Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::I agree in general with SqueakBox, with a bit of caution for Jeffrey with a request to ] more in the future. Yes there are users who are here in general to wind him up, but that is not all of the people who are disagreeing with him. ] 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::I agree in general with SqueakBox, with a bit of caution for Jeffrey with a request to ] more in the future. Yes there are users who are here in general to wind him up, but that is not all of the people who are disagreeing with him. ] 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::I had an epiphany today after interacting with FYCTravis about the use of various terms on Misplaced Pages, such as the definition of "bad faith" used here, which differs significantly from the legal use of the word I am familiar with. I appears part of this is my own understanding of the pecking order on Misplaced Pages and its interpretation. As far as Hipocrtie goes, I would like a reciprocal sanction, with Hipocrite staying away from me permanently. His temper explosions are dificult for me to deal with. I have run companies with upwards of 500 people reporting to me and I have generated over 10 billion dollars in revenue for various companies over the years, so I am not a stupid or brash person. I have a lot of experience both dealing with others and managing others. That being said, Cabal attacks and agendas aside (which this post by him appears to me to be just that, but I will attempt to AGF here), I think I can work on these issues and fit in. I have a lot of folks who troll me around the internet just to get money from me or push me away out of jealousy and I have a had time sorting these folks out from those of true good will. This has caused me to always assume the worst about people, and I have a sixth sense about what motivates others subconsciously. This case feels like some sort of jealousy, but I have to try to AGF no matter what my past conditioning. Part of my frustration are the double standards I encounter in this English Misplaced Pages. Rules are rules, and they should be absolutes and apply to everone equally, not subject to change beause enough people "wikiality" them away or bend them for others. That's my major complaint about the English Misplaced Pages -- a lack of consistency. At any rate, FYCTravis helped me see some things from a different perspective today, which I appreciate. ] 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if this would be warranted. Checkuser requests since the conclusion of the arbitration case was a rather long list. User was banned by arbcom for a year. Users are banned for a year or more by arbcom to cease disruption. More severe mesures should be taken into account if users behaviour does not improve.
User has more sockpuppets than I'd care to count. One of the check users comment was: "I spent half an hour tracking down this checkuser. It is ridiculous. Here is the tree as I have constructed it. It is incomplete".
How often does he use sockpuppets? For example, every week, every day, or...? When was the last time he used sockpuppets? —Kyриx14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this guy's sockdrawer, it's definitely warranted. Once you use a sock to get around an ArbCom decision, you're effectively telling the community you're not going to follow the rules. 2321 socks? Indef ban.Blueboy9615:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Cat15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he was making socks even while the arbitration was underway, from looking at all the block logs for this guy. That only clinches it--he's effectively thumbing his nose at the community. We don't need him.Blueboy9602:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is really simple, if you can come up with valid evidence that (s)he was/is using multiple accounts abusively, I have no qualms with blocking this user indef. Oh, and please block the open proxy. —— Eagle10104:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy9604:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he used 10 of them after the end of the ArbCom case (two of them only hours after the decision came down) and four in the week before the case was underway. Like I've said before, when you're making sockpuppets while there's an arbitration underway, you're telling the community that you're not going to follow the rules. 10 socks after the final decision? Indef him.
Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -M18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't get why he was even allowed back. Revealing personal information? By all rights he should have been reported to his ISP. I would think someone ought to report him now.Blueboy9623:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User in question has been indefinitely blocked by two admins (JzG and Friday) for his latest disruption, and has exhausted community patience. For all intensive purposes, User:GordonWatts is banned from editing Misplaced Pages. SirFozzie20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The user in question is a habitual and perpetual edit warrior, who was blocked for a time after a discussion on CN back in March. The sanctions were appealed by Gordon to ArbCom, and the punishment (as well as the rights of the community to present alternate sanctions) was affirmed, as ArbCom rejected Gordon's case.
Short-term blocks have been tried, and failed. Alternate sanctions have been tried, and failed. Gordon Watts is not here to build consensus and more importantly, an encyclopedia. I suggest re-imposing a community ban, but if anyone else has any suggestions, feel free to discuss. SirFozzie20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that JzG Friday has just blocked him, I think he can be considered banned unless somebody unblocks him. I certainly won't. Mackensen(talk)20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I have no objections to anyone adjusting as needed (altho it seems unlikely). I just didn't want there to be fuel for conflict of interest complaints. Friday(talk)20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, but he said Guy used foul language, I have to know whether if Guy really did so...Wooyi20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably he did, going by his userpage, but I don't know that that's relevant to Gordon Watts being banned. Newyorkbrad20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why based on your knowledge of the situation and the past history? You feel that Gordon is about to make some positive contributions that involve building a encyclopedia? --Fredrick day20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
How so? Coming back after a previous community ban on articles and then a fairly long block, and attempting to have an admin sanctioned for implementing the Community's consensus (which ArbCom explicitly endorsed) and throwing in other things doesn't seem to be a very good behaviour. Combine that with wikilawyering and constant disruption, and I'd think this was a no-brainer. However, since there is an opposition to me closing the discussion for archiving, I have removed the archived discussion tags. SirFozzie20:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let me explain, there are too many issues here and I really can't elaborate. The Misplaced Pages mess of blocking/banning is one reason why I almost decided to leave Misplaced Pages (check my userpage for explanation). I just think this ban is not justified...for reasons hard to say. I stayed as of now only because all the WikiFriends urged me to. It's time to move on, we are building a database of human knowledge, no need to be fighting, it's the time for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Wooyi20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
And I understand where you're coming from. We are building an encyclopedia here, and that is a totally inclusive thing. We want as many eyes as we can on our work. However, when we take a look at the history of Gordon's edit warring on Terri Schiavo, placing undue weight on a discredited theory, and inability to BUILD a database of human knowledge, unfortunately there is no working with folks. Hopefully that alleviates your concern. SirFozzie20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not about peace or fighting, as though those are the two choices we have. It's about removing obstacles to the project. Gordan made himself an obstacle. Friday(talk)20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that I understand, but sometimes it's necessary to have the occasional little purge of those who do not wish to build this wonderful, free, neutral database of human knowledge. Those who come here as flamewarriors need to be shown the flame-retardant door. It used to be called ostracism, now it's called banning. It's an idea with history that works pretty well. Moreschi20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
what you seem to saying is that you are against on what seem to be POINT reasons rather than the merits of the case? would that be fair to say? If we are building an encyclopedia, why would we want to encourage distruptive unproductive editors who don't assist in that goal? --Fredrick day20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, let's just consider Gordon Watts banned. The only instance that he will become unbanned is if an administrator believes that he should be unblocked (or if Jimbo does it himself). I seriously doubt that anyone will be unblocking this user in the near future.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Statement by Gordon Watts
Mr. Watts e-mailed me stating that he believed it was unjust he had been banned under these circumstances. Since he had not had an opportunity to participate in this discussion, I advised him that I would be willing to forward a brief statement from him to this noticeboard. His statement is below. Newyorkbrad21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I did nothing since my return to warrant discipline, thus any discipline is unwarranted. (This is "defense.")
Also, it is my right to bring an action as I did. (I defend myself in the action itself:
Now, the offense speaks for itself: My prosecution of the case might not rank alongside with 'smoking gun evidence for a murder' or the like, but a crime is a crime, and, here, in Wiki-Wonder-Land, we still have laws and rules and policy guidelines.
If we throw these to the side simply because we "don't like gordon," then we become a lawless anarchy -or, perhaps, a dictatorship.
For those that "decide" on my case without actually reading it, they are *not* psychic, and this is an insult to my intelligence -and to the supposed "rule of law" we supposedly endorse here is Wiki-Wonder-Worlds or Wonder.
I tried contributing (see my recent edit history), but the continued violations of policy by several admins made me get to the root source, which was Guy.
One LAST thing: Here is proof I am not on a witch-hunt: I did not seek action against Bish or Nande, the other two admins who very recently vandalized my pages: Reasons: I believed in good faith that Guy's false claims about supposed, alleged consensus misled them.
Misplaced Pages has angered a lot of people. Want a shovel? They need to just dig a little deeper: Dictatorships Government have never worked: (Good thing an admin can't put my in jail, or we'd all be in bad shape.) Why does Misplaced Pages think that it will be any different: If admins don't follow the same rules they demand of others, it is NO BETTER than a dictatorship -and probably worse.
The fact that a "consensus" of a few admins replaced the more valid consensus of the many who voted in the action (which JzG Guy closed) is "not counting the votes" right -dishonesty.
That is my statement: It is dull, but it is the truth. I stick to it.
Gordon Wayne Watts
complete bollocks of course (I had a similar email as I guess others did) - he tried to get arbcom to take on his ban from various pages and adding links and they rejected it out of hand. The idea that Guy is acting as some form of rogue admin in this matter is just nonsense - there was lots of debate and at the end, even his supporters lost it at the end with his constant wikilawyering. Let's put an end to this here and now. This drama has nothing at all to do with improving or producing an encyclopedia - some editors just don't fit in here, they are incapable of being part of such a project - sad but true. --Fredrick day21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd never had any direct interaction with this user before, but he did send me an abusive e-mail a while back after I made a simple, honest mistake. This user is not here to be helpful, and may go down in history as our most prolific Wikilawyer ever. Full support. Grandmasterka22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Deskana. It's telling that his explanation for why he shouldn't be blocked consists solely of attacking someone else, ignoring the actual issues. -Amarkovmoo!00:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have checked his edit history, and I think he has added some good contents to Schiavo article. Of course there are mistakes, but I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, a caution is enough. Wooyi01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The value of the content is actually arguable, but it's also irrelevant: the reasons for the banning include exhaustion of community patience for endless and relentless wikilawyering, the complete unwillingness to follow the most basic guidelines regarding reliable sources, the complete inability to take "no" for an answer, the tireless self-promotion, the king-sized axe-grinding this was all in support of, and the gooey bath of smarmy passive-aggressive false humility it was all coated with. He's also been community-banned from Schiavo articles -- a proper ban, upheld by ArbCom, no matter how much Gordon tries to spin it -- so his contributions, whatever they may be, to Schiavo articles mean even less, since that means that that aspect has already been weighed by the community and found to be insufficient. "Caution" is meaningless, since he's had a month's worth of "caution" (i.e., a block) and his immediate response on his return is a transparently ludicrous and smarmy attempt at revenge with his community-ban proposal against JzG. Enough is enough, and as far as I'm concerned, that point was reached months ago, let alone now. --Calton | Talk01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the explanation, I still really cannot support such a ban. The mess of blocking/banning was one of the reason I almost left Misplaced Pages. Let's move on. Maybe my reason is kind of pointy, but can't help it. Wooyi01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me a ban is justified. While Watts' contributions have some value, there have also been problems with his contributions. However, from what we know about the way he communicates, it is clear we have two options if he is not banned: (1) just let him do whatever he wants or (2) engage in endless wikilawyering. Neither one is acceptable. Wooyi, your well-meaning "caution" would simply lead to him challenging it and then discussing it with you at length and drawing in other editors for a month, not in him taking it as a legitimate concern. The same kind of thing has happened too many times for us to ignore that, IMO. Mangojuice03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not what Misplaced Pages is for.It's like this: GordonWatts thinks he is right, and he also thinks he should be allowed to link his own site to the Schiavo article. We've tried reasoning with him, we've tried telling him outright that his edits fail WP:NPOV, we've tried being nice to him, we've tried being firm with him, we've tried restricting him from the articles he disrupts, but none of that works because Watts is absolutely convinced that he is right and anyone who disagrees is therefore necessarily wrong. Worse, he will epxlain to you why he is right and you are wrong at incredible length, and go on doing so until you die of boredom or lose patience with him - either of which results in him becoming even more convinced that he is right. The one thing he absolutely will not do, however often and however firmly he is asked, is to drop the stick and step away from the horse. And that, as noted above, makes his presence on Misplaced Pages intolerably disruptive. He absolutely will not accept consensus where it conflicts with his agenda, and he absolutely will not shut up about it until he gets what he wants. And at some point - this being, I think, that point - we just have to say sorry, Gordon, we are simply not interested any more. Actually, this is so blindingly obvious by now that I cannot imagine why we are still being sucked into Watts' endless Wikilawyering. We have bent over backwards to be fair to him - so far backwards that at times we have been in danger of sticking our heads up our own arses - and nothing has changed, Watts still thinks he's right, still asserts his right to keep doing the things that exhausted everybody's patience before, and still seems to think that Misplaced Pages is the place to Right Great Wrongs. He also seems to think we are in a court of law, or are legalistically regulated. We're not. This is a volunteer-run project, and those who come here to pursue an agenda and obdurately refuse to work collaboratively and consensually with other volunteers, get shown the door. Usually a lot sooner than this. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've never been involved in the Schiavo articles, but I've seen this user's disruptions to the community for the past two years. There is no longer a prospect that the user will change his behavior and the community needs to accept that fact. We've been very patient. It's time to put this behind us. ·:·Will Beback·:·11:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Misplaced Pages from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Returned from an indefinite block due to his persistant legal threats, Merkey has been singularly unable or unwilling to remain civil and assume good faith with other contributors.
In his short time back, he has engaged in stale revert wars at Cherokee and Mountain Meadows massacre. He has additionally created a BLP-violating hit-piece on one of his political opponents - David Cornsilk. In doing so, he has remained singularly unable to do anything but fight, even with users (such as myself) who have not expressed a preference either way regarding the topics he cares so desperately about.
In attempting to discuss this with Merkey, he is instantly beligerant - accusing any and all users who disagree with him of being "trolls" "SCOX trolls" "well-known trolls," and the like.
Merkey is also generally unable to assume good faith. In response to an edit conflict in which a comment of his was accidentally removed, he stated "You removed a comment from a talk page then disguised it as a request for page protection. I tend to see things the way they are rather than how people wish to see them. You are trolling, IMHO. Troll elsewhere and stop wikistalking me." Of course, the "removal" was a bog-normal edit conflict.
This is a pattern of behavior that shows no signs of abating, no signs of changing. Merkey is not here to build an encyclopedia - he is here to play internet fight with his opponents, and push his POV on article relating to his political struggles. While the behavior of some individuals harassing him has been innapropriate and unnaceptable, there is no evidence that Merkey is remotely interested in working on the encyclopedia.
The community should place Merkey under standard civility and revert probation - preventing him from reverting any change (including vandalism, as he has demonstrated an inability to tell "vandalism" from "people I dislike") more than once per day, and providing that any adminstrator can block him for any violation of civility for 24 hours, extending to one month after the third such block, one year after fourth and indef on the fifth.
Because this situtation does not require substantial fact finding, I am hopefull the community can impose this protective measure, which in no way prohibits whatever useful cooperative editing Merkey might choose to do, without the difficulty of a long, drawn out arbitration with a foregone conclusion (single purpose trolls get banned, Merkey is either banned or gets civility and revert probation).
Given his obvious good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia I would recommend dispute resolution processes possibly leading to arbcom restrictions of the type proposed by Hipocrite, but would oppose these restrictions being imposed by the community. Such restrictions when imposed by arbcom tend to be more effective and would be more appropriate in this particular case, SqueakBox17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree in general with SqueakBox, with a bit of caution for Jeffrey with a request to WP:AGF more in the future. Yes there are users who are here in general to wind him up, but that is not all of the people who are disagreeing with him. SirFozzie17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I had an epiphany today after interacting with FYCTravis about the use of various terms on Misplaced Pages, such as the definition of "bad faith" used here, which differs significantly from the legal use of the word I am familiar with. I appears part of this is my own understanding of the pecking order on Misplaced Pages and its interpretation. As far as Hipocrtie goes, I would like a reciprocal sanction, with Hipocrite staying away from me permanently. His temper explosions are dificult for me to deal with. I have run companies with upwards of 500 people reporting to me and I have generated over 10 billion dollars in revenue for various companies over the years, so I am not a stupid or brash person. I have a lot of experience both dealing with others and managing others. That being said, Cabal attacks and agendas aside (which this post by him appears to me to be just that, but I will attempt to AGF here), I think I can work on these issues and fit in. I have a lot of folks who troll me around the internet just to get money from me or push me away out of jealousy and I have a had time sorting these folks out from those of true good will. This has caused me to always assume the worst about people, and I have a sixth sense about what motivates others subconsciously. This case feels like some sort of jealousy, but I have to try to AGF no matter what my past conditioning. Part of my frustration are the double standards I encounter in this English Misplaced Pages. Rules are rules, and they should be absolutes and apply to everone equally, not subject to change beause enough people "wikiality" them away or bend them for others. That's my major complaint about the English Misplaced Pages -- a lack of consistency. At any rate, FYCTravis helped me see some things from a different perspective today, which I appreciate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I was wondering if this would be warranted. Checkuser requests since the conclusion of the arbitration case was a rather long list. User was banned by arbcom for a year. Users are banned for a year or more by arbcom to cease disruption. More severe mesures should be taken into account if users behaviour does not improve.
User has more sockpuppets than I'd care to count. One of the check users comment was: "I spent half an hour tracking down this checkuser. It is ridiculous. Here is the tree as I have constructed it. It is incomplete".
How often does he use sockpuppets? For example, every week, every day, or...? When was the last time he used sockpuppets? —Kyриx14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this guy's sockdrawer, it's definitely warranted. Once you use a sock to get around an ArbCom decision, you're effectively telling the community you're not going to follow the rules. 2321 socks? Indef ban.Blueboy9615:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Cat15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he was making socks even while the arbitration was underway, from looking at all the block logs for this guy. That only clinches it--he's effectively thumbing his nose at the community. We don't need him.Blueboy9602:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is really simple, if you can come up with valid evidence that (s)he was/is using multiple accounts abusively, I have no qualms with blocking this user indef. Oh, and please block the open proxy. —— Eagle10104:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy9604:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he used 10 of them after the end of the ArbCom case (two of them only hours after the decision came down) and four in the week before the case was underway. Like I've said before, when you're making sockpuppets while there's an arbitration underway, you're telling the community that you're not going to follow the rules. 10 socks after the final decision? Indef him.
Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -M18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't get why he was even allowed back. Revealing personal information? By all rights he should have been reported to his ISP. I would think someone ought to report him now.Blueboy9623:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User in question has been indefinitely blocked by two admins (JzG and Friday) for his latest disruption, and has exhausted community patience. For all intensive purposes, User:GordonWatts is banned from editing Misplaced Pages. SirFozzie20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The user in question is a habitual and perpetual edit warrior, who was blocked for a time after a discussion on CN back in March. The sanctions were appealed by Gordon to ArbCom, and the punishment (as well as the rights of the community to present alternate sanctions) was affirmed, as ArbCom rejected Gordon's case.
Short-term blocks have been tried, and failed. Alternate sanctions have been tried, and failed. Gordon Watts is not here to build consensus and more importantly, an encyclopedia. I suggest re-imposing a community ban, but if anyone else has any suggestions, feel free to discuss. SirFozzie20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that JzG Friday has just blocked him, I think he can be considered banned unless somebody unblocks him. I certainly won't. Mackensen(talk)20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I have no objections to anyone adjusting as needed (altho it seems unlikely). I just didn't want there to be fuel for conflict of interest complaints. Friday(talk)20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, but he said Guy used foul language, I have to know whether if Guy really did so...Wooyi20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably he did, going by his userpage, but I don't know that that's relevant to Gordon Watts being banned. Newyorkbrad20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why based on your knowledge of the situation and the past history? You feel that Gordon is about to make some positive contributions that involve building a encyclopedia? --Fredrick day20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
How so? Coming back after a previous community ban on articles and then a fairly long block, and attempting to have an admin sanctioned for implementing the Community's consensus (which ArbCom explicitly endorsed) and throwing in other things doesn't seem to be a very good behaviour. Combine that with wikilawyering and constant disruption, and I'd think this was a no-brainer. However, since there is an opposition to me closing the discussion for archiving, I have removed the archived discussion tags. SirFozzie20:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let me explain, there are too many issues here and I really can't elaborate. The Misplaced Pages mess of blocking/banning is one reason why I almost decided to leave Misplaced Pages (check my userpage for explanation). I just think this ban is not justified...for reasons hard to say. I stayed as of now only because all the WikiFriends urged me to. It's time to move on, we are building a database of human knowledge, no need to be fighting, it's the time for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Wooyi20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
And I understand where you're coming from. We are building an encyclopedia here, and that is a totally inclusive thing. We want as many eyes as we can on our work. However, when we take a look at the history of Gordon's edit warring on Terri Schiavo, placing undue weight on a discredited theory, and inability to BUILD a database of human knowledge, unfortunately there is no working with folks. Hopefully that alleviates your concern. SirFozzie20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not about peace or fighting, as though those are the two choices we have. It's about removing obstacles to the project. Gordan made himself an obstacle. Friday(talk)20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that I understand, but sometimes it's necessary to have the occasional little purge of those who do not wish to build this wonderful, free, neutral database of human knowledge. Those who come here as flamewarriors need to be shown the flame-retardant door. It used to be called ostracism, now it's called banning. It's an idea with history that works pretty well. Moreschi20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
what you seem to saying is that you are against on what seem to be POINT reasons rather than the merits of the case? would that be fair to say? If we are building an encyclopedia, why would we want to encourage distruptive unproductive editors who don't assist in that goal? --Fredrick day20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, let's just consider Gordon Watts banned. The only instance that he will become unbanned is if an administrator believes that he should be unblocked (or if Jimbo does it himself). I seriously doubt that anyone will be unblocking this user in the near future.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Statement by Gordon Watts
Mr. Watts e-mailed me stating that he believed it was unjust he had been banned under these circumstances. Since he had not had an opportunity to participate in this discussion, I advised him that I would be willing to forward a brief statement from him to this noticeboard. His statement is below. Newyorkbrad21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I did nothing since my return to warrant discipline, thus any discipline is unwarranted. (This is "defense.")
Also, it is my right to bring an action as I did. (I defend myself in the action itself:
Now, the offense speaks for itself: My prosecution of the case might not rank alongside with 'smoking gun evidence for a murder' or the like, but a crime is a crime, and, here, in Wiki-Wonder-Land, we still have laws and rules and policy guidelines.
If we throw these to the side simply because we "don't like gordon," then we become a lawless anarchy -or, perhaps, a dictatorship.
For those that "decide" on my case without actually reading it, they are *not* psychic, and this is an insult to my intelligence -and to the supposed "rule of law" we supposedly endorse here is Wiki-Wonder-Worlds or Wonder.
I tried contributing (see my recent edit history), but the continued violations of policy by several admins made me get to the root source, which was Guy.
One LAST thing: Here is proof I am not on a witch-hunt: I did not seek action against Bish or Nande, the other two admins who very recently vandalized my pages: Reasons: I believed in good faith that Guy's false claims about supposed, alleged consensus misled them.
Misplaced Pages has angered a lot of people. Want a shovel? They need to just dig a little deeper: Dictatorships Government have never worked: (Good thing an admin can't put my in jail, or we'd all be in bad shape.) Why does Misplaced Pages think that it will be any different: If admins don't follow the same rules they demand of others, it is NO BETTER than a dictatorship -and probably worse.
The fact that a "consensus" of a few admins replaced the more valid consensus of the many who voted in the action (which JzG Guy closed) is "not counting the votes" right -dishonesty.
That is my statement: It is dull, but it is the truth. I stick to it.
Gordon Wayne Watts
complete bollocks of course (I had a similar email as I guess others did) - he tried to get arbcom to take on his ban from various pages and adding links and they rejected it out of hand. The idea that Guy is acting as some form of rogue admin in this matter is just nonsense - there was lots of debate and at the end, even his supporters lost it at the end with his constant wikilawyering. Let's put an end to this here and now. This drama has nothing at all to do with improving or producing an encyclopedia - some editors just don't fit in here, they are incapable of being part of such a project - sad but true. --Fredrick day21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd never had any direct interaction with this user before, but he did send me an abusive e-mail a while back after I made a simple, honest mistake. This user is not here to be helpful, and may go down in history as our most prolific Wikilawyer ever. Full support. Grandmasterka22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Deskana. It's telling that his explanation for why he shouldn't be blocked consists solely of attacking someone else, ignoring the actual issues. -Amarkovmoo!00:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have checked his edit history, and I think he has added some good contents to Schiavo article. Of course there are mistakes, but I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, a caution is enough. Wooyi01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The value of the content is actually arguable, but it's also irrelevant: the reasons for the banning include exhaustion of community patience for endless and relentless wikilawyering, the complete unwillingness to follow the most basic guidelines regarding reliable sources, the complete inability to take "no" for an answer, the tireless self-promotion, the king-sized axe-grinding this was all in support of, and the gooey bath of smarmy passive-aggressive false humility it was all coated with. He's also been community-banned from Schiavo articles -- a proper ban, upheld by ArbCom, no matter how much Gordon tries to spin it -- so his contributions, whatever they may be, to Schiavo articles mean even less, since that means that that aspect has already been weighed by the community and found to be insufficient. "Caution" is meaningless, since he's had a month's worth of "caution" (i.e., a block) and his immediate response on his return is a transparently ludicrous and smarmy attempt at revenge with his community-ban proposal against JzG. Enough is enough, and as far as I'm concerned, that point was reached months ago, let alone now. --Calton | Talk01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the explanation, I still really cannot support such a ban. The mess of blocking/banning was one of the reason I almost left Misplaced Pages. Let's move on. Maybe my reason is kind of pointy, but can't help it. Wooyi01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me a ban is justified. While Watts' contributions have some value, there have also been problems with his contributions. However, from what we know about the way he communicates, it is clear we have two options if he is not banned: (1) just let him do whatever he wants or (2) engage in endless wikilawyering. Neither one is acceptable. Wooyi, your well-meaning "caution" would simply lead to him challenging it and then discussing it with you at length and drawing in other editors for a month, not in him taking it as a legitimate concern. The same kind of thing has happened too many times for us to ignore that, IMO. Mangojuice03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not what Misplaced Pages is for.It's like this: GordonWatts thinks he is right, and he also thinks he should be allowed to link his own site to the Schiavo article. We've tried reasoning with him, we've tried telling him outright that his edits fail WP:NPOV, we've tried being nice to him, we've tried being firm with him, we've tried restricting him from the articles he disrupts, but none of that works because Watts is absolutely convinced that he is right and anyone who disagrees is therefore necessarily wrong. Worse, he will epxlain to you why he is right and you are wrong at incredible length, and go on doing so until you die of boredom or lose patience with him - either of which results in him becoming even more convinced that he is right. The one thing he absolutely will not do, however often and however firmly he is asked, is to drop the stick and step away from the horse. And that, as noted above, makes his presence on Misplaced Pages intolerably disruptive. He absolutely will not accept consensus where it conflicts with his agenda, and he absolutely will not shut up about it until he gets what he wants. And at some point - this being, I think, that point - we just have to say sorry, Gordon, we are simply not interested any more. Actually, this is so blindingly obvious by now that I cannot imagine why we are still being sucked into Watts' endless Wikilawyering. We have bent over backwards to be fair to him - so far backwards that at times we have been in danger of sticking our heads up our own arses - and nothing has changed, Watts still thinks he's right, still asserts his right to keep doing the things that exhausted everybody's patience before, and still seems to think that Misplaced Pages is the place to Right Great Wrongs. He also seems to think we are in a court of law, or are legalistically regulated. We're not. This is a volunteer-run project, and those who come here to pursue an agenda and obdurately refuse to work collaboratively and consensually with other volunteers, get shown the door. Usually a lot sooner than this. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've never been involved in the Schiavo articles, but I've seen this user's disruptions to the community for the past two years. There is no longer a prospect that the user will change his behavior and the community needs to accept that fact. We've been very patient. It's time to put this behind us. ·:·Will Beback·:·11:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For abusive sockpuppetry involving the accounts Audiovideo, Facethefacts, and SE16, the administrator privileges of Henrygb are revoked. He may reapply at any time, either a) by appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or b) after giving notice to the committee to allow verification that no further abusive sockpuppetry has occurred, by reapplying via the usual means. Henrygb shall edit Misplaced Pages from only a single account. Henrygb is banned until he responds to the Arbitration Committee's concerns on this matter. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Returned from an indefinite block due to his persistant legal threats, Merkey has been singularly unable or unwilling to remain civil and assume good faith with other contributors.
In his short time back, he has engaged in stale revert wars at Cherokee and Mountain Meadows massacre. He has additionally created a BLP-violating hit-piece on one of his political opponents - David Cornsilk. In doing so, he has remained singularly unable to do anything but fight, even with users (such as myself) who have not expressed a preference either way regarding the topics he cares so desperately about.
In attempting to discuss this with Merkey, he is instantly beligerant - accusing any and all users who disagree with him of being "trolls" "SCOX trolls" "well-known trolls," and the like.
Merkey is also generally unable to assume good faith. In response to an edit conflict in which a comment of his was accidentally removed, he stated "You removed a comment from a talk page then disguised it as a request for page protection. I tend to see things the way they are rather than how people wish to see them. You are trolling, IMHO. Troll elsewhere and stop wikistalking me." Of course, the "removal" was a bog-normal edit conflict.
This is a pattern of behavior that shows no signs of abating, no signs of changing. Merkey is not here to build an encyclopedia - he is here to play internet fight with his opponents, and push his POV on article relating to his political struggles. While the behavior of some individuals harassing him has been innapropriate and unnaceptable, there is no evidence that Merkey is remotely interested in working on the encyclopedia.
The community should place Merkey under standard civility and revert probation - preventing him from reverting any change (including vandalism, as he has demonstrated an inability to tell "vandalism" from "people I dislike") more than once per day, and providing that any adminstrator can block him for any violation of civility for 24 hours, extending to one month after the third such block, one year after fourth and indef on the fifth.
Because this situtation does not require substantial fact finding, I am hopefull the community can impose this protective measure, which in no way prohibits whatever useful cooperative editing Merkey might choose to do, without the difficulty of a long, drawn out arbitration with a foregone conclusion (single purpose trolls get banned, Merkey is either banned or gets civility and revert probation).
Given his obvious good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia I would recommend dispute resolution processes possibly leading to arbcom restrictions of the type proposed by Hipocrite, but would oppose these restrictions being imposed by the community. Such restrictions when imposed by arbcom tend to be more effective and would be more appropriate in this particular case, SqueakBox17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree in general with SqueakBox, with a bit of caution for Jeffrey with a request to WP:AGF more in the future. Yes there are users who are here in general to wind him up, but that is not all of the people who are disagreeing with him. SirFozzie17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I had an epiphany today after interacting with FYCTravis about the use of various terms on Misplaced Pages, such as the definition of "bad faith" used here, which differs significantly from the legal use of the word I am familiar with. I appears part of this is my own understanding of the pecking order on Misplaced Pages and its interpretation. As far as Hipocrtie goes, I would like a reciprocal sanction, with Hipocrite staying away from me permanently. His temper explosions are dificult for me to deal with. I have run companies with upwards of 500 people reporting to me and I have generated over 10 billion dollars in revenue for various companies over the years, so I am not a stupid or brash person. I have a lot of experience both dealing with others and managing others. That being said, Cabal attacks and agendas aside (which this post by him appears to me to be just that, but I will attempt to AGF here), I think I can work on these issues and fit in. I have a lot of folks who troll me around the internet just to get money from me or push me away out of jealousy and I have a had time sorting these folks out from those of true good will. This has caused me to always assume the worst about people, and I have a sixth sense about what motivates others subconsciously. This case feels like some sort of jealousy, but I have to try to AGF no matter what my past conditioning. Part of my frustration are the double standards I encounter in this English Misplaced Pages. Rules are rules, and they should be absolutes and apply to everone equally, not subject to change beause enough people "wikiality" them away or bend them for others. That's my major complaint about the English Misplaced Pages -- a lack of consistency. At any rate, FYCTravis helped me see some things from a different perspective today, which I appreciate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
