Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:21, 11 October 2007 view sourceDbachmann (talk \| contribs)227,714 edits self-rv← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:44, 11 October 2007 view source B (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,958 edits →Tweety21: closing, ban endorsedNext edit →
Line 164:		Line 164:
	* Ban seems in order here given the evidence. ] 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)		* Ban seems in order here given the evidence. ] 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

			{{discussion top\|Ban endorsed, user is already indefinitely blocked. --] 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)}}
	== Tweety21 ==		== Tweety21 ==

Line 255:		Line 256:
	:I think all questions have been resolved. While there was not unanimous consensus, I believe there's sufficient grounds for a ban here. Note, though, that I am the person who opened this case. --] 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)		:I think all questions have been resolved. While there was not unanimous consensus, I believe there's sufficient grounds for a ban here. Note, though, that I am the person who opened this case. --] 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
	::I agree with Yamla. I note Thatcher and the editor in question (or, at least, the IP which claimed to be the editor) seem to be the only ones who disagree with that option. ] 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)		::I agree with Yamla. I note Thatcher and the editor in question (or, at least, the IP which claimed to be the editor) seem to be the only ones who disagree with that option. ] 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
			:::Done. It looks like the user is already blocked. --] 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
			{{discussion bottom}}

	== ] opened ==		== ] opened ==

Revision as of 15:44, 11 October 2007

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This page is inactive. Do not add new cases here; instead, add them at the Incidents noticeboard!

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Rex Germanus (talk · contribs)

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.

Rex Germanus placed on 1RR parole in any article, a hard topic ban on the issue of German names, and ad-hoc additional topic or article bans, possibly temporary, in probation style at the discretion of administrators. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This user should not be allowed anywhere near anything German-related. A long record of trouble-making, edit-warring and incivility has recently culminated in a block for a month: see ANI here. Rex is on probation and revert-parole, but these restrictions are going to expire in a couple of months. Repellent comments such as these , , and dubious edit summaries like this have managed to persuade me that we should topic-ban Rex Germanus from all Germany-related articles, loosely defined, violations to be rewarded with blocks of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year. Rex can make valuable contributions, but it is quite evident he cannot restrain his Germanophobic POV. If that's the case, we can't let him edit these articles. Note: I do not think he should be sitebanned without formal arbitration. Oh, and good heavens: Austin Powers villains are not Dutch, they're German! Moreschi 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban on German naming and Germany related topics. In spite of repeated blocks, Rex has shown no improvement of any kind of tact in these topics, although in other areas he tends to be a valuable editor. Some discretion maybe needed on some of the more distantly Germany related topics, it could for example be argued that any Netherlands (Rex homecountry) (due to several historic links), or indeed every topic concerning any country in WOII is also Germany related. Note: In the past I have frequently defended Rex, as he is not making his case better by refusing to appease admins, and by making many enemies; however I am getting wary of this and hope this would take the sting out of most of his less well thought trhough edits. Arnoutf 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I do support a topic ban but I think it might be difficult to formulate one since user:Rex Germanus has threatened to police German sounding names through-out en-WP--Cailil 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hoping to avoid just that, is why I explicitly added the "German naming" under the topics. Arnoutf 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Support without prejudice to extending the ban to any other area he disrupts. He lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Let's be on guard for WP:POINT violations too. --Folantin 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
All the editor did was Germany related pages, A indef user ban likely works instead. 131.94.65.77 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment While we have to make Rex somehow understand that his actions (based on his POV) are counter-productive and distruptive I'm not certain that we can find a ban wide enough to prevent further issues, while being narrow enough to allow his constructive edits to continue. Moreso, we cannot be to vague about this, unless we wish to continue the current situation on an additional meta-level, i.e. if that article is sufficiently related to "German" to be covered under the ban. Also the issues of Dutch articles were raised, as both the Netherlands and Germany are closely connected through their geographical and historic ties. 84.145.229.133 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Support indef topic ban per Moreschi and Arnoutf. But note that this comment (#2) has been repeatedly misinterpreted. Comments #1 and #2 both refer to allegedly being called a racist. #2 says that Rex considers racists "low lifes". Avb 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with topic-ban, although I share anon's concerns above about the clarity of the ban. I think that he should also be prohibited from moving pages based on POV pushing and the (ongoing?) discussion at Talk:Johann van Beethoven. R. Baley 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban, with scope to be interpreted liberally. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Would you be receptive to a friendly amendment, specifically replacing "of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year" with a simple "at the discretion of the blocking admin"? The intent is to allow particularly egregious violations to be dealt with accordingly. Raymond Arritt 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- If a block longer than a month is necessary, then we can do that through ANI. Plus, it's easier to get a clear consensus if we don't change the boilerplate halfway through.--Chaser - T 07:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban as proposed, with strong caution to the editor that sanctions can be expanded as necessary. Please continue editing productively on other topics. Durova 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
support rapidly escalating topic ban, escallation of revert parole bans. --Rocksanddirt 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support escalating topic ban on all edits related to German words (not just Germany related articles) and escalating block also earned for incivility, and other WP:POINT related disruptions such as replacing French names of places and works of art, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I support the idea because it'll give a break to our friends who contribute on German-related articles, but I'd like to advise that Rex will be just as likely to proceed likewise on topics related to France, or even to Lotharingia if he gets a chance (see the nice mess he made on Charlemagne). Rama 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could we banish him from Europe? (rigging clipper ship to Australia) ;) Durova 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - That would effectively be a project ban as Rex expertise is mainly on Dutch issues. Arnoutf 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - It's up to him: if he edits productively there then I have no objection. If he decides to be disruptive then eventually he might actually get banned. Durova 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I Support the ban. But WikiProject Germany should be informed so they can be a watchdog for this. Kingjeff 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am strongly against explicitly informing a WikiProject, these have no official status in reinforcement of bans. By giving them a watchdog task your are effectively making them prosecutors. It is likely that inflammatory (and even helpful edits) within the ban will be flagged up anyway (by you or other enemies of Rex).Arnoutf 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Please refactor the enemies characterization. Durova 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Informing a WikiProject is not about making anyone or any group procecutors. This is about effectively maintaining the ban. They do watch Germany-related articles and should be aware of this ban if it gets passed. In fact it doesn't even have to be the entire WikiProject that gets informed. There are administrators that are involed with WikiProject Germany. User:Agathoclea and User:Kusma are 2 admins that I know that participate Kingjeff 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Rex has made enemies; there are cases in articles where edits are being reverted or debated "just because Rex made them". I think this kind of content unelated behaviour may count as enmity. It is likely that these editors will keep trailing Rex and call out whenever he step a hair-width over the line of his ban. With regard to Kingjeff's comment, this enforcement is exactly what I mean; why we should not give it to a project. Ban-enforcement should not be given over to a project; it is an issue for admins who care about these things; not all editors and admins who are much happier making edits and not being involved in messy things like this. Arnoutf 06:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        I don't think that's what Kingjeff is proposing at all. Anyway, ideal practice is a note on the project's discussion page informing them about the ban and instructing them to ask a neutral admin to make a determination about whether a block is necessary, and then that admin will implement it if it is.--Chaser - T 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        Leaving a note on the project's discussion page is exactly what needs to happen and I have already mentioned 2 admins in the project. Kingjeff 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Support due to wiki-yobbery. (A topic ban on both the Netherlands and Germany, given the issues at hand.) — Rickyrab | Talk 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban, with scope as expansive as is seen necessary in relation to Germany-related articles. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
there is a reason people are suspicious of Rex' edits now. In his place, I would consider just starting over with a clean slate (this is no endorsement of abusive sockpuppetry). I would be reluctant to impose a full topic ban ("German-related"? I am sure you can find some way to consider "German-related" tens of thousands of articles). But this needs to stop. Rex has shown no signs of introspection even after he was placed under revert parole. Instead of a topic-ban, I would propose indefinite extension of probation, with escalating blocks over 1RR-violations. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 10:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the indefinite extension of the arbcom-imposed probation/1RR is the least that needs to be done. (Only now occurred to me that the year was almost up! Heavens, time...). New, specific topic ban could be defined as: "any edits or discussions relating to issues of using German names", plus, admins should additionally be encouraged to invoke the existing probation rule to ban him from additional German-related disputes when necessary. At the same time, his old opponents must be closely watched for harassment or taunting, and should be blocked at the slightest signs of aggressive behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- an all-out "German" topic ban would be nearly equivalent to a full ban, since most of Rex' edits by far are concerned with "removing German pov". It would be easier to enforce a strict 1RR parole, since it would (a) avoid fruitless discussions whether a given topic is "German related", and (b) wouldn't prevent Rex from making harmless and undisputed edits to articles. We don't want to ban him from fixing typos at Germans, we want him to stop his pointless and misguided "anti-German pov" campaign. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree. That's why I said: hard topic ban only on the issue of German names, and ad-hoc additional topic or article bans, possibly temporary, in probation style at the discretion of administrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Me

I don't see anyway in how you're going to pull this off. You'll see I have rarely edited either the Germany article or the German language article, leaving the German people article, which also has been quite a while, as the 3 articles that really spring to my (most) mind(s) when I hear a "topic bann related to Germany". Thing is, in many cases my edits concern 2 things, (in my opinion, all is relative) innapropriate/unneccesary German terms or German POV, and these articles often have little true linkage to Germany/German/Germans. Think of a Polish town, a ship or a musician. Thing is, I bet you could link most articles on wikipedia to Germans, German or Germany, indeed many German contributors seem to be generally fond of it.

A simple made-up example, the Dutch people-article, something I consider "my" pet article, and have been planning to work towards featured status for about a year now, when someone adds a line saying "Dutch people are a subgroup of Germans" then effectively, despite piles and piles of books behind me that say otherwise, I'm not allowed to touch it. Ridiculous, this damages the reliablity (something I for one hold very dear) of wikipedia.

Also, I will definately leave wikipedia if the ideas of Kingjeff (a "watchdog" in the form of Wikiproject Germany) are implemented. I already forsee what is going to happen. Not only will User:Kingjeff, who already watches my edits and makes quasi-personal attacks on my talkpage from time to time, be on wikipedia ANI every day with theories how a edits to "trade" are related to the German as the German wikipedia uses Handel, he will have dozens of little friends to help him. Never in my lifetime.

A German topic bann is impossible to implement, because who defines what is truly related and what isn't? I can already see Kingjeff, Matthead, Dbachman, Sciurnea, and Rama (well not realy him, als he blocks first and talks later) on ANI with links to articles I made an edit to and going into week-long discussions in which they try to prove its related to Germany ... it does not work, you either need a very (extremely clear) definition, or a list in which articles are named which can't be edited.Rex 10:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

nobody disputes that you are editing in good faith. Your problem is that you are unable to reflect on your position and let alone step back even when everyone tells you that it is unreasonable. This isn't about protecting your "pet" article Dutch people from passing trolls adding "Dutch people are a subgroup of Germans": I doubt this would stand for more than five minutes even without your intervention, and I doubt you would be pooh-pooed for reverting such an edit. The fact that you are presenting this case as an illegitimate German conspiracy even in the face of community support and repeated arbcom sanctions really speaks volumes about where the problem really lies. I was the first voter proposing a more lenient solution after a dozen support votes, and you still list me among your nemesises. As it stands, my suggestion of "indefinite parole" has a consensus for an all-out topic ban against it. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking "pet" to "WP:OWN" was not neccesary, I thought the bracing of ""my"" in my initial comment spoke for itself, in which I know I do not own wikipedia articles. Has it ever occured to anyone that most people I come into conflict with are not perfect editors themselves? Or are we too focussed on singling out 'one' badguy? I do not believe in any German conspiracy, I gave those examples because that's what's going to happen. You'll note that a number of them aren't even German. I listed you among others, because you too tried to make it harder for me to edit wikipedia (I recall the fact-taggs to I believe either Germans or Ethnic Germans, in which you continually removed them for straw man reasons)and are always willing to add a sneer on matters concerning me even when not involved, just like Kingjeff with his semi-personal attacks and Matthead with his prefabricated 'please bann this user' ANI messages. I'm sick and tired of continually being accused of matters I did not do, by people who aren't as much as a hair better themselves. I also don't think "your" solution is any more lenient or better than a bann from some articles. I'd rather be banned from some articles than to constantly have to worry of not making a revert too many every week on every article I edit. I've been doing that for nearly a year now, and it sucks. Especially when user, like Matthead for example, a German nationalist (fact, not accusation) use it at their own advantage to push POV that in my opinion is much more harmfull to wikipedia than any of my edits that have been labelled anti-German POV by others. I'd like to note that something can seem Anti-German much faster when you're yourself (not you Dbachman, others) a German nationalist. I name a Matthead (in constant conflict with Polish users for about a year) and User:Antman, who even had an infobox saying he was one. Where do I stand there?Rex 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

after two years, we can confidently say that there is a systematic problem with you. Everybody gets into disputes. But not everyone is the consistently innocent victim of an otherwise unnoted German conspiracy subverting Misplaced Pages. You are not 'singled out as the bad guy'. You have been treated with almost limitless leniency. After a full year of probation, it has become clear that there is simply no way to impress on you how your editing is problematic. You are set in your belief in German nationalist conspiracies, and we won't convince you otherwise. But we have to take measures to prevent disruption, and establish a sane editing environment for others, no hard feelings. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 12:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the way I was treated this year was lenient? Ah I see, well then it's just a matter of making a few adjustments to my dictionary. I'll tell you this again Dbachman. I do not believe in any German conspiracy, I believe and know that German nationalism is present on Misplaced Pages. No where near all my edits to German related articles on Misplaced Pages were because I 'smelled' nationalism, all my edits have a logical reason and I stand by every single one of them. Trying to Labelme as insane will not change any of that,no hard feelings. Rex 12:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a message to the initiator

This user should not be allowed anywhere near anything German-related. A long record of trouble-making, edit-warring and incivility has recently culminated in a block for a month: see ANI here. Rex is on probation and revert-parole, but these restrictions are going to expire in a couple of months. Repellent comments such as these ,, and dubious edit summaries like this have managed to persuade me that we should topic-ban Rex Germanus from all Germany-related articles, loosely defined, violations to be rewarded with blocks of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year. Rex can make valuable contributions, but it is quite evident he cannot restrain his Germanophobic POV. If that's the case, we can't let him edit these articles. Note: I do not think he should be sitebanned without formal arbitration. Oh, and good heavens: Austin Powers villains are not Dutch, they're German!

Moreschi 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note; this (marked as a 'repellent comment' ) was sarcasm, a sneer at Matthead who, through this comment indirectly tried to insult me. Luckily, I'm not as easily offended as he is when "my people" are insulted. This one, has been, either by accident of purposely, mininterpreted. I objected to Matthead calling me a rascist, and wished not to be compared to such, racists, lowlifes. I wasn't refering to Germans. To whom he did not compare me. Then, this remark surprised me, so Moreschi, that edit summary is 'dubious' is worse than a claim (already tagged!) that could have come right out of Die Sturmer or Signal? Now that's dubious. Finally, this was an attempt (?) to add some humor to a very unfunny event? Next time when you (try to) make a joke, check your facts first will you? Cheers. Rex 12:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the mention of "German peasant blood", as opposed to wonderful Dutch genes, that so perturbed us. Your messing around with the Goldmember articles speaks for itself, really. He's not Dutch...honestly. The sardonic edit summary nicely displays your anti-German bias: don't suppose you looked to find a source for that, did you? Moreschi 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Wonderful", did I use that word? Don't think so, again you need to understand and differentiate sarcasm from attacks. I wasn't messing around I made sourced observations. If a character is supposed to be Dutch, but has a German accent I'm allowed to write that, especially when fully explained with IPA et all. Don't you think? Also, because you're disturbing me more and more, are you really saying I should have found a source saying the brave nazi soldier DID NOT shoot themselves because they did not want to take up space? Did cite your sources just die or something?Rex 12:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Goldmember page is the reductio ad absurdum of your editing behaviour, Rex. Dutch = good, German = bad. So you create articles stressing Beethoven's Dutch heritage, but when a comedy villain is supposed to come from the Netherlands you devote paragraphs of linguistic analysis trying to prove he must speak German rather than "freaky deaky Dutch". (All of it, I might add, unsourced original reseach on your part, so maybe you'd better find some academic material on the phonology of Austin Powers characters). It's ludicrous. --Folantin 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Beethovens ancestry was Dutch, if you call adding a line explaining his Dutch surname stressing then I did do that, otherwise you're exagerating. And no, no OR I based myself on Dutch, English and German phonology. Your accusations of "Dutch good/Germans bad" offends me, do you honestly I think that way? Because it's sad if you do. Ludicrous indeed.Rex 13:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful Rex, disengage. I've stated below that I think it is good to give you another chance, but as you allow yourself to be dragged into the same old discussions even here on the sanctions board, I can but wonder... Ignoring all other claims involved, the original research issue clearly illuminates that you act upon your bias, even though you know you are biased. Know your bias, then avoid it. In doubt, ask a neutral 3rd party for a review. Consider getting yourself a mentor to aid you in avoiding said behaviour. 84.145.241.203 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Goldmember is blatant OR based on your own personal interpretation of his accent. There are no sources and no references. --Folantin 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already said I based it on Dutch, English and German phonology.Rex 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's based on your own interpretation of his accent, which ignores some obvious counter-evidence like the fact that Goldmember shoundsh shuspicioushly like a comedy Dutchman to my earsh. Now I could add my own personal research with the relevant phonetics to the article but I won't because just like your material it would be original research, in other words there are no references from reliable, third-party sources to substantiate your claims. --Folantin 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right and I guess it's also based on my interpretation of German, Dutch and English phonology? That's why they invented IPA, to avoid just that, countless of different personal observation.Rex 16:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it? No wonder you've ended up on this noticeboard. Try reading some policies. I'll remove your speculations from the Goldmember article and you can re-add them when you've found some reliable sourcing. --Folantin 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to look for them, I already had them, when I wrote that piece.Rex 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So please add those references to the books or articles you have to back your claims. --Folantin 17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Better solution

Dbachmann and Future Perfect have persuaded me that extending Rex's probation and 1RR revert parole (as laid out by the ArbCom) to indefinite is a better solution than a complete topic-ban. This is a given, I think. Potentially also a topic-ban banning Rex from edits, articles and discussions relating to issues of using German names? Thoughts? Moreschi 12:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 1RR is (objectively speaking) easier to enforce. I would also add 'no page moves' on his part per my earlier statement (also an objective standard, he could still advocate for page moves of course, through discussion.) R. Baley 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be a workable solution, if pagemoves are restricted also (necessary moves can be done via WP:RM). Still, Rex should be made aware, in no uncertain terms, that continuing his current editstyle (e.g. "Potsdamer Platz" move to "Potsdam Square", "Johann van Beethoven" to "Johan van Beethoven", unwillingness to accept that everybody is wrong at times (see the talkpages of the articles mentioned earlier), gross incivility to the "opposing side" in a dispute (see the deletion of WP:RM comments, the "German peasant blood" comment), and associated WP:POINT violations (move of Dora Maar au Chat)) will lead to a ban from this wikipedia. Currently his good contributions (and the prospect that he will continue these) outweight the disruption caused in the past; this is the reason why he is still invited to edit here, even after an ArbCom case and several WP:ANI appearances. Yet, it must be made clear that this is in no way a blank cheque to act in the way he did in the past, and that this is not a "slap on the wrists", that rather a fair - and final - chance for a otherwise good editor to clear up his act. Other people acting like this while on probation would already have been shown the door. I don't know if we can find a good and precise coverage for a topical ban, but outside this, Rex should be strongly urged to stay away from articles covering topics he himself admits is strongly biased with, if only to avoid the temptation to re-engage his previous edit style. And of course, like I said earlier, he must be warned in direct and plain words that causing further disruption even while on ArbCom probation and after repeated warnings by administrators, several WP:ANI incidents and this Community sanction discussion, will lead - good editor or not - to a community ban, as the decision to invite him to continue to edit is not only based upon his previous edits, but on the assumptions that the good edits continue and the bad ones won't. He has shown in the past that he was unwilling or unable to change his style, so this is his final chance to show us that he can, as, if we have to take into account not only good edits but also the same amount of disruption as in the past, we would be operating at a loss. 84.145.241.203 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Should Rex take Mentor(s) to aid him chance his edit style to avoid further biased editing and disruption, I think we could forgo the topical-ban and the pagemove restrictions. Of course, ignoring the mentor or causing further disruption would have to be seen as further unwillingness to change or cooperate, leading to indef blocks (until he agrees to return to uncontroversial edits) or finally ban in repeated case. 84.145.241.203 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to support/selfimplement/or accept the idea of an article ban, on Germany, Germans and German. Furthermore I would agree, with an 1RR parole, indefinately, but preferably for Germany-related articles, in that case, be as liberal as you want.Rex 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If Mr. Germanus is willing to accept this solution, it seems adequate - if he engages in any serious POV pushing he'll just earn himself some long vacations. Everyone has topics that get them all agitatied - if they can self-moderate on those topic great - if not we have to moderate them. I'll say it's probably easier to stick with a complete 1RR to all articles for now, and if no incidents occur, maybe consider relaxing it in the future. WilyD 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I past years history will show most (alledged) cases of 1RR breaches occured on Germany related articles, not 'regular' ones. I would also like to truly be banned from those articles, I do believe I can moderate myself, but I don't want to get blocked for I "don't know how long" amounts of time given a sudden twist of passion that might come around or perhaps automated behavior... Rex 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be blunt, Rex, you have read my suggestions above (albeit striken-through right now), and I'm positively impressed by your latest comments - if you are willing to go through with this, I'd really like you to stay on Misplaced Pages. In that case I'd support the solution above. 84.145.241.203 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not (or barely) read your comments. I don't really trust you or your comments in this entire matter, you only have edited wikipedia for what 2 weeks, and spend nearly all of it on talkpages in discussions either with or closely related to me. I think you're a registered user, and don't plan to take you fully serious until you reveal your true identity.Rex 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal: Community Ban on User:Rex Germanus

With a heavy heart I hereby propose a community ban on User:Rex Germanus, as he has shown he is unwilling or unable to change his editing behavior even now while unblocked specifically to plea his case here. He already is under ArbCom Probation and has several times been warned against and blocked for his editing style, and his aggressive, uncivil and disruptive behavior when engaged in a dispute. Still he fails to realize or understand that his behavior is not acceptable within the Misplaced Pages community, as he continues to defend a highly uncivil comment "as a 'repellent comment'", that "was sarcasm, a sneer at Matthead who, through this comment indirectly tried to insult me." ~~He denies claims of original research even though the actions in questions are the very definition of it,~~ He allows himself to be dragged into a content dispute even here, and accuses another user of being "a german nationalist" ("Especially when user, like Matthead for example, a German nationalist (fact, not accusation) use it at their own advantage to push POV that in my opinion is much more harmfull to wikipedia than any of my edits that have been labelled anti-German POV by others. I'd like to note that something can seem Anti-German much faster when you're yourself (not you Dbachman, others) a German nationalist.") along with general less-than-civil behavior. Due to all this, I fail to believe that Rex Germanus can change his behavior (as it would be the aim of any topical-restricted ban or probation) but will continue to cause disruption by controversial edits and gross incivility, overshadowing all good edits he may make. 84.145.241.203 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Edit: If Rex is truely willing to change his behavior this one will not be necessary. 84.145.241.203 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

When I say I try to refrain as much as I can from Original research, I do. In fact I'm the one, who's constantly asking for other peoples sources. Look at the Dutch people article, how many references does that have? 1? 4? maybe 10? No, a staggering 114. So please, whatever you do, do not accuse me of original research.Rex 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on the matter of calling someone a nationalist. And I'll be blund and fair here, there are only 3 persons on the entire project that I know/consider nationalists. User:Ulritz (left wikipedia), Matthead (see any of his contributions on Polish-German issues or the eastern fron of WW2) and Antman (who admits it himself, oddly an American btw) I would strongly suggest you'd never take up the sword for these people. Really, don't. You will not do any good. I don't support Personal attacks, though I know I have occasionally made them when dragged away, and I will never call either of them assholes or inferior but these people are nationalists, and everyone knows it. This isn't "insanity", blind hate or extreme POV, just the truth and I don't care if I get banned for it. Rex 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dutch people is an excellent article. The OR issues come from Goldmember, but I shall strike that one as a very borderline case. Yet the heart of the issue still stands. You produce good articles, but at the same time you cause too much disruption with controversial edits on other articles and the big problems with civility while in disputes. You have been put under Probation by ArbCom and you were specifically unblocked to plea your case here, and both times you allowed yourself to slip into said behavior, choosing to defend it (see the repellent comment comment above) . I just do not believe anymore that you can make a long-term change to your editing style, and that, if the current tendentious editing continues, it simply outweights all good edits you make. 84.145.241.203 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have postively impressed me by your comment regarding "Better solution". If you are truely willing to change your behaviour I'd love to have you stay here on Misplaced Pages. 84.145.241.203 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

why are you commenting logged out? I do not think anonymous comments should carry any weight here at all. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It comes over as suspect. --Folantin 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then please disregard them. As to why I'm logged out - I'm trying to stay on a self-imposed wikibreak (but I have to admit myself it is not really working *sigh* curse you, wikipedia!) 84.145.241.203 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already know your IP adress is from Germany, apparently the Nurnberg area, and I would very much like to know who I'm dealing with here.Rex 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing

I think we are ready to close this with a 1RR parole in any article, a hard topic ban on the issue of German names, and ad-hoc additional topic or article bans, possibly temporary, in probation style at the discretion of administrators. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good by me. (Though I'd still suggest Rex to consider getting a mentor, it really helps to have someone of your choice dedicated to kick you in the behind if you stray from your chosen path. You know they don't do it out of malice, but because you asked them to, so you are far less likely to take it personal; secondly, its always good to have some external reinforcement and neutral "reality check", at least in the beginning, if you want to get rid of a habit. And finally, said mentor will also come to your aid in cases where you are right and the others are wrong, which helps to shorten disputes and avoid escalation.) 84.145.241.203 16:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. I don't see why a 1RR parole on all articles is neccesary, and a "German topic ban" or variants have been proven to be virtually unworkable. I don't think this is anywhere near 'closing'.Rex 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if neither a 1RR nor a "German topic ban" is workable, that leaves us with a siteban. (Doing nothing isn't an option.) Raymond Arritt 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting doing nothing. I'm suggesting a topic ban for Germany, Germans and German and an indefinate 1RR for all Germany-related articles.Rex 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion: indefinite site-wide 1RR. Bans for disruption, gaming the system and WP:POINT after due warning, but escalating in length. No definition of a topic is necessary, since experience shows that disruption caused by this user will always be in some way "German related". The only workable alternative will be a complete ban, since the user shows no appreciation of his problems. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I distance myself from WP:POINT. Experiences shows nothing, diffs do. Please do provide them.Rex 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

? -- if you refrain from WP:POINT, you obviously won't be blocked for it, so this shouldn't give you a headache either way. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved that page because it also had an English title, I realy don't see the connection in making a point on the German language on English wikipedia.Rex 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No you moved that page because someone suggested moving Potsdamer Platz to "Potsdam Square" would be like moving Dora Maar au Chat to "Dora Maar with cat", so you went ahead and did the latter too. Surprise, surprise, this arose from a German-language issue. A classic violation of WP:POINT. --Folantin 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recall the someone said 'we don't move DMaC to DMwC either, so I checked if there were enough references to it in English (which was before the move, as can be proven) and moved it, noting in the intro its original name was DMaC. If I'd done it 3 days later no one would have said it would have been WP:POINT, which I believe is harming wikipedia to prove a point on another page.Rex 19:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a ban on moving articles included in the above close. (Preferably for Matthead as well) Agathoclea 21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with this last point. --Folantin 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I had assumed that was included in the clause about "edits relating to naming". Or do you mean all article moves, irrespective of whether they are related to the German names issue? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably all page moves, or at least those which move titles between languages, to avoid pointy things like the Dora Maar au Chat move. --Folantin 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A title move between langiages would sound most logical. I've moved countless of pages, so far only German to English creates problems (for some). I don't see any reason to include all pages.Rex 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, so a ban on any article moves. But before we extend that to Matthead just for good measure, we'll have to discuss Matthead's behaviour first (evidence for disruptive behaviour?). We cannot impose sanctions on editors out of the blue. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I was only referring to Rex Germanus. Any action against Matthead would need a whole new investigation and debate. --Folantin 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One that will certainly take place I can assure that.Rex 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Rex' scale of nationalism etc.?

May I dare to ask about Rex' scale of nationalism, in which edits of mine are featured? Also, is it okay for him to call me nationalist time and again? -- Matthead O —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems I lost my spade somewhere, anybody here seen it laying around ? --Van helsing 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if Matthead is, in fact, a nationalist. He appears to deny it (most nationalists are proud of being one). If you're going to "call a spade a spade", it is useful to have the actual spade handy (such as a condemning diff). otherwise you find yourself shouting "spade" at embarassed passers-by, without any spade in sight. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"...without any spade in sight". Well... I think I sort of said I lost it ? --Van helsing 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

then, sir, it appears I underestimated the raffinesse of your humour. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Rex' "nationalism scale" is illustrative all in itself. His "scale III" (we are to assume, extreme near-völkisch German nationalism) is illustrated by a softening of "Dutch hate" to "Dutch resentment" against Germans (meaning of course, Rex' resentment/hatred). Any questions? It is not ok to call people "nationalists" idly, without good cause. But I think Rex is in enough trouble without us picking on him for civility issues. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not go into this very much, as I get quite angry with matters like these (people like Matthead euphemising world war II victims) when you call the occupation of the Netherlands, in which nearly a quarter of a million people died 'lenient', then you're in dire need of world war II education and some human decency. Also, you're lucky I censured your name from that edit, because I wouldn't even want to be found dead next to edits like that. Rex 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are a victim of our own censorship in your "scale", apparently attributing the "lenient" summary to me, when in fact it was Ulritz. I had tried to insert links to your censored examples in order to facilitate looking them up, but you denied that.-- Matthead O 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article "names for Germans" is not the place to rant about the Holocaust and against Germans and Nazis in general. Ulritz and Antman were both self-declared German nationalists, and, little surprisingly, US born ethnic German ones. Matthead is just a German editor, and to claim that he is "euphemising world war II victims" is a severe attack on his integrity. You should be careful with this sort of thing. Insisting that we do not hear about the Holocaust on every article somehow related to Germany isn't "euphemising world war II victims", give us a break. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Surprising that you use 'we', I was under the impression you were a Swiss person. The article you mentioned is on terms used for Germans and for some it gives the etymology and social background. To say the Dutch occupation was lenient, or indeed to suggest any occupation in which people experienced terrible missery, hunger and death was lenient is a terrible thing to do, and if calling something in which hundreds of thousands died lenient isn't euphemising, then please enlighten me as to what is. We apparently both agree Ulritz and Antman are/were German nationalists, but we disagree on Matthead, maybe we need a second opinion. Should we post a notice on the Polish Wikipedians noticeboard and see what comes out? (both in diffs and opinons)Rex 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed Swiss, not German. By "we", I mean readers of Misplaced Pages in general. In my book, you are just demonstrating once again that every discussion with you will degenerate into a rant over German atrocities, no matter what the actual topic of the debate may be. I am agnostic of whether Matthead is a nationalist, and the question is not the topic here. The topic is your pronounced (Dutch) nationalism. If Matthead is showing disruptive patterns similar to yours, it would be high time to open an RfC on him. If you want to do that, you are welcome to it, I suppose, but you'll need to compile something resembling a case, with diffs. Ulritz is indeed a problem user, and in terms of misbehaviour something of your German counterpart. Matthead isn't Ulritz. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, so now suddenly it's about Dutch nationalism? Try to stick to a single topic at a time please. I already said, to someone who is a German nationalist, negativating or neutralizing matters related to Germany will always be called nationalism from the other side. When a German user adds an unreferenced claim on Soviet soldiers killing 20 babys in a shed south of Berlin and a Russian user removes it, guess who will call who a nationalist.Rex 18:58, 2 October 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.

SallyForth123

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.

On second though (prompted by Rocksanddirt), this is not necessary. Sancho 16:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should consider this user banned. See Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of SallyForth123. The only difference this banning would make (as opposed to the current indefinite block) is permit reversion of all contributions. The most recent discussion regarding one of this users sockpuppets is at this AN/I archive. Sancho 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

if her contributions were not disruptive and havn't been removed already through normal editing why bother? If there is still disruption from her activity, remove it. --Rocksanddirt 15:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com

User has a long history of hoaxmongering and sockpuppeteering which is listed on an unofficial evidence page and has recently started back up with various new sockpuppets starting with Kevin Hotfury (talk · contribs); the sockpuppets edit each others' user pages and have an interest in making up events coming from Pakistan. Initially, the hoaxes were all over the place, but mostly stick to wrestling pages now. They have a large library of official-looking pages in user space. JuJube 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like one of his socks, Calvinpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), made a death threat. No discussion needed here, I think. Blueboy 96 03:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can make a conclusive case that these are the same editor then no community discussion is needed. Indef blocking for death threats is a slam dunk decision. Durova 03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a CheckUser was ever run, but circumstantial evidence is a bit overwhelming here. Kevin Hotfury makes edits about Asad Aleem, and says "he"'s not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages for making "hoax articles". He edits Wiki Florida 2007's user pages, who in turn edits a bevy of user pages, including Kevin Hotfury's. JuJube 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban seems in order here given the evidence. Odd nature 21:04, 8 October 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.

Ban endorsed, user is already indefinitely blocked. --B 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21

To closing admin: Please note that Tweety21 has blanked a ban endorsement from this page. See here. If you believe that a consensus for a ban does not exist, please ensure that other endorsements and/or comments have not also been blanked. --Yamla 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request a formal ban of Tweety21 (talk · contribs). This user has a long history of abuse and continues to blank whois information from IP addresses and makes numerous false claims that her privacy has been violated. I think the best place to read up on this is at User:Precious_Roy/sockproblems. This user has set up an abusive sockpuppet account as recently as today (Libertybell01 (talk · contribs)) who was blocked by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) as a transparent sockpuppet account. Several editors have tried to explain IP addresses, whois information, and our privacy policy to this user. User has several sockpuppet accounts and continues to edit via IP addresses, often claiming to be a different person. Even ignoring these problems, user has a long history of inappropriate behaviour on the Misplaced Pages. See the above link. --Yamla 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd even say prevent her from coming back for her own good. I was planning to blank the IP talk pages she edited from, per her concerns of privacy (she is claiming that her ex-bf is stalking her), but since a case is opened here I suggest we discuss it. I am not saying we should delete all the pages, just blank the few IP talk pages. -- lucasbfr 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing the whois information from IP talk pages serves no purpose as it is, of course, freely available. If Tweety21 is banned, it would be entirely appropriate to blank any reference to IP addresses having been used (as per the right to disappear). If Tweety21 could show he or she understood IP addresses and whois information, and understood how no privacy violations were taking place, it may be appropriate to unblock Tweety21 at that time. At the moment, this user is simply throwing around groundless accusations and causing significant disruption. --Yamla 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant, sorry it's late :) -- lucasbfr 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for all of her disruptions is about as incontrovertible as I have ever seen. Many of us have spent countless hours dealing with her destructiveness of Misplaced Pages, time that could have been spent for much more constructive purposes. My feeling is ban her permanently. I have a question for lucasbfr: When you say blank the IP talk pages, do you mean blanking the way it's usually done (with the edit history intact), or do you mean completely wiping out all history (I'm not even sure that's possible). If there is no history of all of her misdeeds, she could come back with a vengeance (as she is prone to do) months or years from now, and there would be no evidence for all that she has done in the past. Could you clarify? Thanks. Ward3001 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean blanking (as in courtesy blanking), as we often do for stale messages on IPs, not a deletion or an oversight. The edits would still be in the history, but hidden from a google search. -- lucasbfr 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. This user is a malicious troll, ~~possibly~~ certainly has psychological issues as well, and has already gone much farther than she should have ever been allowed to go. — madman bum and angel 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. Just a quick glance shows me this is something that has gone on way too far. Only one concern: Yamla, according to your notification, if you are suggesting that she can comment here, I'm assuming she cannot given her block. I'm not suggesting that she be unblocked (unless she asks via an email to be fair and then it will be an instant block if she does anything funny). Or was that posting simply to inform other admins and thus probably should be reworded? Just want to make sure it's clear. I'm not sure her posting here would be of any help; this is for the community to discuss her actions on its face, and she's gone way past any possible defense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Tweety21 has been given more than generous opportunities to express herself, in response to dozens of warnings and several unblock requests. She also has made it quite clear by her behavior that she has no intention of complying with Misplaced Pages's policies if she is given 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... umteenth chances. Ward3001 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban and agree with that a courtesy blanking of IP's and accounts would be appropriate here. Presumably this is a situation where it is best for the individual involved and Misplaced Pages if they are not editing here.--Isotope23 13:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Premature Most of Tweety's problems can be explained as a result of inexperience and insufficient engagement with our rather more arcane processes, plus extreme concern for her privacy. (She says her abusive ex knows her Misplaced Pages nick, which is why she went ballistic over the IP issue.) Of course, her actions can also be explained as a result of deliberate disruption, but I choose not to endorse that view for the time being. I believe the account should be indefinitely blocked for her own protection but that she not be considered a banned user, so that she can create a new account and start fresh. As long as she avoids repeating the same dramas, this should not be a problem. If it repeats, well then, "Fool me once..." Thatcher131 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Outside comment - I agree with the above. I can see how some of these problems might be due to her address and name being known by an abusive boyfriend. If she could create a separate account, and prevent problematic associates from discovering it, she might do better. If she doesn't, or if it becomes evident that the new account is demonstrating the same problems, then a full ban might well be called for. I would suggest that at least one admin be advised of the new account name, however, so that they might be able to e-mail the party in the event that the new edits are too clearly coming from the same party. John Carter 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Although I acknowledge Thatcher131's good faith intention to be fair, I think the problems go way beyond the "ex-boyfriend" issue. Even if you sift out the recent blanking of IP Talk pages, you see a tremendous amount of vandalism, sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, legal threats, and false allegations. And she has been given warning after warning after warning. Things have been explained to her over and over, but nothing has changed her behavior. As for creating a new account and starting fresh, she has created multiple user names (as well as using multiple anonymous IPs), each one with the same destructive behavior. I understand the need to be fair, and even to go the extra mile. But if you look at her history, it seems obvious to me that we have gone many, many miles more than we should have. She is the kind of abusive editor that makes me want to quit editing, and I think I am not alone. We need to try to balance being fair with what's in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Ward3001 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, what did this user do and what is his/her POV he/she is trying to push? Wooyi 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See the annotated list. (Her talkpage has since been deleted so unless you're an admin you'll have to take my list of the suggestions and warnings she received at face value.) Precious Roy 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

She created some articles about people and bands that were deleted on notability grounds, recreated them with name variants rather than go through the DRV process, eventually reacted badly to the deletions, and then overreacted when people started pointing out that her habit of editing while logged out (whether accidental or to give the appearance of support) was giving away her location and workplace. She threatened a user or two over the perceived privacy issue, was blocked, then created sockpuppets to continue trying to remove what she considered private info. There is a sockpuppet investigation page where an admin speculated she might be a PR person for these minor notables. Regardless of the reasons, she just doesn't "get" editing here. I simple would perfer to block the account but not consider her "banned" so she can try again. If it doesn't work out, we can always come back to this later. Thatcher131 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

~~I support this suggestion by Thatcher and John C. --Rocksanddirt 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)~~

Endorse ban. Seems reasonable given past opportunities ignored. Odd nature 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm dying here! Check the edit history, she's popped up and vandalized a comment in this CSN—twice. Priceless! Precious Roy 00:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very much her pattern. She simply cannot resist any opportunity to disrupt acceptable procedures on Misplaced Pages. I don't mind admitting, I am very uncomfortable if she is allowed to continue editing under any username. She has gone on rampages before seeking vengeance on those who speak out against her abusive editing (or even disagree with her edits), vandalizing our edits, making false allegations to admins about us. In fact, she has made false statements about me since this CSN discussion started. Ward3001 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In light of the vandalism by the editor under discussion, I withdraw my earlier comment. I am now forced by circumstances to agree with Ward3001 above about the proper resolution of this matter. John Carter 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And exactly why was it appropriate to speculate on someone's mental health in this discussion? Thatcher131 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that most people would argue that it was appropriate (regardless of the likelihood of its truth). Tweety21's removal of that speculation, however, is yet another perfect example of her lack of impulse control. Precious Roy 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse a ban. User seems to be a relentless troll who has abused several sockpuppet accounts, and has tested the community's patience beyond any limits. -- Anonymous Dissident 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My two cents worth

I think it is important to point out the results of the "checkuser" results, see below http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tweety21 This led to the unblock of tweety21s account and the only thing done after was to try and remove private information. No disruptions or vandalisms occured. user Precious Roy seems to have a problem with the outcome of the Checkuser, he should take it up with them. Also in regards to the recreation of article "Jeff Aquilon" I started a couple of lines, went to get a coffee and when I came back it was speedily deleted. But I had not had a chance to even really start it so I created it, it went to a vote ( which I don't even think I participated in and it passed)

The bottom line is it worth banning someone because maybe they over-reacted to information being public? and also the "sock puppet" tags were put on before the outcome of the checkuser, were removed after checkuser, and then replaced for no reason.

Lastly, Why did Precious Roy delete from my User Page my contributions to Misplaced Pages, this appears to be malicious.

I feel it was important to add my perspective because otherwise its just a witchhunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Tweety21&diff=159776499&oldid=158615563 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Tweety21&diff=156793064&oldid=156754292
>
>

The result of the checkuser is that there was no result. The admin who was handling it declined to do it, for whatever reason. As for your talk page, that was deleted by an admin out of consideration for your privacy concerns. Every one of your "contributions" to Misplaced Pages is still there, for all to see. Precious Roy 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tweety21 account was unblocked because you rescinded your legal threat and promised to behave (which is why you were promptly re-blocked when you started removing content from pages again). Let me point something out to you—go to the talk page of any anon IP (here's one to make it easy for you). See that box at the bottom of the page with the blue dot with an "i" in it? Click on the link that says "WHOIS" and read the page that results—that's where the information you keep deleting comes from; that's where it says the Library, the Bank, or the name of the ISP. That box with that link is at the bottom of every single IP page, in case you hadn't figured that out for yourself. I thought I should let you know because (all together now) "KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE!" Precious Roy 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was also told by an administrator I have a right to put my side of the story up here, in case anybody trys to delete it. Look I am trying to go about this the right way. I could easily make up a new account and start editing away ( my internet at home has a new ip everytime I recycle the modum) but I want to clear my name that I did anything wrong by trying to cover up my private information: Does anybody need to know which library I edit from. Also I am very offended that someone would accuse me of being a "PR" firm, this was hurtful to me as I was writing up articles to highlight new talent and not to get money. I think it is also insulting to "Darci Monoco" I think I spelled that right to accuse her of being "an abusive sock puppet" the checkuser would show her ip is a completly different geographical location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm having a hard time getting my head around here is why in the world, if you are so concerned about personally identifiable information that you are willing to engage in disruptive edits, are you again editing from an IP and adding diffs containing an email address? Something just doesn't add up here.--Isotope23 16:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My reply

That is no different from any of the other addresses you have been editing from. Not one of them ever revealed your home address or home street. You have persisted in removing the whois information from those IP address pages as well, however, and claimed repeatedly (and falsely) that posting the WHOIS information on those pages was a violation of your privacy. --Yamla 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My reply

I am using a computer which is handled by a public ISP if I am using the right terminology, this ip does not give out my physical location as it is used by many users across Canada. Like Road Runner or something like that, It does not give out what street or anything that I am on. See if I do this through a new account that I would be accused of "sock puppetry", I just want to clear my name. It's not a disruptive edit to state my point of view. And the above remark commenting on Psychological states of mind, unless "Mad dog" is a certified Psychologist he has no right to put something abusive like that, it's like saying someone does not have the right to edit Misplaced Pages because they are black or Blind. I think anybody being constantly accused of being a "PR" firm, or someone who lives out in California would be driven a little to distraction. Its quite annoying. Have you ever seen the movie The Cable Guy? And for anyone who wants to see my contributions Check out my user page. I actually got an email of thanks from a lady, whose son I did a wiki of (he was a painter who died unexpectedly)I am not going to lie I was very disappointed when a wiki I did for "The Nest Foundation" was marked for being "non-notable" by Precious Roy the Nest Foundation trys to help sexually abused Children in New York. He could have at least offered advice as to how to clean it up or something. But to state it was non-notable was very hurtful. Why is the Nest Foundation Non Notable, but some wiki on a murderer that Roy put up is notable. Does not make alot of sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If any admins who can see deleted article edit histories want to go check, I did a LOT of copy-editing to that NEST article before speedy tagging it. Same with Coven. Tweety forgets that she thanked me a number of times for helping her out and for my work on "her" articles. Precious Roy 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, when 4 of my articles are marked for speedy deletion by the same user Precious Roy you can't help but feel targeted, especially when he altered around my personal page, I am not sure if you are supposed to do that, but if you do that to Roy, he yells vandalism.

Looking back I know I ranged out when my personal info was being discussed on Misplaced Pages, but can you see how annoying it is to have someone you don't know (the internet can be kind of scary)discussing that you edit from ***** public library, or that you work for the ABC company, this feels very threatening to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

None of this explains your abusive sockpuppetry (and please don't claim you have not engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, this isn't even open to debate, we know as well as you do that you have used multiple accounts here to bypass your block), nor does it explain your blanking of whois information from IP talk pages. There's simply no reason to believe you will never again do this or any of the other behaviour you have been doing. I still believe it would be best if we just require that you stop editing Misplaced Pages. I note that even today, you are continuing to edit via IP addresses when this is the whole basis for your complaint about privacy violations. Even your comments here give absolutely no reason to believe you have substantially changed your behaviour. While there is not unanimous consensus for a ban from editing, I believe enough people do indeed support the ban. --Yamla 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I called you a vandal when you put AfD tags on articles without actually listing them for AfD, and I never altered your personal page; what on earth are you talking about? Precious Roy 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuses

Tweety21 (talk · contribs) has continued abusive sockpuppeteering. She set up Casper01 (talk · contribs), for example, to continue editing Bryten Goss‎ even though she is blocked. Yesterday, she removed an endorsement of the ban from this page. There's simply no way anyone can claim she is not being blatantly and deliberately abusive. --Yamla 15:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As Casper01 (talk · contribs) she removed false statements, which I pointed out in the above discussion, made by Tweety21 (talk · contribs) on User talk:Isotope23 here. Ward3001 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a plus, I suppose, but she also continued editing Bryten Goss even though she knows perfectly well she is not entitled to do so while blocked. She has also continued blanking whois information from IP talk pages. --Yamla 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't see it as a plus. Her behavior sometimes has been to make false statements, then revert (often under a different user name) after she has been challenged on it. I see it as a continuing pattern of abusive editing followed by an attempt to cover it up after she is caught. If this were the only time she had done something like that, I would see it as a plus, but she has a history of doing this for more sinister reasons. Ward3001 16:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the odd behavior that is pervaiding this discussion, I change my mind about this issue, and think that endorsing an indefinite block for amongst other things abusive sockpuppetry, and disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you are endorsing a ban, or just supporting the indefinite block? WP:BAN gives more information on what a ban entails. --Yamla 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant ban. --Rocksanddirt 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any serious question here? Can this be closed? --B 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all questions have been resolved. While there was not unanimous consensus, I believe there's sufficient grounds for a ban here. Note, though, that I am the person who opened this case. --Yamla 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yamla. I note Thatcher and the editor in question (or, at least, the IP which claimed to be the editor) seem to be the only ones who disagree with that option. John Carter 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. It looks like the user is already blocked. --B 15:44, 11 October 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.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys opened

An Arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus (talk · contribs)

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.

Support indefinite topic ban on German naming and Germany related topics. In spite of repeated blocks, Rex has shown no improvement of any kind of tact in these topics, although in other areas he tends to be a valuable editor. Some discretion maybe needed on some of the more distantly Germany related topics, it could for example be argued that any Netherlands (Rex homecountry) (due to several historic links), or indeed every topic concerning any country in WOII is also Germany related. Note: In the past I have frequently defended Rex, as he is not making his case better by refusing to appease admins, and by making many enemies; however I am getting wary of this and hope this would take the sting out of most of his less well thought trhough edits. Arnoutf 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I do support a topic ban but I think it might be difficult to formulate one since user:Rex Germanus has threatened to police German sounding names through-out en-WP--Cailil 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hoping to avoid just that, is why I explicitly added the "German naming" under the topics. Arnoutf 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Support without prejudice to extending the ban to any other area he disrupts. He lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Let's be on guard for WP:POINT violations too. --Folantin 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
All the editor did was Germany related pages, A indef user ban likely works instead. 131.94.65.77 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment While we have to make Rex somehow understand that his actions (based on his POV) are counter-productive and distruptive I'm not certain that we can find a ban wide enough to prevent further issues, while being narrow enough to allow his constructive edits to continue. Moreso, we cannot be to vague about this, unless we wish to continue the current situation on an additional meta-level, i.e. if that article is sufficiently related to "German" to be covered under the ban. Also the issues of Dutch articles were raised, as both the Netherlands and Germany are closely connected through their geographical and historic ties. 84.145.229.133 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Support indef topic ban per Moreschi and Arnoutf. But note that this comment (#2) has been repeatedly misinterpreted. Comments #1 and #2 both refer to allegedly being called a racist. #2 says that Rex considers racists "low lifes". Avb 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with topic-ban, although I share anon's concerns above about the clarity of the ban. I think that he should also be prohibited from moving pages based on POV pushing and the (ongoing?) discussion at Talk:Johann van Beethoven. R. Baley 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban, with scope to be interpreted liberally. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Would you be receptive to a friendly amendment, specifically replacing "of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year" with a simple "at the discretion of the blocking admin"? The intent is to allow particularly egregious violations to be dealt with accordingly. Raymond Arritt 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- If a block longer than a month is necessary, then we can do that through ANI. Plus, it's easier to get a clear consensus if we don't change the boilerplate halfway through.--Chaser - T 07:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban as proposed, with strong caution to the editor that sanctions can be expanded as necessary. Please continue editing productively on other topics. Durova 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
support rapidly escalating topic ban, escallation of revert parole bans. --Rocksanddirt 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support escalating topic ban on all edits related to German words (not just Germany related articles) and escalating block also earned for incivility, and other WP:POINT related disruptions such as replacing French names of places and works of art, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I support the idea because it'll give a break to our friends who contribute on German-related articles, but I'd like to advise that Rex will be just as likely to proceed likewise on topics related to France, or even to Lotharingia if he gets a chance (see the nice mess he made on Charlemagne). Rama 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could we banish him from Europe? (rigging clipper ship to Australia) ;) Durova 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - That would effectively be a project ban as Rex expertise is mainly on Dutch issues. Arnoutf 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - It's up to him: if he edits productively there then I have no objection. If he decides to be disruptive then eventually he might actually get banned. Durova 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I Support the ban. But WikiProject Germany should be informed so they can be a watchdog for this. Kingjeff 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am strongly against explicitly informing a WikiProject, these have no official status in reinforcement of bans. By giving them a watchdog task your are effectively making them prosecutors. It is likely that inflammatory (and even helpful edits) within the ban will be flagged up anyway (by you or other enemies of Rex).Arnoutf 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Please refactor the enemies characterization. Durova 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Informing a WikiProject is not about making anyone or any group procecutors. This is about effectively maintaining the ban. They do watch Germany-related articles and should be aware of this ban if it gets passed. In fact it doesn't even have to be the entire WikiProject that gets informed. There are administrators that are involed with WikiProject Germany. User:Agathoclea and User:Kusma are 2 admins that I know that participate Kingjeff 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Rex has made enemies; there are cases in articles where edits are being reverted or debated "just because Rex made them". I think this kind of content unelated behaviour may count as enmity. It is likely that these editors will keep trailing Rex and call out whenever he step a hair-width over the line of his ban. With regard to Kingjeff's comment, this enforcement is exactly what I mean; why we should not give it to a project. Ban-enforcement should not be given over to a project; it is an issue for admins who care about these things; not all editors and admins who are much happier making edits and not being involved in messy things like this. Arnoutf 06:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        I don't think that's what Kingjeff is proposing at all. Anyway, ideal practice is a note on the project's discussion page informing them about the ban and instructing them to ask a neutral admin to make a determination about whether a block is necessary, and then that admin will implement it if it is.--Chaser - T 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        Leaving a note on the project's discussion page is exactly what needs to happen and I have already mentioned 2 admins in the project. Kingjeff 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Support due to wiki-yobbery. (A topic ban on both the Netherlands and Germany, given the issues at hand.) — Rickyrab | Talk 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban, with scope as expansive as is seen necessary in relation to Germany-related articles. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
there is a reason people are suspicious of Rex' edits now. In his place, I would consider just starting over with a clean slate (this is no endorsement of abusive sockpuppetry). I would be reluctant to impose a full topic ban ("German-related"? I am sure you can find some way to consider "German-related" tens of thousands of articles). But this needs to stop. Rex has shown no signs of introspection even after he was placed under revert parole. Instead of a topic-ban, I would propose indefinite extension of probation, with escalating blocks over 1RR-violations. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 10:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the indefinite extension of the arbcom-imposed probation/1RR is the least that needs to be done. (Only now occurred to me that the year was almost up! Heavens, time...). New, specific topic ban could be defined as: "any edits or discussions relating to issues of using German names", plus, admins should additionally be encouraged to invoke the existing probation rule to ban him from additional German-related disputes when necessary. At the same time, his old opponents must be closely watched for harassment or taunting, and should be blocked at the slightest signs of aggressive behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- an all-out "German" topic ban would be nearly equivalent to a full ban, since most of Rex' edits by far are concerned with "removing German pov". It would be easier to enforce a strict 1RR parole, since it would (a) avoid fruitless discussions whether a given topic is "German related", and (b) wouldn't prevent Rex from making harmless and undisputed edits to articles. We don't want to ban him from fixing typos at Germans, we want him to stop his pointless and misguided "anti-German pov" campaign. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree. That's why I said: hard topic ban only on the issue of German names, and ad-hoc additional topic or article bans, possibly temporary, in probation style at the discretion of administrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Me

Just a message to the initiator

This user should not be allowed anywhere near anything German-related. A long record of trouble-making, edit-warring and incivility has recently culminated in a block for a month: see ANI here. Rex is on probation and revert-parole, but these restrictions are going to expire in a couple of months. Repellent comments such as these ,, and dubious edit summaries like this have managed to persuade me that we should topic-ban Rex Germanus from all Germany-related articles, loosely defined, violations to be rewarded with blocks of up to a month, after 5 violations the block length to increase to up to a year. Rex can make valuable contributions, but it is quite evident he cannot restrain his Germanophobic POV. If that's the case, we can't let him edit these articles. Note: I do not think he should be sitebanned without formal arbitration. Oh, and good heavens: Austin Powers villains are not Dutch, they're German!

Moreschi 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Goldmember is blatant OR based on your own personal interpretation of his accent. There are no sources and no references. --Folantin 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already said I based it on Dutch, English and German phonology.Rex 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to look for them, I already had them, when I wrote that piece.Rex 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So please add those references to the books or articles you have to back your claims. --Folantin 17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Better solution

New Proposal: Community Ban on User:Rex Germanus

why are you commenting logged out? I do not think anonymous comments should carry any weight here at all. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It comes over as suspect. --Folantin 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already know your IP adress is from Germany, apparently the Nurnberg area, and I would very much like to know who I'm dealing with here.Rex 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing

Well, if neither a 1RR nor a "German topic ban" is workable, that leaves us with a siteban. (Doing nothing isn't an option.) Raymond Arritt 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting doing nothing. I'm suggesting a topic ban for Germany, Germans and German and an indefinate 1RR for all Germany-related articles.Rex 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I distance myself from WP:POINT. Experiences shows nothing, diffs do. Please do provide them.Rex 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

? -- if you refrain from WP:POINT, you obviously won't be blocked for it, so this shouldn't give you a headache either way. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved that page because it also had an English title, I realy don't see the connection in making a point on the German language on English wikipedia.Rex 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a ban on moving articles included in the above close. (Preferably for Matthead as well) Agathoclea 21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with this last point. --Folantin 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably all page moves, or at least those which move titles between languages, to avoid pointy things like the Dora Maar au Chat move. --Folantin 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I was only referring to Rex Germanus. Any action against Matthead would need a whole new investigation and debate. --Folantin 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One that will certainly take place I can assure that.Rex 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Rex' scale of nationalism etc.?

Sorry, but it seems I lost my spade somewhere, anybody here seen it laying around ? --Van helsing 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"...without any spade in sight". Well... I think I sort of said I lost it ? --Van helsing 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

then, sir, it appears I underestimated the raffinesse of your humour. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 17:18, 2 October 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.

SallyForth123

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.

On second though (prompted by Rocksanddirt), this is not necessary. Sancho 16:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com

If you can make a conclusive case that these are the same editor then no community discussion is needed. Indef blocking for death threats is a slam dunk decision. Durova 03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban seems in order here given the evidence. Odd nature 21:04, 8 October 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.

Ban endorsed, user is already indefinitely blocked. --B 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21

That's what I meant, sorry it's late :) -- lucasbfr 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Premature Most of Tweety's problems can be explained as a result of inexperience and insufficient engagement with our rather more arcane processes, plus extreme concern for her privacy. (She says her abusive ex knows her Misplaced Pages nick, which is why she went ballistic over the IP issue.) Of course, her actions can also be explained as a result of deliberate disruption, but I choose not to endorse that view for the time being. I believe the account should be indefinitely blocked for her own protection but that she not be considered a banned user, so that she can create a new account and start fresh. As long as she avoids repeating the same dramas, this should not be a problem. If it repeats, well then, "Fool me once..." Thatcher131 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Although I acknowledge Thatcher131's good faith intention to be fair, I think the problems go way beyond the "ex-boyfriend" issue. Even if you sift out the recent blanking of IP Talk pages, you see a tremendous amount of vandalism, sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, legal threats, and false allegations. And she has been given warning after warning after warning. Things have been explained to her over and over, but nothing has changed her behavior. As for creating a new account and starting fresh, she has created multiple user names (as well as using multiple anonymous IPs), each one with the same destructive behavior. I understand the need to be fair, and even to go the extra mile. But if you look at her history, it seems obvious to me that we have gone many, many miles more than we should have. She is the kind of abusive editor that makes me want to quit editing, and I think I am not alone. We need to try to balance being fair with what's in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Ward3001 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, what did this user do and what is his/her POV he/she is trying to push? Wooyi 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

~~I support this suggestion by Thatcher and John C. --Rocksanddirt 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)~~

Endorse ban. Seems reasonable given past opportunities ignored. Odd nature 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm dying here! Check the edit history, she's popped up and vandalized a comment in this CSN—twice. Priceless! Precious Roy 00:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very much her pattern. She simply cannot resist any opportunity to disrupt acceptable procedures on Misplaced Pages. I don't mind admitting, I am very uncomfortable if she is allowed to continue editing under any username. She has gone on rampages before seeking vengeance on those who speak out against her abusive editing (or even disagree with her edits), vandalizing our edits, making false allegations to admins about us. In fact, she has made false statements about me since this CSN discussion started. Ward3001 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In light of the vandalism by the editor under discussion, I withdraw my earlier comment. I am now forced by circumstances to agree with Ward3001 above about the proper resolution of this matter. John Carter 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And exactly why was it appropriate to speculate on someone's mental health in this discussion? Thatcher131 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse a ban. User seems to be a relentless troll who has abused several sockpuppet accounts, and has tested the community's patience beyond any limits. -- Anonymous Dissident 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My two cents worth

Lastly, Why did Precious Roy delete from my User Page my contributions to Misplaced Pages, this appears to be malicious.

I feel it was important to add my perspective because otherwise its just a witchhunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My reply

Continued abuses

Given the odd behavior that is pervaiding this discussion, I change my mind about this issue, and think that endorsing an indefinite block for amongst other things abusive sockpuppetry, and disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you are endorsing a ban, or just supporting the indefinite block? WP:BAN gives more information on what a ban entails. --Yamla 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant ban. --Rocksanddirt 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any serious question here? Can this be closed? --B 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. It looks like the user is already blocked. --B 15:44, 11 October 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.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys opened

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:

Inactive project pages