his (non-)answer. I asked him again and got another evasive response. I have filed a checkuser request. MastCell Talk 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I banned Peroxisome from commenting at my blog, and he returned using several sock puppets, so he has form here. --TimLambert 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tim, were I a betting man, I would bet serious money that Peroxisome has not engaged in sockpuppetry. I, too, have been falsely accused of sockpuppetry, which I've never done. It is wrong to voice mere suspicions as outright accusations. Your buddy. MastCell, is an admin, and has the ability to track down IP addresses and determine which ones are sock puppets. You should do such checks before you make potentially erroneous accusations.
- MastCell says that he is doing a "checkuser request," which I presume is a check of IP addresses and user names, to identify sock puppets. I don't know how long that takes, or how it works, but I hope you will encourage him to share the results here.
- Also, I note that one of of the two accounts that MastCell calls "brand-new accounts" has actually been around since 2006. How is that brand-new? NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The vast majority of admins can't do a checkuser. Because of privacy concerns (among other reasons), checkuser tools are authorized for only a very small number of people. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- NCdave, I don't have the ability to check IP addresses. The check will be performed by an outside editor. I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peroxisome, where the results will be visible to anyone who cares to look. Those accounts belong to an experienced user; few people are directly involved in this issue enough to care to use socks to comment; Peroxisome just happens to be blocked at the moment; and he's persistently evaded and danced around a direct question regarding the accounts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there are clearly grounds to look into the issue of sockpuppetry. MastCell Talk 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Thank you for that information. I look forward to the answer when it arrives. Will you post it here? NCdave 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. The checkuser report indicates that Peroxisome is unrelated to the two new accounts which commented on the above thread. MastCell Talk 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Thank you for that information. I look forward to the answer when it arrives. Will you post it here? NCdave 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- NCdave, I don't have the ability to check IP addresses. The check will be performed by an outside editor. I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peroxisome, where the results will be visible to anyone who cares to look. Those accounts belong to an experienced user; few people are directly involved in this issue enough to care to use socks to comment; Peroxisome just happens to be blocked at the moment; and he's persistently evaded and danced around a direct question regarding the accounts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there are clearly grounds to look into the issue of sockpuppetry. MastCell Talk 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The vast majority of admins can't do a checkuser. Because of privacy concerns (among other reasons), checkuser tools are authorized for only a very small number of people. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Lift the block. Peroxisome is a careful and uniformly reasonable editor, certainly never a troll. He raised very legitimate issues about the article in question, but was routinely reverted and insulted by MastCell and others. MastCell has an axe to grind, because when MastCell did six reverts of the article on the same day, Peroxisome filed a 3RR complaint against MastCell. NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Me again? I didn't block Peroxisome, I didn't discuss his block on- or off-wiki with Raul654, and I made it explicit, in my comment here, that I am not neutral on the subject of Peroxisome. I realize that you've relied on singling me out and attacking me in your 3RR violations, your unblock requests, and your topic-ban discussion. People might give more credence to your position that Peroxisome should be unblocked if you tried a different approach here. MastCell Talk 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Action? This thread appears to be circling the drain. In the interest of a speedy and fair resolution for Peroxisome, I'll note that checkuser did not indicate he's engaged in sockpuppetry, and there appears to be a consensus, even among editors in conflict with him, to lift or shorten his block. As a side note: I'm asking any uninvolved admin who is watching this thread or considering unblocking Peroxisome to please keep an eye on the situation after doing so. There are real issues here, though an indefinite block may not be the appropriate response at this time, and I'd like some outside, uninvolved eyes on the situation going forward. MastCell Talk 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
THF
editOverturning community ban on User:Willy on Wheels
edit
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, stating, "As the underlying dispute has been satisfactorily resolved by the community, and as no evidence of bad-faith actions by any party has been presented, this case is closed with no further actions being taken." This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to dismiss the Arbitration case entitled "Vision Thing". This has been passed with the rationale that there is a lack of usable evidence. For the arbitration committe, Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case has closed. The remedy is as follows:
The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.
The full case decision is here.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
United States House of Representatives
editIsarig
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
User agreed to mentorship and topic ban, has apologized via e-mail, and is willing to work with the volunteer mentors. -- Avi 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Isarig (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
User:Isarig has been a notable revert warrior here on Israel-related articles for two years. When not at WP:AN/3RR as an offender, he is there reporting editors who have mutually violated 3RR alongside him in edit wars (a sort of kamikaze edit warring followed by quickly 3RR reporting his opponent). He was recently blocked for one week for extensive warring at House demolition, but un-blocked two days early for promising to cease his perpetual edit warring. Despite the aforementioned leniency in his most recent block, it was discovered via CheckUser that Isarig has moved from edit-warring on his main account to edit-warring with the assistance of sockpuppets. Isarig unapologetically continues his edit war here on Wikipedia, treating Israel-Palestine and Arab-Israeli conflict related articles as a battleground (going so far as to accuse other editors of participating in Hamas' kidnappings amongst other incivility and personal attacks), and has now moved to evasive means of disruption (sockpuppetry) after promising administrators he would cease his edit wars. I used the phrase "moved on to sockpuppetry" loosely, as he has been using socks to revert to his preferred versions long before this most recent incident.
Warning users against gaming 3RR using a sockpuppet you yourself are using to game 3RR goes beyond "bad behavior"; this is active and concerted disruption. This is also deliberate deception and a malevolent use of Wikipedia as a battleground. I hold that Isarig has exhausted the community's patience, and should be community banned. If not completely community banned, I propose a topic ban on Isarig (and any accounts operated by Isarig) against editing any articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and greater Arab-Israeli conflict. Submitted by Italiavivi 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC).
- Support full ban. If no community consensus for a full ban, a topic ban from articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts. Italiavivi 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ban. Were it not for the sockpuppetry, I would more strongly support a topic ban; as it is, I will support either but IMO a full ban is indicated. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's evident that other policy measures have failed here and other editors are being affected outwith the topic space by 3RR bans brought about due to Isarig. Chris Cunningham 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this is not "Wikipedia users for deletion"; I ask the preceding users to consider
striking out their pseudo-voteselaborating on their reasoning. Has anyone considered the idea of mentorship? Might Isarig be willing to be mentored voluntarily? Eleland 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, and are not used unless there is no other way to stop disruptive behavior. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first. Isarig agreed to cease his edit warring, then immediately resumed his edit warring with a sockpuppet account. I don't see how mentorship solves this kind of willful disruption; he has shown a willingness to be deceptive and evasive in continuing his edit warring. Since blocks are only preventative and not punitive, this is the only measure for those exhausted by Isarig's prolonged campaign here. I do, truly, believe the community to be exhausted with his war and have raised the issue in this (appropriate) venue. Italiavivi 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ban. I've never seen a chronic 3RR violator and sockpuppet abuser turn into a productive editor. Wikipedia is not therapy. —Ruud 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban (first choice) or a siteban (second choice), given what appears to be the total absence of any sort of learning curve here. Articles dealing with Arab-Israeli issues are highly contentious in the best of hands - having one less incorrigible edit-warrior/POV-pusher/sockpuppeteer at work on them will be a plus for the encyclopedia. If we really believe that Wikipedia is not a battleground, then we need to be willing to take action against editors who insist on treating it as one. Isarig has had plenty of chances and abused whatever slack he's been cut, complete with false promises to reform. I would favor a topic ban initially, though given his track record I would not oppose a siteban. If Isarig is willing to consider mentorship, then the topic ban could be revisited after 6-12 months. MastCell Talk 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who's touched bases with Isarig periodically since last fall, I'm very disappointed to see that he was abusing my good faith and others' by abusing sockpuppets the whole time. This was someone who had impressed me as intelligent and reasonable, yet locked in a nearly insoluble edit conflict because the surrounding issues themselves are so intractable. I may not know how to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, but I do know what to do when an editor games Wikipedia's policies as long as this. Isarig, please respect the community's decision and e-mail me in half a year to ask for reinstatement. I'm supporting this proposal. DurovaCharge! 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- comment - i've been working on Battle of Jenin for quite some time trying to promote the article despite hightened sensitivity and i can only attest that on said article, Isarig's edits (of recent) were on the same level as that of other involved editors such as User:Eleland or User:PalestineRemembered who decided to participate here (i believe PR should not make block votes on such issues considering he was just nominated for one and was assigned a mentor that was userchecked as a sock). anyways, at least accoring to the statments made here, it seems that Isarig has crossed a few lines, esp. if he has been war editing after a one week ban. i think that at least he should be given a chance to respond before any sanction is given and i suggest, perhaps, that a single mentor could be assigned both to him and to PR (who's CSN case should be reopened)... for the sake of neutrality. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there is actionable evidence against someone else participating in this discussion, by all means act on it. I will be the very first to come support you if you have evidence against any editor as damning and blatant as what Isarig has been doing. This is not about any single incident or conflict, whether it is Isarig's most recent conflict or conflicts from two years ago. There is an unabashed pattern of eagerness to battleground on Isarig's part, topped off with false promises of reform followed by sockpuppetry. Italiavivi 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am recusing myself from expressing an opinion here. But I would invite people to read any part of Talk:Battle of Jenin to see huge problems with this article and how it's been impossible to improve it. I don't recall ever seeing an article so poor (though in this example, Isarig may not be the worst culprit). PalestineRemembered 08:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there is actionable evidence against someone else participating in this discussion, by all means act on it. I will be the very first to come support you if you have evidence against any editor as damning and blatant as what Isarig has been doing. This is not about any single incident or conflict, whether it is Isarig's most recent conflict or conflicts from two years ago. There is an unabashed pattern of eagerness to battleground on Isarig's part, topped off with false promises of reform followed by sockpuppetry. Italiavivi 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ban They had agreed to stop edit warring on 04:02, 7 November 2006. Since then they have been doing just the opposite. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support topic ban at minimum; will support full ban if such is the community consensus. A one-week block is clearly not sufficient punishment under these circumstances. CJCurrie 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The intent is not to "punish" Isarig, but to free the project from a disruptive influence. Raymond Arritt 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ban per User:MastCell, User:Durova, and User:FayssalF. Raymond Arritt 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse full ban, per the Puppy. This kind of disruption would usually merit only a topic ban by itself. But when you use a sock to engage in gross edit-warring on a very sensitive topic, you're effectively telling the community the rules don't apply to you. Fine then--he can't play at all. Blueboy96 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Full Ban Disruptive editor and has given little to the project. The Use of sockpuppets to further disruption and edit waring gives me great pause.Æon Insanity Now! 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Mentorship prior to ban. As I suggested with regards to PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) I think that before we ban anyone, even from topics, we need to try mentorship. This particular subject is extremely prone to being a tinderbox, and unless we are going to start getting equally draconian with all involved editors, I think that allowing for mentorship, and the possibility, however remote, of allowing for gainful contributions to the project needs to be investigated and implemented. Should the mentorship fail, it is very easy to bring user:Isarig or user:PalestineRemembered or anyone back here to the noticeboard. Everyone should get a chance to be helped with how to handle the strong emotions that this (and similar) topics engender. Only failing another's guidance and help should we be breaking out the banhammer. -- Avi 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Isarig has actively deceived administrators who have given him chances for help or leniency in the past. I do not support mentorship for him at all, he has exhausted good-faith leniency already and abused it to the fullest extent (sockpuppetry). If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you. Italiavivi 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Italiavivi, perhaps I am misreading you, but the tone of your edits seem to be becoming less and less interested in protecting the project, and more and more reminiscent of a personal grudge against this editor. “If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you.” is the type of statement someone with an axe to grind would make, not someone who is truly interested in the continuance and betterment of wikipedia. WP:CSN is neither meant to be a witchhunt nor a venue for personal schadenfreude. It is where editors, including adminsitrators, arbtors, etc., come together to decide on the best option for protecting the project. Your, mine, Jimbo's, or Willy on Wheel's personal opinions on user:Isarig are, for the most part, irrelevant. If the project feels that the possibility of mentorship is warranted, it will be applied, and if not not. You, in particular, should not have much to worry about, as if you are so convinced that Israig is incapable of correcting his recidivism, he will be brough back here soon enough. And if Isarig CAN prevent himself from being brought back here, and edits constrcutively, then your opinion will in hindsight be incorrect, and wouldn't you want not to be responsible for the improper banning of any editor? I see you in a win-win situation should mentorship be extended, except if you have a personal vendetta in mind, which I hope neither you nor anyone has. -- Avi 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I will support of ban of anyone who has done the following: 1) edit warred extensively, reaching the point of multiple one-week blocks 2) who then agrees to reform 3) and then immediately resumes their edit warring through the abusive use of socks. I don't appreciate the wholly unwarranted impugning of my participation ("axe to grind," "personal vendetta," etc). If PalestineRemembered or any other editor undertakes the type of war Isarig has, I will support their ban wholeheartedly regardless of the editor. Italiavivi 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Italiavivi, perhaps I am misreading you, but the tone of your edits seem to be becoming less and less interested in protecting the project, and more and more reminiscent of a personal grudge against this editor. “If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you.” is the type of statement someone with an axe to grind would make, not someone who is truly interested in the continuance and betterment of wikipedia. WP:CSN is neither meant to be a witchhunt nor a venue for personal schadenfreude. It is where editors, including adminsitrators, arbtors, etc., come together to decide on the best option for protecting the project. Your, mine, Jimbo's, or Willy on Wheel's personal opinions on user:Isarig are, for the most part, irrelevant. If the project feels that the possibility of mentorship is warranted, it will be applied, and if not not. You, in particular, should not have much to worry about, as if you are so convinced that Israig is incapable of correcting his recidivism, he will be brough back here soon enough. And if Isarig CAN prevent himself from being brought back here, and edits constrcutively, then your opinion will in hindsight be incorrect, and wouldn't you want not to be responsible for the improper banning of any editor? I see you in a win-win situation should mentorship be extended, except if you have a personal vendetta in mind, which I hope neither you nor anyone has. -- Avi 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Isarig has actively deceived administrators who have given him chances for help or leniency in the past. I do not support mentorship for him at all, he has exhausted good-faith leniency already and abused it to the fullest extent (sockpuppetry). If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you. Italiavivi 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't support the ban in this instance. I agree that Isarig can be a disruptive editor, but there's been no form of dispute resolution here. I would like to see a user conduct RfC on the matter before I would even consider endorsing a ban. Some form of mentorship would most probably be a good idea here, if it doesn't work we can always re-evaluate the situation and ban him at a later date - attempts at taming a problematic editor are better than outcasting them. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I totally agree with your principles here: mentorship would be ideal. However, skilled mentors are a limited resource; mentoring a problem user consumes quite a bit of volunteer and community resources. Yes, if an experienced user steps forward willing to mentor Isarig, that would be best. But if we can't find a good mentor, then I think a ban (at least a 6-12 month topic ban) is appropriate. A user-conduct RfC is designed to solicit the feedback of uninvovled editors - here, that feedback has generally supported sanctions. User-conduct RfC's are only effective if there's reason to believe that the editor in question is open to feedback. In this case, it's clear that Isarig knows the rules and is repeatedly and intentionally ignoring them. I don't see how collecting a bunch of editors to tell him something he already knows will change things. But then I tend toward cynicism. MastCell Talk 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- A topic ban in this case would probably be a very good idea. I think a six month Israeli related article ban should be enforced with blocks of upto one week each time he edits them. Community 1RR should also be applied, again enforcable with blocks of 1 week each time it is broken. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I totally agree with your principles here: mentorship would be ideal. However, skilled mentors are a limited resource; mentoring a problem user consumes quite a bit of volunteer and community resources. Yes, if an experienced user steps forward willing to mentor Isarig, that would be best. But if we can't find a good mentor, then I think a ban (at least a 6-12 month topic ban) is appropriate. A user-conduct RfC is designed to solicit the feedback of uninvovled editors - here, that feedback has generally supported sanctions. User-conduct RfC's are only effective if there's reason to believe that the editor in question is open to feedback. In this case, it's clear that Isarig knows the rules and is repeatedly and intentionally ignoring them. I don't see how collecting a bunch of editors to tell him something he already knows will change things. But then I tend toward cynicism. MastCell Talk 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ban, either full, or at the very least topic ban, for not less than 6 months. This is not about dispute resolution; it is about constant and unapologetic contempt for the rules. This user has been extremely disruptive for years now, and his use of sockpuppets has shown clearly that his constant wikilawyering and harping on the rules has been little more than hypocritical trolling. He is always the first to file 3RR reports against users whom he is engaged in edit wars with, even though his own fourth revert comes within an hour or two after the 24hr deadline. Now we learn that he'd been circumventing that deadline anyway with sockpuppets! In addition, something another user mentioned bears repeating here -- Isarig's contributions to Wikipedia in general have been disruptive rather than productive. Over 80% of his edits in article space is a revert, usually accompanied with a snide edit summary. Rarely does he make an edit that is not politically charged and tendentious -- he never corrects spelling/grammar errors or adds information to articles that is purely factual or descriptive. He constantly deletes well-sourced information from articles. In the talk space, over 80% of his contributions include personal attacks and threats to escalate each content dispute into a WP/ANI report. Again this becomes even more objectionable when accompanied by the hypocrisy of acting like the rules apply to everyone else but not to him. We should not be too surprised about all this in any case. About a year ago I got into a conflict with Isarig because I had the audacity to suggest that paid meatpuppets (i.e. people paid by an agent specifically to make certain edits to Wikipedia) presented a conflict of interest problem and should identify themselves; Isarig's position in the ensuing discussion is quite telling. Basically, he defended the practice, suggesting that paid meatpuppetry presented no greater COI problem than editors with ideological perspectives that influence their editing. Now that I know he was operating sockpuppet accounts specifically for the purpose of violating WP rules that entire time, the vehemence and rudeness of his defense of the equivalent of bribery makes a lot more sense. csloat 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ban I am immensely dismayed by this circus wherein all those people who have traditionally opposed Isarig on Israel-related articles have converged to propose a ban on him. Isarigais a good-faith and prolific editor, and it is apparent that he is being persecuted for POV rather than behavior. This witchhunt must stop now. Beit Or 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good faith editors don't use sockpuppets for edit-warring and committing 3RR violations. Italiavivi 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Suggesting Isarig is being "persecuted" for his POV, or calling this a "witchhunt", is convenient but utterly inaccurate. Isarig has a worse block log than many topic-banned or sitebanned editors, he's abused the trust extended to him by neutral editors, he's shown no signs of improving his behavior despite multiple blocks and warnings, and he's most recently abused sockpuppets to edit-war. MastCell Talk 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good faith editors don't use sockpuppets for edit-warring and committing 3RR violations. Italiavivi 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Mentorship I used to edit the Israeli-Palestinian articles extensively. Although I admit having little experience with Isarig, I can attest to the fact that there is an infuriating sense of lawlessness that permeates every single article in the subject. Good behavior never goes unpunished and activity that would be considered negative and harmful elsewhere is consistently rewarded. It is clear that Isarig has more or less fallen into the same hole many other editors have, but let us not pretend his behavior is abnormal or even out of the ordinary. I hope we not only support mentorship for Isarig, but also for countless other editors who frequent the same articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do not support a ban for this editor. I would second the suggestion for some kind of mentorship above. I would also call for Isarig to admit his mistake and publically apologize and promise not to do it again. Clearly, Isarig he has done wrong things such as the sockpuppets and he should be punished in some way for this. He should certainly be blocked for a time for that behavior, and certainly for longer than any previous blocks. In my experience with Isarig and the editor who left the comment above, CSLOAT, Isarig took some very strong personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and did not give it back as badly as he got it. He did not edit war any more than others. Clearly he could have been more civil, but unfortunately this is a highly highly uncivil environment. We should NOT put the blame only on Isarig here for that incivility. Others have been uncivil, others have been blocked for reverting and edit warring, others may have used sock puppets, etc. This should be a wake up call to everyone involved that the ends do not justify the means, that wikipedia policies are here for a reason, they apply equally to all of us, and if we want to produce good articles here we have to tolerate opposing views and allow the encyclopedia to express them. Bigglove 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ban and support mentorship. The one-week ban that was already imposed seems sufficient, per the banning admin's statement on AN/I. Then if mentorship is imposed in similar kinds of cases, that would be reasonable as well. I agree with some of the comments above, that at least some of the calls for harsher measures seem to be related to content and/or personal disputes. 6SJ7 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- By way of extension, I can't help but wonder if some of the calls for lenience are related to ongoing content disputes. CJCurrie 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Such wondering should be done mentally, unless you have evidence of bad faith. -- Avi 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note that mentorship cannot really be "imposed". It requires a credible, experienced volunteer mentor to step forward and agree to mentor Isarig (see the case of NCdave above). MastCell Talk 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Such wondering should be done mentally, unless you have evidence of bad faith. -- Avi 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- By way of extension, I can't help but wonder if some of the calls for lenience are related to ongoing content disputes. CJCurrie 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ban - sockpuppetry is wrong, but I don't think indefban is warranted. Clearly, some of the calls for harsh measures are coming from Isarig's opponents in content disputes and/or usual conspiracy mongerers. Unfortunately, articles related to Jewish history and religion are not the best example of collaboration in WP. Isarig is far from being the worst offender there. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a two-way street; clearly, some of the calls for leniency are coming from those who share a similar position and ideology with Isarig. Tarc 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. For what it's worth, I see that people who share Isarig's POV are opposing the ban, while those who differ with his POV are supporting it. To be expected. But it's pretty clear, contrary to this being a case of Isarig's opponents or "the usual conspiracy mongers" (?) ganging up on Isarig, most of the really neutral editors (and I would include KillerChihuahua, Durova, Raymond arritt, Aeon1006, Ruud, Thumperward, and Blueboy96 among them - correct me if I'm wrong) have supported the topic ban. I don't think this can be blown off as people re-enacting a POV or content dispute. MastCell Talk 22:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- However, has mentorship ever been tried? I am loathe to jump to a ban without giving this, or any user, an opportunity to ask for, and receive, guidance. A topic ban during the initial stages of mentorship may be appropriate, but being able to be rescided earlier at the mentor's discretion. It is very easy to bring people back here, so I fail to see the downside. -- Avi 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you - mentorship would be ideal, assuming Isarig is interested and a suitable mentor is willing to take him on. If he is mentored, it would probably still be appropriate to have a temporary topic ban (3-6 months?) which could be revisited after that time with input from the mentor (it looks like something similar is going to be tried with NCdave from the above thread). MastCell Talk 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It looked to me like Durova, from what she was saying above, had been informally keeping an eye on Isarig. If so, an experienced admin, whose opinion on these matters I would trust, has spoken out against mentorship. If that impression was inaccurate, then I would change my suggestion below to be morein line with MastCell's, above. Hornplease 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you - mentorship would be ideal, assuming Isarig is interested and a suitable mentor is willing to take him on. If he is mentored, it would probably still be appropriate to have a temporary topic ban (3-6 months?) which could be revisited after that time with input from the mentor (it looks like something similar is going to be tried with NCdave from the above thread). MastCell Talk 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- However, has mentorship ever been tried? I am loathe to jump to a ban without giving this, or any user, an opportunity to ask for, and receive, guidance. A topic ban during the initial stages of mentorship may be appropriate, but being able to be rescided earlier at the mentor's discretion. It is very easy to bring people back here, so I fail to see the downside. -- Avi 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- IMO, a Topic Ban would be the best way to go. (For the record, I've had quite negative dealings with Isarig, but not for several months or so now). Anyways, if a user has been brought to a point where gaming 3RR to the point where sock-puppets are being utilized, then that's a pretty serious problem. Try a removal from all Israeli-Palestinian, Middle East, etc...articles, as these are the focus of the rule-breaking. See if he can redeem himself by editing in another field of interest/hobby/study. If the attitude and corresponding bad actions crop up again, then the idea of a further ban could be brought up. Tarc 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd suppose a topic ban for a set period is worth a try. I would have supported mentorship, but Durova's points above seem to indicate that that is simply inappropriate in this case. Let Isarig demonstrate his willingness to improve the encyclopaedia in areas where he does not feel the need to oppose( what he presumably sees as) trolling, and then the community might feel a measure of trust that he does indeed have WP's interests in mind, and intends to pay more than lip service to its policies and guidelines. (Frankly, all the people arguing that "everyone is bad" in these cases miss the point. Some people are worse, and those that simultaneously abuse the system and use it to their advantage, like several editors have established Isarig has done in this area, are the worst.) For the record, Israel-Palestine articles occupy a tiny fraction of my time here, and do not recall running into this particular editor. Its a pity that this sort of disclaimer is required. Hornplease 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose total ban. I would support a block more limited in temporal and topical scope. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Topic ban for a set period along Hornplease's reasoning. Mentorship could well be a waste of time, as there's hardly anyone on Israel related articles that wouldn't need one. --tickle me 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ban for now Assuming all the evidence is accurate (and apologies for my tone if it is not), I want to say that I am deeply disappointed in Isarig. However, Isarig has been a valuable editor; many editors have contributed almost nothing to WP, and what they contribute is mostly trolling and disruption, and they are usually given the option to be mentored. So I would propose a temporary topic ban, to be lifted when/if a suitable mentor can be found. If any violations of WP:SOCK continue, it would be a matter to reconsider here. IronDuke 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support strict conditions & mentorship; something like 0RR on any Middle East topics would be nice to start with. Evading 3RR with socks is a serious violation, especially for an editor who is so prolific in 3RR reporting of others and so eager to play the "electric fence" game with 4th reverts at 24h:1m. Furthermore, it is clear that pro-Arab editors are held to far higher standards when it comes to revert warring, incivility, et cetera. Yet two wrongs don't make a right; there's something in Canadian law called the faint hope clause and I think it ought to apply even to such disruptive editors. This being said, we need a very sharp mentor indeed, preferably someone who comes from the opposite POV, and there needs to be effective follow-up. If this is not psosible, than reluctantly I have to say community ban. Eleland 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support total indefinite ban Let's not forget that Isarig was a sockpuppeteer, conducted disrupted edited, wikilawyered, and used wikpedia as a battleground. I can post diffs on request. Other sockpuppeteers have been indefinitely banned for doing far less. For example user:Rovoam, user:Buffadren, User:Mark_us_street, user:Bonaparte, user:LIGerasimova, user:Artaxiad. Note that my interaction with Isarig has been minimal although his shotgun reverts of sourced material of other users has kept me away from the Arab-Israeli topics due to the fact that I didn't want to waste time researching and posting something in case Isarig reverts it. I believe he is a serious detriment to the project, not only for his revert waring but preventing other editors from participating in topics for which they may have an interest. Pocopocopocopoco 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Given that all of the examples you list here were banned for multiple sock accounts, almost all of which were used to vandalize and/or violate copyright and/or harass, what you appear to be arguing is that leniency should be shown to Isarig, since his infraction, serious though it was, pales in comparison to your examples. IronDuke 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The examples that I have listed were users that were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry that were far less aggressive with their reverts than Isarig. For exmple, above user:Buffadren wasn't even a major revert warrior but was banned on a suspicion of a conflict of interest. user:Commodore Sloat may have also raised a suspicion of a conflict of interest with Isarig. Pocopocopocopoco 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, every single example you listed was guilty of using multiple socks over multiple articles for long periods of time, and I think all of them were vandals. If you had investigated the matter before you posted, you would have seen that user:Buffadren was shown to be User:Mark_us_street, whom you list as a separate user. It looks very like you have a personal grudge here, and I urge the community to take that into consideration. I also respectfully urge you to be more careful with your accusations. IronDuke 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- So you think you got it all figured out have you? Perhaps you might figure out that I might know something about user:Buffadren if I was wrongly accused of being him and I might have been curious as to who he was? See my user page. He was banned on the suspicion of meatpuppetry and possible conflict of interest. He had the same IP address as user:Mark_us_street because it was believed that they both worked for the same organization the Tiraspol_Times. It is clear that Isarigs behaviour was far worse. You clearly haven't taken the trouble to look into any of this yourself. I take issue with you trying to twist what I have said above as well as well as your accusations that I might have a grudge. I challenge you to prove your accusations of a grudge. I can only conclude that this must be due to a bias that you have, possibly content based, in favour of keeping Isarig. I urge the community to take this into account. Pocopocopocopoco 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I want to make it clear that I'm frankly pissed off with the guy for running socks. This is really not acceptable and he needs some sort of a time out in order to reflect on his participation here. On the pages I've with him, I've never had any reason to believe he was doing this so it has appeared out of the blue. Very disappointing. That being said, I think there are are couple points about this discussion which I think need to be addressed.
- 1) Complaining about Isarig's 3RR reports is bogus self pity. Nobody forces anyone to 3RR, and if you do, and you get blocked for it -too bad. That's not disruption. Look in the mirror, and improve yourself.
- The problem is that Isarig deliberately escalates edit wars in hopes of filing reports. I'm not defending those who have genuinely broken 3RR and been reported by Isarig, but I absolutely condemn his practice of edit-warring with the apparent intent of escalating 3RR violations. Italiavivi 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- 2) Isarig has been called a disruptive editor. I don't think that's entirely true. I think he's argumentative, and I think he sometimes engages in debate farther than he should and he needs to be more civil. OTOH, the ME topics on WP are a mud pit and he's generally much more civil that the people he's arguing with. Here's a recent example, look at Talk:House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where he's referred to as a "troglodyte".
- If an editor who wages frequently wages edit wars (sometimes utilizing sockpuppets) isn't "disruptive," I have no idea what is. Italiavivi 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- 3) I also don't see him stonewalling the inclusion of properly sourced material, or injecting poorly sourced material, as is seemingly routine on these topics. I think it's safe to say he has a pro-Israeli POV, but when he abides by policy, I think he's an asset to the project. The trick it to make sure he does, so I support mentorship, but I don't support a indefinite ban at this point. <<-armon->> 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment on #1 -- nobody here is reporting this for "bogus self pity" reasons; the problem is that Isarig was using illegal sockpuppets for the specific reason of circumventing Wikipedia's 3RR policy, while at the same time using the 3RR as a license and as a battering ram against other users. The issue is not who violated 3RR but rather Isarig's totally hypocritical attitude towards Wikipedia rules. He'd use the 3RR as a license to revert three times every day, with the fourth revert at 24:01 or some such. When he made a mistake and got blocked he'd come back and promise not to do it again. Meanwhile he'd use the 3RR and other rules to get his way on content disputes, reporting and threatening to report anyone who disagreed with him to ANI. All the time he was flagrantly violating these rules, using a sock to evade the 3RR while trying to get others in trouble for it. It really shows his complete contempt for the rules - few have been more self-righteous than Isarig about the Wikipedia rules, yet at the same time, few have been more flagrant in violating them. I think that's the crux of the issue on #1. On #2 and 3 I respectfully disagree, but a debate over those matters is not necessary at this time -- he is not being sanctioned for those particular abuses. csloat 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ban and support mentorship. Banning is a last resort, why not try positive approaches (like mentorship) first? --MPerel 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why should we when the user hasn't even apologized or shown any signs of understanding why what he did was wrong? Lothar of the Hill People 22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote to see who gets banned or who is allowed to stay. You can discuss whether or not he should be allowed to edit, but not treat it as a democratic lynching.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong, it is plain to everyone here that these are not votes. Everyone has expounded on their reasonings with arguments and rationale; the fact that some used bolding to summarize their statements doesn't turn it into a "democratic lynching." Bold text formatting does not equal "voting" and telling people they have to start completely over again just because they have used bolding is unreasonable. Almost every comment in the above discussion has been four lines or more on my 800x600 monitor. This is not voting. Italiavivi 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ban from what I've seen of the user he is highly disruptive and doesn't display any signs of being rehabilitatible. If he shows some sort of contrition or apologizes to the community then perhaps a topic ban can be considered instead but without any sign of even acknowledging that he's violated the community's trust and that he's sorry I see no reason for leniancy. Lothar of the Hill People 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Archival
editWhy was this archived above? Ryulong, I don't think anyone is treating this as a lynching. Certainly there are some flared emotions surrounding Isarig, but I don't think anyone in the above discussion is trying to "lynch" him. I think there are a lot of frustrated users who are upset because Isarig's complete contempt for the rules around here has so far gone unsanctioned. I also don't see how this has been resolved, so I don't think the archiving of the discussion is helpful at this time. But everyone should be clear that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish Isarig or get revenge on him but rather to protect Wikipedia from his abuses. csloat 05:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is an AFD for banning a user. Start it over without the support and oppose.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see your point, I'm sorry. There have been several sanctions suggested above -- total ban, time bound ban, topic ban, time bound topic ban, mentorship.. the above discussion appears to point to various levels of support for various options and some support for a combination of options. csloat 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Saying someone should be banned is not something people should type "*'''Support'''" and "*'''Oppose'''" for. I don't care what sanctions are listed above. They need to be discussed and not voted on like WP:RFA or WP:AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that AFD is not a vote either. In any case, this is a discussion in that people are responding to each other's points and attempting a consensus. Asking each person to repeat his or her argument, but without bolding any text, seems a little absurd to me. Hornplease 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are a lot of processes on this website that are called "not a vote" but in actuality often are. This page is returning to its old ways of driveby bannings, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly most AFDs do not meet the most perfect standards of discussion. That being said, the above discussion does not appear to be a driveby banning at all. A great number of people have objected to an outright permanent ban, and some have called for mentorship; its quite clear that there is engagement and evolution of positions going on. Nobody is likely to claim that the sheer number of votes matter here. What is a drive-by, I'm afraid, is your archiving. Hornplease 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are a lot of processes on this website that are called "not a vote" but in actuality often are. This page is returning to its old ways of driveby bannings, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that AFD is not a vote either. In any case, this is a discussion in that people are responding to each other's points and attempting a consensus. Asking each person to repeat his or her argument, but without bolding any text, seems a little absurd to me. Hornplease 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Saying someone should be banned is not something people should type "*'''Support'''" and "*'''Oppose'''" for. I don't care what sanctions are listed above. They need to be discussed and not voted on like WP:RFA or WP:AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of bolded suggestions here either, however, I don't think the archival in this case is helpful either, those positions appear to be supported by rationales. Thanks, Navou banter 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, it's being treated like AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- So if we go through and un-bold statements of "support" and "oppose" can we keep the discussion? It seems like you're arbitrarily throwing up an obstacle to what appears to be a meaningful discussion about the issues raised and about possible sanctions. csloat 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, it's being treated like AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see your point, I'm sorry. There have been several sanctions suggested above -- total ban, time bound ban, topic ban, time bound topic ban, mentorship.. the above discussion appears to point to various levels of support for various options and some support for a combination of options. csloat 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't a reasonable solution to be to simply un-bold the text? Something more drastic could be to remove all instances of "support" or "oppose" and judging each comment by its rationale. But asking users to "start it over" is being neither productive, nor considerate of other people's time and efforts.Bless sins 08:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What is your suggestion? Or is it like i could do edit war for 2 years + use abusive socks and after that come here where people would use bold text and then comes an admin closing like leave him alone guys, you are lynching him. What's particular about this User? All files here use the same bold system. Any rationale? - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Having read the above, there were dissenting voices raised against a total ban, but the case for a topic ban was not refuted. Some mentioned mentorship but I'm not sure what good this would be for a long-established editor who should be aware of our community standards. Catchpole 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was clear that no consensus to total ban but the question is what is the outcome now? He'd get back in a few days and say hello. Can we guarantee that no use of socks would be accepted? How would you know? Go phishing and being accused of wikistalking? Can we guarantee he'd not use the 3RR as a tactical tool? We haven't arrived to that point and yet the thread has been archived. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm trying not to interfere with the decision-making side of this discussion, but I am startled to see that User:Isarig has apparently never been asked to list the sock-puppets he has created and used. There is a credible sounding allegation that he is operating yet another one, see here. Perhaps disturbingly, this User:Bigglove has come here and contributed to this CSN. (It is also pushing this RfC against CSloat on what appear to me to be trivial grounds, for something CSloat has apologised for). I urge the community to get to the bottom of the serious allegations in this case. PalestineRemembered 08:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I came here to remove my comments from this discussion, only to find the discussion archived. On another page, a user had taken exception to my posting them as I am accused of being the sockpuppet of Isarig. I am not Isarig, but anyone reading my comments in the discussion above should feel free to disregard them given the concern raised by csloat and PalestineRemembered. One would do well to note, however, that in my remarks I did not flinch from condemming Isarig for his policy infractions and calling for his punishment. I will not comment on points CSloat raises concerning the user conduct RFC that I brought regarding CSloat. That discussion is appropriately kept on that project page. Bigglove 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have recused myself from the banning discussion, as I have had a number of feisty exchanges with Isarig. This brief post is only a response to to Armon's above (in the archived discussion), wherein he describes how Isarig is often more civil than his talk-page interlocutors, one of whom recently called him a "troglodyte." I was the author of the post in question, which Armon has badly misunderstood. There was a dispute about whether Isarig had rightly deleted a sentence about Rachel Corrie's death having raised international awareness of Israel's demolition policy on the grounds that it was unsourced. Another editor argued that "only someone living in a cave would not know that Rachel Corrie's death brought world attention to the house demolition issue", therefore it would have been more appropriate for Isarig to add a fact tag to the sentence than to delete it. I came in at that point, offered a source for the "disputed" material (after the seven seconds or so it took me to find one), and invited the "troglodytes" to inspect it "once their pupils have adjusted" to the light. "Troglodyte" literally and etymologically means "cave-dweller" (Latin troglodytae, plural, from Greek trOglodytai, from trOglE hole, cave (akin to Greek trOgein to gnaw, Armenian aracem I lead to pasture, graze) + dyein to enter). Armon presumably did not understand the play on words.--G-Dett 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uhh no, amazingly enough, I did understand your "play on words". Isarig objected to Corrie stuff as being unscourced and soapboxing. After a sterile argument where no one bothered to actually provide a source, you finally did -that's good. Unfortunately, you also peppered it with your incivil "witticisms" -that's bad. <<-armon->> 22:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Consensus?
editDoes anyone disagree that there is a consensus for a combination topic-ban and mentorship? My suggestion:
- A six-month topic ban from Israeli-Palestinian articles combined with mentorship as to how to handle some of the passions it engenders.
- During the duration of the ban, a violation may be reverted on sight and a block (length variable 24 hours to one week - most likely at the discretion of the mentor) applied.
- The ban can be reduced by the mentor should the mentor feel Isarig has shown significant improvement.
- Indefinite limitation to solely the user:Isarig account, even for legitimate reasons. Any violation of this provision should result in a community ban.
Thoughts? -- Avi 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- A little harsh, but basically fair. IronDuke 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it is very difficult to justify abusive use of sockpuppets. Anyway, any implemented suggestions are all subject to reversal through appeal to Arbcom. -- Avi 15:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with IronDuke, harsh but basically fair, we need a good mentor though; and Isarig's agreement to listen to the mentor. Arnoutf 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- An indefinite 1-revert limitation on Isarig would be appropriate. Italiavivi 15:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that is something to be worked out between the mentor and Isarig. Perhaps the mentor will think it appropriate, perhaps not. Regardless, Isarig would not be editing the articles he (and others) were revert-warring on due to the topic ban. In other parts of the encyclopedia, I do not see the need, just yet, for a 1RR limitation. -- Avi 15:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- He has revert-warred extensively elsewhere, especially at media-outlet-related articles. I do not believe his edit warring behavior is limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Italiavivi 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say over 80% of Isarig's edits is a revert. I think a 1RR limitation is perfectly reasonable here. csloat 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then let the mentor decide that. The main issues raised here are inexcusable sockpuppetry and editwarring. I believe that the suggested remedies handle that. Again, subject to the above remedies will place Isarig on a very short leash. Further, I am certain that 3RR violations will be dealt with severely, based on Isarig's history. There is no need to "pile-on" as it were. -- Avi 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very well. I accept your proposal. Italiavivi 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to object to the attempt to frame this as "consensus"; it seems to be pro-Arab and editors lobbying for a ban, versus pro-Israeli editors asking for a topic-ban + mentorship, and neutral editors split more or less evenly. I myself am an exception to the pattern but I can only call it like I see it.
- Moving on, I'm not sure what a topic-ban accomplishes, AFAIK this editor has only ever wanted to edit in that single topic. Again, while I personally oppose a total ban, I have to concede that any pro-Arab editor with half this history would have been banned long ago. Isarig has shown ample ability to game and evade 3RR; I'm certain that if placed on 1RR he would simply move to removing NPOV information, or adding POV information, on dozens of articles at once, one time per article per 24h. I think he has to be forbidden from removing information from Middle East articles, period; I think he has to be required to provide good citations from clearly non-partisan groups for anything he wants to include. This being said I don't actually support an outright topic ban, since it would be equivalent to a full ban for all intents and purposes. Eleland 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- He edits media-related articles and other subjects, too. Also, could you clarify the comment "I have to concede that any pro-Arab editor with half this history would have been banned long ago"? Is this an official approach somewhere? Italiavivi 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have recused myself from contributing to decisions in this case, but I feel that Avi should do the same. He has drawn attention to allegations that have been made against me - and yet he objects to warning people that Teens! (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Clintonesque (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are banned sock-puppets! I feel his conduct could be mistaken for partisanship. And I feel this is particularly worrying in a case like this one, since the discussion concerns the "value" of material in articles, and the integrity of the editors who place it there. There is a lot more at stake in this case than the usual incivility, 3RR, OR, NPOV etc allegations. PalestineRemembered 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- He edits media-related articles and other subjects, too. Also, could you clarify the comment "I have to concede that any pro-Arab editor with half this history would have been banned long ago"? Is this an official approach somewhere? Italiavivi 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, PalestineRemembered, it is allegations such as what you have just made which underscore the need for mentorship. I will save the participants here the bevy of links that would indicate your misunderstanding of the situation. As I said, I personally would be willing to take on mentorship for you; I am afraid you would not accept, however. -- Avi 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that Isarig's sanction should be more lenient because he is pro-Israel rather than pro-Arab? I personally don't think his bias should enter into it one way or another. I would support a full topic ban that he can request to remove in six months (i.e., it doesn't automatically expire), mentorship, and a strict 1RR rule. He needs to learn to edit more constructively -- as I said above, over 80% of his edits seems to be a revert. A willing mentor (preferably one from an opposing POV) can help him edit constructively over time. Additionally, checkuser should be performed occasionally to be sure he is not running socks again. csloat 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think Avi's proposal is a good one. A 6-month topic ban combined with mentorship, sounds fine to me. I think 1RR would be a good addition, but would leave that aspect up to his mentor. I would say that he's on double-secret probation, though - if he's documented to be using socks again, or if he violates the topic ban more than accidentally, or if he shows no improvement at the end of 6 months, then he should be permanently topic- or sitebanned. MastCell Talk 17:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with User:MastCell. It must be very clearly understood that the topic ban and mentorship are the last second chance. Raymond Arritt 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a fair solution; a review-based (ie not automatically expiring) 6-month topical ban with mentorship with the understanding that this is the last "second chance." I hope whoever takes up Isarig's mentorship (should he accept) also imposes 1RR, but that is up to their judgement. Italiavivi 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to give Isarig an opportunity to explain himself and comment on the proposal before a decision is made? I don't know if that opportunity currently exists, given the block. A 6-month topic ban seems a little harsh to me. Maybe it would be better to have a briefer topic ban and give the mentorship a chance to work. I also agree with Avi that any additional restrictions (such as 1RR) should be determined by the mentor, who obviously would have to be a "neutral" party in all senses of the term. 6SJ7 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The way I see it, the topic ban can be reduced in duration if the mentor believes it appropriate. Obviously, this will require a long-term demonstration of substantial improvement on Isarig's part. -- Avi 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Now this I oppose. Six month minimum, lifted upon review. Also, would you add "Arab-Israeli" alongside "Israel-Palestine" in your proposal? Italiavivi 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The ban is not meant to be punitive, but protective of the project, Italiavivi. If, in the mentor's eyes, the project is protected by Isarig's changed behavior, why leave the ban? And yes, I believe "Arab-Israeli" is included. -- Avi 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would interpret the topic ban broadly to mean any remotely controversial article associated with Israeli-Arab relations. That said, I agree with Avi that the topic ban is not punitive per se; if the mentor truly believes Isarig has turned over a new leaf, then the best approach might be to come back here to discuss shortening the ban. If a respected, neutral mentor vouches for Isarig, then it's likely the community would consider shortening it. Alternately, I suppose the ban could be lifted at the discretion of the mentor, though the threshold for re-imposing it for bad behavior should be very low. MastCell Talk 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would also interpret the topic ban broadly enough to include at the very least all of the pages he has been a problem on. As for Isarig being permitted his say, even during his one week ban he can edit his talk page all he wants; one would have expected by now an apology or a comment in response to the blocking message]. There is no guarantee he will be back at all under the circumstances, but if he does come back, I think a 6 month topic ban minimum along with mentoring and a 1RR at the discretion of the mentor would be reasonable, even if he does apologize on his talk page and agree not to do it again -- as we know, he has made such promises before. csloat 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It should not be forgotten or overlooked here that Isarig has apologized and agreed to "reform" several times in the past. Such statements should be taken with a grain of salt, even WP:AGF would not deny this. Italiavivi 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why he is on his last chance -- Avi 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It should not be forgotten or overlooked here that Isarig has apologized and agreed to "reform" several times in the past. Such statements should be taken with a grain of salt, even WP:AGF would not deny this. Italiavivi 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would also interpret the topic ban broadly enough to include at the very least all of the pages he has been a problem on. As for Isarig being permitted his say, even during his one week ban he can edit his talk page all he wants; one would have expected by now an apology or a comment in response to the blocking message]. There is no guarantee he will be back at all under the circumstances, but if he does come back, I think a 6 month topic ban minimum along with mentoring and a 1RR at the discretion of the mentor would be reasonable, even if he does apologize on his talk page and agree not to do it again -- as we know, he has made such promises before. csloat 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would interpret the topic ban broadly to mean any remotely controversial article associated with Israeli-Arab relations. That said, I agree with Avi that the topic ban is not punitive per se; if the mentor truly believes Isarig has turned over a new leaf, then the best approach might be to come back here to discuss shortening the ban. If a respected, neutral mentor vouches for Isarig, then it's likely the community would consider shortening it. Alternately, I suppose the ban could be lifted at the discretion of the mentor, though the threshold for re-imposing it for bad behavior should be very low. MastCell Talk 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As per my opinion above (i.e. he agreed to stop edit warring on 04:02, 7 November 2006), numbers are just numbers -just like the bold votes Ryūlóng referred to. 6 months is just like 1 month just like a year. 2 reverts are just like 3. The question remains. It is about a pattern and patterns cannot be measured. Ryulong is totally right though technically wrong. He should have expressed this view everywhere where admins and editors alike would surely agree w/ him firmly. Isarig's case is just one among hundreds around wikipdia. Recently, i just found two similar case by chance while tracing an unrelated incident at the ANI though low in seriousness. Yes we do find cases but usually no immediate remedy is offered apart from a civil advice. Please read this to get my point. Editors like Sarvagnya are hard to convince or explain to. No, they don't accept notes and advices. They just keep moving w/ false promises most of the time. I am sure there is a leak somewhere and i would believe it is on 3RR policy and how people understand it. They see numbers and that's all. I've just proposed [WP:AN1+n] but no i am a fool! Nobody responds. We move. We say no BATTLE but the BATTLE is the rule and the advice is the exception. Wake up guys. We aren't talking about Isarig here, we are talking about a trend in wikipedia where hundreds of users come here to listen to no one except to themselves. This needs to change. The atmosphere needs a radical change. We need alternative ways and solutions. There's a "wikipedia global warming" and we need to look for renewable energy to make it work longer and longer. I've therefore accepted mentorship along w/ Avi. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would feel more comfortable with this had Avi not already indicated his leniency on the topic ban and 1RR restriction, but are you saying this will be a dual mentor arrangement, ie both you and Avi will be his mentors side-by-side? Italiavivi 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I asked Fayssal to be the sole mentor, and he requested that I help him. I agreed conditional that he be considered lead to ensure appearances of propriety, as my background is more similar to Isarig's than his. -- Avi 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- A dual mentorship means that it is a serious and unbiased business. Otherwise Avi could have done it himself as i trust his judgments. Since i was asked to do it i accepted for the many reasons stated above and thought it may be a good idea to work on it together. I may deal w/ reverts and good advices how to work in harmony w/ different backgrounds of editors and probably Avi w/ POV issues like removing verifiable sources w/o even edit warring or introducing questionable material w/o consensus, incivily, etc... In brief, it is not to restrict anyone's rights to work in Wikipedia but to make sure work is done rightly and according to WP policies and guidelines. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I understand now. You two have come up with a good, reasonable, strict solution. I doubt anyone would oppose you and Avi's joint proposal. Also, I would like to once again re-state my support for User:Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal of a 1RR block-enforceable limitation. Italiavivi 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do sometimes, as many others admins do, block for edit warring even before 3RR is technically violated. So obviously, more than 1RR is already too much in this case. But again, i prefer saying it like "edit warring is bad for Wikipedia so please help us and you'd be helped and help is not abundant." -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think a mentorship with FayssalF and Avi is a great idea, and I hope it works. After this, no one can say he wasn't given every opportunity to improve. <<-armon->> 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I understand now. You two have come up with a good, reasonable, strict solution. I doubt anyone would oppose you and Avi's joint proposal. Also, I would like to once again re-state my support for User:Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal of a 1RR block-enforceable limitation. Italiavivi 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- A dual mentorship means that it is a serious and unbiased business. Otherwise Avi could have done it himself as i trust his judgments. Since i was asked to do it i accepted for the many reasons stated above and thought it may be a good idea to work on it together. I may deal w/ reverts and good advices how to work in harmony w/ different backgrounds of editors and probably Avi w/ POV issues like removing verifiable sources w/o even edit warring or introducing questionable material w/o consensus, incivily, etc... In brief, it is not to restrict anyone's rights to work in Wikipedia but to make sure work is done rightly and according to WP policies and guidelines. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent solution. Banning really should be a very last resort.--G-Dett 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I find this solution far too lenient but I will go along with it if its what the community wants as long as Isarig immediately comes clean with all his socks. I have a strong suspicion about a couple users but I will hold off a checkuser request until Isarig reveals them himself. Pocopocopocopoco 01:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone spell out the solution emerging here? What I am reading sounds good although I do not know anything about either of the mentors here. Am I to understand the consensus favors a six month topic ban along with mentorship with the topic ban to be reviewed at the end of 6 months and possibly lifted at that time at the mentors' discretion? And that there is no strict 1RR in place but that the mentors will encourage Isarig to avoid reverts. I think pocopococp..'s suggestion that Isarig should come clean about any other socks he is operating is a good idea too, although I would hope that was a given. Is there any way to find out whether he is operating any other socks? Either way I am glad someone has agreed to mentor him. csloat 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- My reading is that the community broadly supports a 6-month topic ban (subject to review at the end) under dual mentorship by Fayssal and Avi, which I support. I have seen several editors support mandatory 0RR, or the recommendation that 1RR be left to the mentors' discretion (I decidedly prefer the former, and believe he would take advantage of the leniency if 0RR is not explicitly stated in the decision). I too feel that it is very lenient given past disruption, but my understanding is also that this will be the last chance for Isarig to genuinely turn a new leaf. If this fails, I have no doubt we will come back to this board in six months. Italiavivi 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am communicating w/ Isarig for now. While waiting for an email, just one thing which is still unclear to me. CS you know Isarig from media-related articles or from somewhere else? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- We met on the Juan Cole page and had numerous disputes there, then on the MEMRI page, on Christopher Hitchens, on Southern California InFocus, on Martin Kramer, on Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 and several other topics. Clearly I think the topic ban should be inclusive of all articles where Isarig has initiated edit wars in the past. csloat 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well give it a few hours as i am still exchanging emails w/ him and waiting for a reply. He's surely offline now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
A message to Isarig → You'd be dealing w/ some cool people but so mean when it comes to real business. (read Vote n° 11) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose any community sanction at this time -- Requesting community sanctions here against a user who is currently blocked, and thus unable to present a defense, is extremely poor form, as is failing to notify a user on their talk page when a community sanction discussion is opened against them (see User talk:Isarig (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs). If the case for an indefinite block or other community sanction is sufficiently complex as to require discussion here, then the user against whom the sanctions are sought should be permitted to effectively participate in such discussion; being unblocked, if necessary, for the limited purpose of such participation. Operation of the community sanction noticeboard as a kangaroo court whereby established, good-faith users may be banned without notice or the opportunity to present a defense will harm Wikipedia by resulting in many unjustified bans. John254 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Established good faith users don't operate sockpuppets for the purpose of edit warring and violating 3RR, as Isarig has been doing for at least the last year. A user being "established" means little if said user has also been a sockpuppeteer the entire time. Italiavivi 03:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Isarig also has plenty of opportunity to have his say on his user talk page. An apology or explanation should have been forthcoming by now at the very least. He has chosen not to say anything about it. csloat 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- He has been blocked for a few days. Is there an exemption that would allow him to post on his own talk page? If the answer to that is "no", he has not had the opportunity to respond to these proposals. 6SJ7 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked users are always allowed to respond on their User_talk pages barring repeated abusive use of the venue. He could edit his User_talk right now if he desired. Italiavivi 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- He has been blocked for a few days. Is there an exemption that would allow him to post on his own talk page? If the answer to that is "no", he has not had the opportunity to respond to these proposals. 6SJ7 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Isarig also has plenty of opportunity to have his say on his user talk page. An apology or explanation should have been forthcoming by now at the very least. He has chosen not to say anything about it. csloat 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Abusive sockpuppetry does weigh against a finding of good faith, but it isn't dispositive. I believe that, in this particular context, Isarig may still benefit from our presumption of good faith, even if his behavior has been quite disruptive. In any event, if the justification for banning Isarig were obvious, then Isarig would have been blocked indefinitely by unilateral administrative action the moment his abusive sockpuppetry was discovered. Fundamentally, the fact that imposing a ban or other community sanction against Isarig is sufficiently controversial as to require a community ban discussion should imply that Isarig should be permitted to participate in the discussion. Moreover, no benefits have been claimed for preventing such participation. John254 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you wish to extend your good faith to a user who essentially went straight from "okay I'll quit edit warring" to edit warring via sockpuppetry, feel free. I would call your trust severely misplaced. Italiavivi 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Users who wish to request a unilateral sanction against Isarig may do so at WP:ANI. Since it appears that no unilateral sanction (beyond the 1 week block) is going to be imposed, what plausible benefits do we derive from not following a fair process at the discussion here? John254 04:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Isarig has chosen to communicate via email instead of on his User_talk page. That is his decision, and has no bearing on whether or not the community can address matters through this venue. Unilateral sanction is generally undesirable, which is exactly why this discussion is taking place here. Italiavivi 04:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, unilateral sanction is quite desirable, in the appropriate circumstances. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism would grind to a halt if a discussion were required before each vandal could be blocked. Isarig, however, is not a user who is properly subject to unilateral long term sanctions. For users such as Isarig, a fair process should be followed, to avoid unjustified and/or excessive sanctions. Not placing a notice on Isarig's talk page when the discussion was opened (it appears that he was notified by email much later, though the non-public nature of email hinders this determination), and not unblocking Isarig so that he could actually participate in the discussion here is not a fair process. John254 04:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
John, i think you haven't read the top of this page. You know that this is the CSN. Also, you haven't even read the whole of this thread to find out that the user has apologized via email and we are into exchanging discussion and mentorship is already effective by the approval of the user in question. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Resolution
edit
Based on the principle of "not to restrict anyone's rights to work in Wikipedia but to make sure work is done rightly and according to WP policies and guidelines" and after some discussions between FayssalF, Avi, Isarig and some other parties, we come up with the following clauses:
Mentorship officially starts from this period of time and therefore Isarig account is now unblocked. |
Two questions:
- What's with the "If there are still some other hidden sock-puppets they can be withdrawn progressively from the scene" clause? Has he confirmed the use of other sockpuppets? Any other socks of Isarig need to be blocked, not "progressively withdrawn from the scene."
- Does "articles where he misused his editing privileges" mean that he can now edit Arab-Israeli/Israel-Palestine articles he simply hasn't touched before? I believe the community was very, very clear on the specific terms of the topic ban -- all Israel-Palestine/Arab-Israeli articles.
Just wanting to make sure we're absolutely clear. Italiavivi 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is another way to mean that nobody would continue looking for any other possible socks of Isarig. It is based on the principle of AGF and mutual trust building. If there really are some socks of Isarig still unknown to the community, Isarig is not obliged to tell us about them but he's obliged to forget about them w/o anyone paying attention. It means he later can contact me or any other admin in order to delete the account. This is to make Isarig feel at ease and trust the community much more so that he can change his past behaviour more easily. If there would be NO mutual trust this process will lead nowhere. So the clause seeks a better integration with more trust and more focus on the results.
- It was made clear that we are talking about a set of articles. Israeli-Arab and media-related articles. I've just added the word "set". -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am deeply alarmed about some parts of this resolution. We seem to have agreed (conspired?) to conceal the damage done to the encyclopedia by abusive sock-puppetry. Leaving aside any agreement reached with Isarig, his unblocking should have been conditional on him disgorging to the community the identities of all the socks he is (still?) running. The TalkPages of each article where these socks have been participating should be notified with the names of the socks so people have a chance to repair damage. These steps are a basic minimum necessary to recover from the harm done to the integrity of the project. Failure to carry out these steps contributes to a corrosive impression that personal honesty is not required if your editing puts Israel in a good light. And worse - the community will actively protect such "good cheats". PalestineRemembered 10:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- PR, now that Isarig is involved in mentorship, should he have any other sockpuppets, they will be allowed to fade into obscurity. If you have any evidence or suspicions that he is still using sockpuppets, please forward that to me or Fayssal. Should it be true, Isarig will have violated his agreement and a long-term block will be applied immediately.
- More importantly, It is irrelevant, per se how many puppets he had. Using any one of them abusively was enough to land him on CSN. Isarig has been given a last chance by the community; part of that is the community's responsibility to try and help him restore his good name and good faith. This means he needs to be allowed to edit, where he is permitted, with the same assumption of good faith that other editors have, so that he can develop a method to interact with wiki properly, instead of the inappropriate way he has done in the past. Continued pilloring is both unnecessary and inappropriate. He has this one last chance; should he succeed, past sockpuppets will disappear (should there be any, eventually, he would contact myself or Fayssal and we will remove them). Should he fail, it is irrelevant, as he will be subject to a long-term site block, if not full ban. He has taken the step of accepting the community's help—now it is the community's job to afford him this opportunity equitably. -- Avi 15:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what Avi says above; in the end we should remember the point is not to punish but to bring Isarig into the Wikipedia community as a productive rather than a destructive member. The one thing that PR suggests, however, that we should not forget is that some of the damage has already been done. It is important to the integrity of the project that any contributions of other socks of Isarig be highlighted so that they are no longer destructive to the project. Letting them fade away quietly does not fully accomplish this -- if Isarig had a sock that was frequently contributing to a particular discussion, or edit warring on a particular page, other editors on that page should know so that the "contributions" might be reexamined. I don't suspect this is a major problem, since it appears he was using socks to bolster the contributions he was making in his own name, which can be identified, but if he was using other socks the community should know about it. If the mentors think they can handle this "in house" so to speak, I am ok with that, but I do ask that they take into account that Isarig and his socks may have already left damage on some pages that should be undone or at least known about. csloat 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I have made an official request to have my account checkedusered against Isarig as the above user has accused me rather strongly of being a sockpuppet of Isarig. If this is what this user is referring to, the air should be cleared quite soon if the request is felt to be worthy of running checkuser. Bigglove 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bigglove, your request to have checkuser run against yourself has been turned down.[22] You can't request a checkuser to be run on yourself, it has to be requested by an editor that believes you're a sockpuppet. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I did not know that. I invite PalestineRemembered or anyone else concerned to file a request if they remain concerned about this. I think that CSloat has said that he is no longer concerned, but if he is he should also feel free to file an official request. From here on in I am going to feel free to participate in any conversation regarding Isarig that I feel I can contribute to in a meaninful way and hope that no one who has not made this sort of an official request will raise concerns that I am Isarig. Bigglove 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bigglove, your request to have checkuser run against yourself has been turned down.[22] You can't request a checkuser to be run on yourself, it has to be requested by an editor that believes you're a sockpuppet. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I have made an official request to have my account checkedusered against Isarig as the above user has accused me rather strongly of being a sockpuppet of Isarig. If this is what this user is referring to, the air should be cleared quite soon if the request is felt to be worthy of running checkuser. Bigglove 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Isarig has apologized via e-mail, but AFAIK he hasn't apologized publicly to the Wikipedia community. With his permission, of course, could you re-post the correspondence somewhere appropriate? If not, would he like to take the opportunity to apologize himself? Eleland 13:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I deeply regret having used sock puppets for the purpose of edit warring and evading 3RR. I should not have done that, and apologize for abusing the WP community's trust in this manner. I appreciate the chance I've been given, and I have undertaken to edit constructively from now on, and not to resort to this practice again. Isarig 02:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Result of the discussion was that there is no consensus that TJ Spyke should be indefinitely banned. TJ Spyke has been unblocked and placed on an indefinite revert parole, the conditions of which can be found in the opening statement of this discussion. The Hybrid 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the length It was decided a month ago that TJ Spyke was to be indefintly blocked from Wikipedia for excessive revert warring blocks and for using multiple sockpuppets. He contacted me by e-mail a month ago about the inital thought that a IP he used was used to commit vandalism (its still unknown if that is true or false). In any case, what I told TJ Spyke was very clear: The community was sick of the revert warring, so sick they have indefinetly blocked you (refering to TJ). Before the indefinte block was placed by User:Alkivar, it was agreed that TJ Spyke was to serve an multi-month block, which he had never recieved before. I told him by e-mail to serve out a month of no editing and to come back in a month if he was still interested in editing. Editing for him is literally impossible at this point, all accounts and IP's are blocked. I told him in a month I will have his talk page unprotected so he may comment. I had this done yesterday. You may view the comment here. I gave him very sturdy ground rules if he was to return to editing (that is if the community lets him back). This would require:
- Limiting himself to one account (i.e no more sockpuppets, period)
- Placing him on revert parole (1RR preferably)
- Admit any past accounts he has formerly or currently had, and admit their usage was wrong. (this was essential since he never did admit to the fact he used them)
- Apologize for his disruptive behavior openly.
- And if he violated the limitation of the account numbers, or violated revert parole, he can be reinstated with an indefinite block.
On the talk page you will see that every criteria I placed to him has been accepted by TJ Spyke, again, given that the community decides to unblock him.
Although one or two users agreed not to bring it to CSN for a few months, I have decided to bring it here now. My reason being is that I want a community discussion on this, and not just a few editors. Also, I would like to come to a consensus about when exactly he should be unblocked. I've come up with three proposals:
- Unblock now, place immediately onto parole. If he violates any of Wikipedia's rules, 3RR, uploading wrongly licensed images, vandalised etc. he is straight away blocked again.
- Unblock on 1st October, with the above again.
- Unblock on 1st December, with the above still in place.
He however also must apologize for the disruption either here or on any project talkpage, preferably WP:PW. I would like a community wide consensus on this, so we don't have bickering on what/what not shall happen. A comment by another user over at WP:AN sinked the conversation, hence the reason why I have brought it here. Thank you. Davnel03 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- He has already apologized once on his talk page as he was blocked, another one is pushing it. BTW, most of the content of this post, was copied from what I said from "Apologizes for the length..." to "...the community decides to unblock him". — Moe ε 14:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I support unblocking him on December 1st, with the paroles in place of course. However, if the community has any other proposals about what to do with him than the three that you listed, then I would like to hear them, personally. Cheers, The Hybrid 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Leave the block in place. An editor who has abused sockpuppets isn't going to out all of them, and we're not allowed to CheckUser him due to allegations of "fishing." I could only see myself supporting this unblock if backed by aggressive verification via CheckUser, which I doubt would happen. Italiavivi 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do about that in a few hours. The Hybrid 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's impossible for him to edit right now. His IP range which hosted all of edits has been blocked until sometime in December. Anything that could have been CheckUsered, has been CheckUsered before and blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't think assuming bad faith with someone trying to make a compromise this hard would be trying to sneak in something that could get him rebanned. — Moe ε 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- With all due regard Moe, I'm not obliged in any way to assume good faith of a confirmed sockpuppeteer. WP:AGF isn't a binding contract with blatant, repeat offenders. Italiavivi 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of policy breaking with no evidence and with them restricted to even do so, is not at all productive. — Moe ε 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- With all due regard Moe, I'm not obliged in any way to assume good faith of a confirmed sockpuppeteer. WP:AGF isn't a binding contract with blatant, repeat offenders. Italiavivi 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- as a totally uninvolved person, I'd like to see two possbilities for restoration of tjspyke. One is a longer break with no pupetting and no whining to be let back in, and two someone who is able to ride herd on him very tightly and willing to dump him back into indef-land at the slightest bit of disruption. --Rocksanddirt 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit pointless that people should have to watch TJ non-stop when (or if) he gets unblocked. But that's the only decent option, otherwise TJ is very likely to cause trouble again (with socks, 3RR and so on). This so called "last chance" isn't a chance at all: it's more of "let's just watch TJ and make sure he does don't anything bad, because we need him back to check wrestling article vandalism". TJ did a lot of good, but his bad things outweigh his good in my view. Bringing someone back, just to fight a war on vandalism, seems a bit pointless. From what I can see: people are doing a fine job reverting vandalism for wrestling articles already, so unblocking a known problem user to help, doesn't seem like the right thing to do. I'm sure many blocked users fought vandalism and did good things: that doesn't mean we should unblock them for the same reason. Lastly I would like to point out: TJ's last sock (which was used to block evade) wasn't that long ago: [23]. Block evading by use of sock, is even worse than just using socks in my view. RobJ1981 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at TJ's history, I am very leery of even opening the door the slightest bit. Many Many blocks for 3RR and edit warring, and then the discovered sock puppet. I strongly believe that if TJ gets unblocked, we will be back here shortly thereafter, and would decline to unblock and urge CSN to decline this discussion. SirFozzie 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Foz. I initially thought he should stay blocked for at least a year ... but the more I think about it, when you're running a sock at the same time a discussion's underway on whether to ban you, it's obvious you have no intention of playing by the rules. Ban. Blueboy96 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your making things up. Could you give me the name of this alleged sock that he used while he's status was being determined on Wikipedia? The last known sockpuppet was Lrrr IV (or whatever it's name was). He literally hasn't been able to edit after the blocking of that account and his main account. — Moe ε 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was talking about Lrrr IV ... he was sniffed out on July 15, while the original discussion was underway. Blueboy96 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you think we were planning to indefblock him way back then, you are mistaken. Alkivar implemented that result despite what was said at CSN that day. We were originally only going to block for a month or multi-month, no banning discussion was ongoing. — Moe ε 02:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Moe's right. The longest block being discussed at that time was 6 months; I should know since I was the one who proposed it, and the one garnering consensus was 4.5 months. In truth, to point out something that Moe has in the past, Alkivar giving him the block is enough reason in itself to overturn it. Alkivar violated the conflict of interests policy in that he and TJ had gone at it several times in the past. He protected his talk page after a small conflict over the templates that had been over for hours, and when he revoked his right to email anyone he was clearly trying to effectively ban him permanently. Alkivar overstepped what one admin is allowed to do. There was a clear consensus that TJ should not be banned permanently, and he went out of his way to make sure that he had no way to request an unblock. Then there's the matter that blocks are supposed to be preventative, and not punitive. With TJ on parole, he presents no threat to the community, so this block is no longer preventative. I figured that Moe and I going out of our ways to make sure that justice is done showed that we were volunteering to watch him when he returns. I guess that I have to explicitly say that I am more than willing to monitor his contributions, and report him if he violates his parole. He is no longer a threat, so according to the policies he should be unblocked this very minute. However, since that won't garner consensus, I believe that a multi-month ban would be a fair compromise. The Hybrid 04:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was talking about Lrrr IV ... he was sniffed out on July 15, while the original discussion was underway. Blueboy96 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your making things up. Could you give me the name of this alleged sock that he used while he's status was being determined on Wikipedia? The last known sockpuppet was Lrrr IV (or whatever it's name was). He literally hasn't been able to edit after the blocking of that account and his main account. — Moe ε 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Foz. I initially thought he should stay blocked for at least a year ... but the more I think about it, when you're running a sock at the same time a discussion's underway on whether to ban you, it's obvious you have no intention of playing by the rules. Ban. Blueboy96 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at TJ's history, I am very leery of even opening the door the slightest bit. Many Many blocks for 3RR and edit warring, and then the discovered sock puppet. I strongly believe that if TJ gets unblocked, we will be back here shortly thereafter, and would decline to unblock and urge CSN to decline this discussion. SirFozzie 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, for me anyway, if he were to get blocked again after violating a parole I wouldn't come back to try to get him unblocked. We aren't friends by any stretch of the imagination. I had my first dispute with him, and I had my fair share of disputes with him afterwards. I don't feel sorry for him. However, he has made many good contributions, including getting an article featured. He has one flaw, and I believe that someone who has made as many good contributions as he has should be given one last chance. For the record, we aren't talking redemption. He will always be labeled a sockpuppeteer, and an edit warrior at the mercy of those around him. There is no redemption from that. Now, I can understand why people are hesitant to unblock him, so I am now going to propose a harsher punishment. Perhaps setting the ban to end one year from the date his most recent block was given would be more acceptable. Is that alright? The Hybrid 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think there's far too much thought being put into this. Unblock him. If he messes up again, block him indefinitely. He knows the score, he knows he'll be watched. Where's the harm in affording this last chance to someone who has made so many positive contributions? Miremare 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- What about enforcing this? Davnel03 07:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is where WP:DTTR applies. — Moe ε 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- What about enforcing this? Davnel03 07:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Leave the block in place. Given his extensive 3RR and sockpuppet history, he will most definitely end up breaking one or both rules eventually. --Maestro25 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment It is apparent that there is no consensus here for a community ban. I've put the proposal from Davnel03 to TJ on his talk page. Banno 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- The proposal by Davnel was actually a proposal by Moe Epsilon that Davnel cut and paste here, and he (Moe) already hasd TJ's agreement. The Hybrid 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can you provide the diffs here? Banno 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is the most profound diff. If there are any others that are relevant I will post them here, but that may be unnecessary since that shows him agreeing to all of the conditions. The Hybrid 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- thanks. I've unblocked him on those conditions. Banno 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is the most profound diff. If there are any others that are relevant I will post them here, but that may be unnecessary since that shows him agreeing to all of the conditions. The Hybrid 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. Further terms of the mentorship are contained in the decision and will be amplified on the article talkpage. Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. MarkThomas is placed on standard civility supervision for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 22:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The above arbitration case has closed and the final decision is located at the link above. Vlad fedorov is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Extending the ban of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All to indef
editProposal to ban User:Crossmr and User:Njyoder from PayPal and Talk:PayPal
edit
Bormalagurski
edit
Proposal to ban AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of the discussion was: transfer to Request for comment.
I apoligize if this is the wrong place to report this. This user has been causing many problems with multiple articles. There have been tons of warnings and messages left on this user's talk page, but there has never been a single reply. The user does not use the preview button, and never leaves an edit summary. Most of their edits are unconstructive, and sometimes vandalism. Once in a great while will they provide something constructive, but it's usually not much. Most of the articles they edit are related to tv shows on Disney Channel and Nickelodean. For an example, see [29]. But also check out their user talk page and constributions. If any other info is needed, please let me know. But I think something needs to be done with this user. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, are you sure this is in the right place? I don't think it's serious enough to ban. Maybe you could take this here. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- AnnieTigerChucky is dealing with a legit WP:BLP concern on at least one of those articles. Please discuss this with her on her talk page and on the article pages. This is completely inappropriate here. WP:ANI or WP:AN if you must get other admins to review (probably ANI), but ... looks reasonable so far. Georgewilliamherbert 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, except the part about "Please discuss this with her on her talk page and on the article pages." That's useless; communication is not this user's forte. She is similar in many respects to MascotGuy, which I mentioned on an ANI thread about the same editor earlier this week. MascotGuy and his socks are blocked indefinitely. I'm not sure ATC deserves the same fate, but she's certainly testing the community's patience.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your replies...
To JetLover: Did I not say that I was not sure if this was the correct place or not?
To Georgewilliamherbert: See The Fat Man's post.
To The Fat Man...: Thank you for seeing the issue here. Any ideas on how to go about fixing the situation?
Pilotboi / talk / contribs 04:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just give it a little time. I left AFC an encouraging post about a constructive edit she made. If the quality of her edits continues to improve, great. If not, she'll eventually exhaust her warnings and be blocked.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- That works. :) --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Suggest opening one or more content requests for comment to develop consensus at disputed pages. A ban discussion sounds premature. DurovaCharge! 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposing a ban on Ron liebman
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- To place User:Ron liebman under a Community Ban for repeatedly breached the Naming Policy by using misleading usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, without verification; misusing sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman; placing threats of legal action on his talk page[30]
Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (January 30th, 2007 - May 11th, 2007) has been haunting us with sock puppets since his indefinite block on May 11th. He is using these sock puppets to repeatedly add false information to articles (I think, if I'm wrong please correct me). He has 130 suspected puppets and 12 confirmed accounts. These puppets are frequently popping up, and I think a ban should be in order. I think he has exhausted all of our patience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- User has been indefinitely blocked since May. Moving from only one 31 hour block to an indefinite is harsh. Why not try a block of a few months first? Unblock, if he re-offends, indefinitely block. Banno 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Has the user been informed of this discussion, and has the issue of identity been solved? Banno 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then perhaps more explanation is needed, including links and diffs. Banno 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it a ban when no admins are willing to unblock the person? I proposed a ban here for User:Lyle123, and it was closed as "no need to reconfirm existing bans" or something like that (see here). Kwsn(Ni!) 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Given that he has been blocked indefinitely, after only one block of 31 (why 31?) hours, and that the indefinite ban has been in place since May, I am considering unblocking him. Banno 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then this discussion can produce a result, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Prima faci, this looks like Liebman started editing seriously in March [31], got into a few disputes and broke 3RR and was blocked briefly, tried to avoid 3RR with a few sockpuppets and was blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a block of a few months would have been better. Since then he has used sockpuppets to avoid the block. I suggest unblocking, so that he doesn't have a need to use sockpuppets, and with the condition that a breach of 3RR, including via sockpuppets, will result in an indefinite block and community ban. Banno 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- He has shown no willingness whatsoever to conform to the rules about citations and POV-pushing, ever since his first activities in January up until now (or at least yesterday, when he was very active with his socks). With no commitment from him to do better, how do you imagine that unblocking him will help solve anything? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I can't disagree with this more vehemently, Banno. Liebman has been using the identities of real living people at both SABR and http://baseball-reference.com/bullpen while denying all sockpuppetry and even claiming that other people are stalking him (checkuser says otherwise). This edit at bullpen confirms that he's almost stealing other people's identity. He's been discredited on this wiki and theirs and responded with venomous messages like this and this just for a quick sample. Frankly I'm shocked that someone would be rewarded for months of rampant false information and sockpuppetry by being released from their block! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Liebman's indef block was only after we warned and blocked his sockpuppets for increasingly long times and he kept making new ones (about a dozen at the time, more since) despite repeated warnings on his page and the sock pages to stop making more. The combination set of user accounts and IPs were all clearly and repeatedly warned and told to stop escalating the sockpuppetry and vandalism. There are also very serious concerns in that he's impersonated almost 50 members of the SABR baseball statistics organization with account names. Please see: WP:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman for an overall summary, though I don't know if it's up to date on all the socks (check the categories). Georgewilliamherbert 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- To follow myself up, also look at the 5 checkusers; 4 were actually run and confirmed 41 named socks and 15 plus IPs or IP ranges in New York City libraries and universities, and we've identified a lot more than that by edit pattern alone. Per Kwsn below, he also out and out lied about being associated with the socks, right before the largest CU confirmed that he was. He's also persistently lied in emails to unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse ban - He lied saying all the socks were imitators, yet this check right after he said that proved otherwise. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Now you are telling us things we need to know, if the community is going to endorse a ban. Not all of us are familiar with the minutia of the case, and it is up to those making the case for a ban to present the evidence. Since my interest in baseball ranks somewhere below my concern for what you do with your breakfast scraps, a bit of detail is needed, especially links and diffs. Banno 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- "A list of diffs"? There are hundreds of them. I suggest you start with the history for Hideki Matsui and cross-check it with the list of sockpuppets (listed in the first paragraph, above) to see which ones are his, and then you will just begin to get the idea. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- My advice to you, which will be lost on you if you're under the age of 50 or so, but that's OK: "Duke 'im, Banno!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- ""Duke 'im"??? Banno 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was the best spoonerism I could come up with for "Book 'im, Danno!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nuh. You've lost me. Banno 01:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was the best spoonerism I could come up with for "Book 'im, Danno!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- ""Duke 'im"??? Banno 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse ban I am quite happy that the sockpuppet evidence provided above is sufficient to warrant the denial of editing privileges to this person. I was the blocking admin. (aeropagitica) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support. Looking at the evidence, each offense taken by itself would warrant a ban. Deliberately adding false information, egregious sockpuppetry (over 80 socks, by my count) and impersonating real people. All together? Gone. Blueboy96 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse. I was only peripherally involved with this mess, but what I saw was plenty awful enough. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Question: He is already indefinitely blocked, but he keeps using a public library, with its multiple IP addreses, to create new accounts and continue his activities. I would like to know how or if banning will solve that problem? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Currently the "ban" is only implied, i.e. it falls under #1 of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban where he is indefblocked and no admin is willing to unblock. A consensus here would be an upgrade of sorts, falling under the umbrella of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. That's my understanding anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Aha. It's a formal proceeding that prohibits an admin from unilaterally unblocking him, but from Liebman's standpoint it would be business as usual. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mostly yes. It also may bring the situation to more people's attention so Liebman's antics become more difficult for him. Otherwise, it's just another entry in the long list at WP:LTA. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- A formal ban will make it much easier to deal with his tactics--i.e., unlimited Checkuser requests, revert/delete-on-sight of all his contributions and block-on-sight of all socks.Blueboy96 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I remember that a range block of one of the library systems he uses was put into effect at one point, for the IP starting with 141, I think. A formal ban would definitely be a good thing, imho. I've been doing a lot of watching for his "edits" and reporting them to WP:AIV. His snarky comments towards me and others have been a real treat, not so much. Plus his creating sockpuppet IDs as digs at people, like this one of Baseball Bugs and No Guru and me, for instance. Whatever can be done to stem the tide, so that we might all spend our time actually making constructive contributions to Wikipedia, would be muchly appreciated. Thanks all. :) -Ebyabe 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- A formal ban will make it much easier to deal with his tactics--i.e., unlimited Checkuser requests, revert/delete-on-sight of all his contributions and block-on-sight of all socks.Blueboy96 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mostly yes. It also may bring the situation to more people's attention so Liebman's antics become more difficult for him. Otherwise, it's just another entry in the long list at WP:LTA. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Aha. It's a formal proceeding that prohibits an admin from unilaterally unblocking him, but from Liebman's standpoint it would be business as usual. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Currently the "ban" is only implied, i.e. it falls under #1 of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban where he is indefblocked and no admin is willing to unblock. A consensus here would be an upgrade of sorts, falling under the umbrella of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. That's my understanding anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The evidence presented so far is that Liebman has
- repeatedly breached the Naming policy by using misleading usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, without verification.
- He has a record of misusing sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman.
Enough for a Ban. Baseball Bugs has made one last attempt at a reconciliation. If unsuccessful, I recommend a community ban. Banno 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
There is now a rather unconvincing reply at User talk:Ron liebman. I am not willing to unblock this user on this basis. Banno 11:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse ban The indefinite block on his original account should be upgraded to, or interpreted as, a community ban. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse ban The indef block was appropriate for this disruption only account, especially considering its bad faith actions. Indef blocks aren't infinite. The user can come around at any point and ask to be unblocked. Ongoing sock puppetry merits the ban. - Jehochman Talk 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment FYI, Ron has asked for unblock on his user talk page repeatedly in the last roughly couple or three weeks (see there for exact dates) and been declined by everyone who reviewed it. I have today told him to file an arbcom appeal if he wants to pursue this further, though of course with any community ban / indef block another administrator has the perogative to give him another chance. I don't recommend it, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware. Georgewilliamherbert 18:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Re: arbitration, Mr. Liebman has been yelling about that for quite some time. I believe he's been given the e-mail address but does nothing with it. It appears his yelling now amounts to trolling (disruption to get some attention) and protection of his talk page may be necessary before long. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but any admin who unblocks this guy ought to be desysopped for gross dereliction of duty, IMHO. You're talking about a person who impersonated real people ... I could be wrong here, but in doing this, he exposed Wikipedia to a good deal of legal danger. Blueboy96 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a threat of leagal action in his recent post[32]. Further reason to consider a block on his talk page. Banno 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to ban User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling from library-related topics
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LAEC runs a website, Safelibraries that is opposed to the American Library Association and other library-related organizations. In addition to promoting his agenda on his own website, on blogs, and message board, he has also joined wikipedia and he has devoted the bulk of his wikipedia activities to crusading against libraries / promoting his website. The existence of his website is a redflag that LAEC probably has a conflict of interest.
His first username was SafeLibraries.org (the url of his website), although at some point he was required to give up that username, since it was his site's url, and instead he chose his site's motto: "Legitimate And Even Compelling", (referring I believe to need to keep children from accessing unsafe libraries). The username choices are a redflag that LAEC primarily sees wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his agenda.
Along the way, he's caused more than his share of disruption. In Oct '06, and RFC was filed against him. Glancing over his talk page, it seems like he's been causing plenty of stir in the intervening year. And now, he's been editwarring Another American Libraries Association article. These past and ongoing editwars are a redflag to me that LAEC's has been sufficently disruptive to merit a topic ban.
The conflicts of interest is troublesome, but if his edits were in the ballpark of being good ones, I'd wouldn't sweat the COI. It's more the tendentious use of wikipedia as a soapbox-- undertaking a systemic campaign to insert any possible criticisms of libraries into wikipedia, however tenuous.
Take for example the latest edit war. The YALSA, a library organization, does a billion different things, one of which is publish lists of popular books. It once included a book called "The Gossip Girl" on a reader list. Some people think "The Gossip Girl" is controversial. LAEC uses the diseparate facts to contruct an argument that the YALSA is immoral, and he goes to the YALSA repeatedly reinserts an article about "The Gossip Girl is racy reading"-- a news article which doesn't even mention YALSA. The text of the YASLA wikipedia article doesn't mention "The Gossip Girl." The link so inappropriate for the article, I don't know where to begin on what it violates: Battlefield, Soapboxing, Conflict of Interest, Original Research. But LAEC reinserts the link [33][34][35][36]. When 3RR prevents him from readding it, another editor with a suspiciously meaty/socky edit history shows up to add it back in for him. [37]
One or two of these incidents would be overlookable-- I'd just do whatever was necessary to restore the article and move on. But this sort of think has been going on for the better part of a year, despite an RFC against him. I'm at the point where I don't even feel like bothering to do the "edit war, recruit nonpartisan eyeballs, acheive consensus, editwar" cycle-- he'll just stop for a few weeks, move to a different library article, and start the process over again.
Over the past I and others have spent lots of words communicating with LAEC trying to help in understand why his use of Wikipedia hasn't been appropriate. I regretfully have concluded It's at the point where the community has to step in and ban LAEC from editing on articles related to his website agenda-- topics like libraries, library organizations, content filtering/censorship, etc.
--Alecmconroy 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wow! That's about as one-sided, misleading, and flat out false as they come. He even besmirches other people who apparently happen to agree with me! People just need to read the YALSA talk page and the history comments I added when editing the main page, after first clearing their minds of the false information that appears above. And I ask people to ensure wikipedia policy is followed. On another topic, if there is any policy related to stopping Alecmconroy's unsportsmanlike behavior, informing me about that would be appreciated as well. Ditto for Jessamyn. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, wow. I've just finished that meticulously documented RFC and I'm rather surprised this editor wasn't sitebanned a year ago. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, do you withdraw these two legal threats?[38][39] If not, I'll administer an indefinite block. If so, I'll endorse the proposed topic ban. DurovaCharge! 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- LAEC, I was immensely proud of you for stepping away from that dispute between you and KillerChihuahua, among others. For that, you have my respect. Unfortunately, in light of the evidence presented here today, I am greatly disappointed. When you stepped out of that argument, I thought you were a changed editor, that you had turned over a new leaf. It pains my heart so deeply to see now that this simply wasn't true. I truly hope we can still be friends and respect each other, but the evidence presented against you leaves me no choice but to endorse a topical ban. Durova, I can understand your horror at all these diffs, but I strongly encourage you to not indefinitely block LAEC. I'm sure that he can find ways to contribute constructively on non-library topics, gain the community's trust, and perhaps appeal to the Arbitration Committee after a year. LAEC, I'm so deeply sorry to have to do this. I only wish I had another choice. With a heavy heart, Arky ¡Hablar! 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, there was no dispute "between (LEAC) and myself. You must be completely confused, Arky. He was being highly disruptive, I warned him, he ignored me, I blocked. There was no dispute at all, there was disruption and its consequences. The only "dispute" one might somehow painfully pull from that incident was whether one can harass good-faith editors with a barrage of personal attacks or not. My position was No, LEAC's was Yes. I submit to you that is not a dispute, that is willfully arguing one of our most basic rules for interaction with other users. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. Please feel to examine my edits for any type of puppetry. I have made suggestions that disagreed with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling [40] over the issue of the criticality of the information. I feel its valid and critical to at least some extent, and he seems to disagree over the critical part. I feel that any really neutral party would see this as a simple content dispute, and I believe the information being presented is clearly relevant as it is about young readers, is dealt with by the ALA chief, and enriches the article. Thats not OR, its simple and sensible editing. The Wikiscanner news recently has made vanity editing more of an issue, but I don't think we would need to ban or block any organization members, unless they become too biased towards vanity editing. Right now I feel the situation is manageable. I do encourage admin awareness for the articles in question, as more critical information will most likely be added to the article. I am happy to work with any admin mentors on the article so as to keep all sides constructive. I am in the process of researching the subject and there does seem to be a fair amount of controversy. I am notifying admins here now so that we can preemptively prevent any further or related conflict. Clearly the issues need to be handled more carefully by all, including myself. Lingorama 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- An indefinite block is this site's standard response to legal threats. Due to the time lapse I'm willing to suppose this editor withdrew those statements at some earlier time and can either provide the diff or repeat the pledge. Regarding the Wikiscanner, as someone who's done complex investigations for a long time I strongly oppose the notion that this tool is some panacea. Editors deserve a reasonable interim to adjust to site standards. A year is more than reasonable and the diffs provided in this thread are sufficient to demonstrate that the problem continues. I wouldn't topic ban any organization members, but I have no problem imposing external limitations on ones who persistently violate fundamental site policies without the appropriate learning curve. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Before you enact any sort of ban, you need to specify exactly which policies you believe LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is violating so that others can form neutral opinions. Also, what specificly are the "legal threats" in the links you provided? Citadel18080 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- All right: WP:NLT, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, and WP:V. Add WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI on the guideline side. The legal threat links speak for themselves. DurovaCharge! 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Durova's retraction solution at least. I made an attempt at legal sanctions before, under bad legal advisement in a situation not relevant to Wikipedia, and I've had to retract such work. Its not easy to do, though it is constructive. If that is the situation here, I'd also recommend a simple and basic statement of retraction. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling seems to be keen on providing constructive solutions in general.
- Before you enact any sort of ban, you need to specify exactly which policies you believe LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is violating so that others can form neutral opinions. Also, what specificly are the "legal threats" in the links you provided? Citadel18080 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- An indefinite block is this site's standard response to legal threats. Due to the time lapse I'm willing to suppose this editor withdrew those statements at some earlier time and can either provide the diff or repeat the pledge. Regarding the Wikiscanner, as someone who's done complex investigations for a long time I strongly oppose the notion that this tool is some panacea. Editors deserve a reasonable interim to adjust to site standards. A year is more than reasonable and the diffs provided in this thread are sufficient to demonstrate that the problem continues. I wouldn't topic ban any organization members, but I have no problem imposing external limitations on ones who persistently violate fundamental site policies without the appropriate learning curve. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. Please feel to examine my edits for any type of puppetry. I have made suggestions that disagreed with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling [40] over the issue of the criticality of the information. I feel its valid and critical to at least some extent, and he seems to disagree over the critical part. I feel that any really neutral party would see this as a simple content dispute, and I believe the information being presented is clearly relevant as it is about young readers, is dealt with by the ALA chief, and enriches the article. Thats not OR, its simple and sensible editing. The Wikiscanner news recently has made vanity editing more of an issue, but I don't think we would need to ban or block any organization members, unless they become too biased towards vanity editing. Right now I feel the situation is manageable. I do encourage admin awareness for the articles in question, as more critical information will most likely be added to the article. I am happy to work with any admin mentors on the article so as to keep all sides constructive. I am in the process of researching the subject and there does seem to be a fair amount of controversy. I am notifying admins here now so that we can preemptively prevent any further or related conflict. Clearly the issues need to be handled more carefully by all, including myself. Lingorama 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Judging by the articles in question, I see there is a fair amount of heat among the parties. But there is also a fair effort by some towards balanced editing. So I suspect things will be ok long term. I wasn't suggesting the Wikiscanner be applied, only that the situation seems to be a lot more relevant recently, especially in these sort of cases. The research I am doing on the subject also suggests that the presentation of some rather distasteful but relevant issues is likely to be resisted by anyone with a personal interest. Its useful to be aware of such situations before they occur so we can apply attention in an efficient way at the right times. I'd like to keep any relevant admins posted so as to reduce the occurrence of further problems. Lingorama 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is precisely why I think LAEC should be given a second chance. I see nothing serious enough in the diffs provided to warrant an indefinite block, and while I think a topical ban is applicable in this situation, another alternative would be to give LAEC one more chance. If he inserts any POV into a library-related article, this should be enough cause for an indefinite topical ban. I would prefer this option, as it is my belief that LAEC can contribute constructively. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The second chance came eleven months ago at the close of RFC. Or to use a good quote from an otherwise unremarkable film: You're young so you get a few chances. Not an infinite number of chances, but a few. DurovaCharge! 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is precisely why I think LAEC should be given a second chance. I see nothing serious enough in the diffs provided to warrant an indefinite block, and while I think a topical ban is applicable in this situation, another alternative would be to give LAEC one more chance. If he inserts any POV into a library-related article, this should be enough cause for an indefinite topical ban. I would prefer this option, as it is my belief that LAEC can contribute constructively. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here's an admittedly preliminary attempt at complex scrutiny: Just an overview - I took a look at LAEC's edits from a year or so ago, and the pattern seems to have changed. The edits and reversions seem to be a lot more measured recently and there is plenty of reasoned and sourced discussion attached. I imagine its due to experience and admin advisement. Also, LAEC doesn't seem to be editing with a single article in mind [41] and he seems to be applying majority view, scientific skepticism, and balance. He seems to edit quite broadly. I don't how relevant that kind of contextual information is here, but I'd say it shows a contextual improvement all the same. I don't see such improvements or breadth by some other involved editors Lingorama 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I still recommend the Durova retraction solution if it applies. Calming the waters, offering explanation and clarity, and offering solutions in general will really help these articles improve. Lingorama 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- My concern is that some of the edits that have caused this recent dispute are the same edits that LAEC was attempting to make in April on the YALSA page[42] and I'm not convinced anything has changed. I have no opinion on his non-library-related edits or as his contribution as a Wikipedia outside of the scope of this particular action.
- LAEC's username comes from a Supreme Court decision, quoted on his user page "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." - Supreme Court of the United States, US v. ALA I have removed inappropriate citations to that court case in the recent past [43] Part of the problem has been that LAECs understanding of this court decision does not match analysis by other legal experts (LAEC is a retred lawyer if I recall correctly) which makes continued reference to this court case particularly troubling from an encyclopedic standpoint. I would also encourage widening the scope of this sanction to include filtering-related topics and legislation such as CIPA [44], DOPA [45] and content control software [46] where these disputes also sometimes crop up.
- I find the continual references to my personal status with regards to ALA, my personal blog (where LAEC has commented) and the wikipedia page about me somewhat offputting, though certainly not crossing any explicit boundaries. The fact that he now tries to have people side with him to give him "help with a bully" also concerns me. It is not bullying to follow Wikipedia procedure. Jessamyn (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. LEAC has been canvassing for support.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Vassyana 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Vassyana. To be fair, it seems that "canvassing" is something that other related editors seem to be doing [57]. I myself have never been contacted in such a way by LAEC. I am concerned about balance and various interested parties on the ALA and related articles though. I am not sure if bullying is something that is technically dealt with on Wikipedia, but I will doublecheck the ALA articles for any obvious group-pressuring of single editors who hold opposing views. Lingorama 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. Well the evidence on the ALA article seem to have a huge amount of IP edits coming from Chicago (68.... numbers especially). I think this is extremely strong evidence that sockpuppetry is being used by the ALA, which is based in Chicago [58]. If that is not a situation that leads to non-partisan editors feeling badgered or bullied, I don't know what is. Lingorama 07:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, looking at the page in question, there are maybe 15-20 IP edits in total. Wikiscanner finds no relation at all to ALA-registered hosts. Also, of course, this has no bearing on the behaviour of LAEC. As for the "canvassing" - sorry, but one editor asking one other editor for a second opinion in a rather neutral fashion is not remotely the same as posting an explicit plea for help to 7 selected user pages within 6 minutes. --Stephan Schulz 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- In order to clarify my actions here, the diffs of LAEC canvassing are explicit, numerous, and sequential. This is the most blatant instance yet of an attempt to undermine the integrity of the community sanctions process. Were that tolerated, consensus discussion in this area would degenerate into mob rule. Tu quoque is not a defense: the single diff and WikiScanner results for ALA do not amount to significant evidence, and even if they did that evidence would have no bearing on LAEC's editing status. DurovaCharge! 13:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The IP address and sock-puppet allegations are one of LAEC's standard responses to criticisms of his edits on ALA-related articles [59] and I'm suprised to see another editor championing them since they seem to be so obviously without merit. Lingorama, if you could point out where you see these "huge amount of IP edits" coming from that IP, it might help us understand what you're talking about. As it is the only person with a huge amount of recent edits on the ALA page is LAEC.[60] Again, ALA is a 60,000+ member organization, it is likely that people who make edits to ALA related pages may have some experience or connection to the organization. The guidelines in Wikipedia help us determine what is and is not a good edit so that we don't have to rely solely on editor credibility when assessing the history of an article. Jessamyn (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, looking at the page in question, there are maybe 15-20 IP edits in total. Wikiscanner finds no relation at all to ALA-registered hosts. Also, of course, this has no bearing on the behaviour of LAEC. As for the "canvassing" - sorry, but one editor asking one other editor for a second opinion in a rather neutral fashion is not remotely the same as posting an explicit plea for help to 7 selected user pages within 6 minutes. --Stephan Schulz 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
editI had been pretty open with a topical ban, since the most (but not all) of LAEC's problems were on subjects related to his website. I would still find that option palatable if LAEC was responding to this sanction with a "Now I See The Light" attitude, accepting the principle of Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, and agreeing to cease editing the library/censorship/contentfiltering/ala/aclu sphere of articles.
Unfortunately, it looks like he's responded to this just by battening down the hatches and preparing for a crusade. The incivility of his responses, his inability to appreciate that his actions are problematic-- this makes me think a mere topical ban is just an invitation to future trouble. His recents aggressive wave of canvassing/recruitment/potentialpuppetry, openly referring to those involved in this discussion process as bullies"-- it doesn't bode well. If he gets off with a topical ban, I'd expect to see him just migrating to the border fringe of his banned topics and continuing to be equally disruptive. After more than a year's worth of trouble, it would probably be best to put this user behind us and spend the saved time writing an encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was inclined to support a mere topic ban, but the fact he's canvassing makes me think that won't be enough. I propose a two-month ban from the whole project, and after he comes back, an indefinite ban from all library-related topics. Throw in an indefinite revert parole on all articles as well. And that's only if the legal threats have been withdrawn. If they haven't, I'm with Durova here--ban him and throw away the key. Blueboy96 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing to manipulate the discussion instead of addressing the legal threat question is the final straw. This is blatant gaming of the system. Indefinitely blocked. DurovaCharge! 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Reason for block unclear; user unblocked
I have indefinitely blocked this user after seeing his bizarre work on National Labor Federation. Review and undo welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something here, but indef seems a bit harsh. I didn't see anything that couldn't be solved by filing an RfC ... I could be wrong, though. Blueboy96 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the user's edits there. I've pulled up there last six edits to the article, before they were blocked: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
- These all look like misguided, yes, but good-faith edits by a user unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Just to point this out, misguided edits by new users are not uncommon. Yes, it's bizarre for them to be only working on one article, but I see no evidence of vandalism or intentional harm caused. In fact, I'm not even sure if this could warrant an RfC. It seems to me all the user needs in a push in the right direction and a little mentoring. With all due respect, Tom harrison, I'm not sure if it's necessary to indefinitely block an account unfamiliar with even how to write articles for, and I quote, "not here to write an encyclopedia". The thing is, if the user knew how and how not to contribute here, they'd be writing perfectly fine articles. I'm sorry if I come off as rough here, but blocking a user who has only started editing regularly on September 6th 8 days later is overreacting to the highest degree, especially not telling them how to use the {{unblock}} template and thus giving them no chance whatsoever at being unblocked. Sorry again if I sound a little abrasive, Arky ¡Hablar! 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I posted to hear what people think. Tom Harrison Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't examined the edits, so won't comment on the block, but there isn't really any need to tell a blocked user how to use {{unblock}}. If you're blocked, you'll get full instructions on your screen as soon as you try to edit. ElinorD (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, ElinorD. I was not aware of his. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a puzzling block. The justification is not at all clear. So a community ban is unlikely. So far as I can see, there is no case here. Banno 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I have requested a second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion on block for User:Malbrain. Banno 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do what you think best, but please keep an eye on him if you unblock. Tom Harrison Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the user has been unblocked by User:Banno and I think that is appropriate. We can watchlist the page and keep an eye on him. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)