Misplaced Pages

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

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.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:55, 11 April 2007 view sourceTenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)Administrators21,283 edits →Threshold for unbanning: Daniel Brandt won't stop being an ass even if we do this, though...← Previous edit Revision as of 18:22, 11 April 2007 view source ජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →Community ban or lengthy block of Reddi: comment.Next edit →
Line 109: Line 109:
::* I'm trying to follow his edits and attract editors by article content RfC if necessary. I don't know whether the alleged identity of ] Reddi "discloses" on his talkpage should be considered actable. --] 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC) ::* I'm trying to follow his edits and attract editors by article content RfC if necessary. I don't know whether the alleged identity of ] Reddi "discloses" on his talkpage should be considered actable. --] 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


:::I have filed a complaint at ] over Reddi's list on ]. He has refused to take it down. Can anyone help? --] 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)



== Proposed community ban of ] and ] == == Proposed community ban of ] and ] ==

Revision as of 18:22, 11 April 2007

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




Anon "Dodona"

No consensus for Ban. Navou 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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


For three months now, an anon editor signing his posts as "Dodona" has been plaguing Talk:Arvanites and several other article talk pages related to Balkan ethnicities (Talk:Bulgarians, Talk:Albanians) with a deluge of incessant political ranting, in broken English, about alleged ethnic continuity of Albanians with ancient Illyrians and similar nationalist memes. Often these rants have degenerated into personal attacks and ethnic slurs. He is unstoppable, impervious to reason or debate, and unable to make a coherent point that would amount to a suggestion for actually modifying an article. In fact, he has never even tried to edit any of them (his only edits in article space seem to be minor edits on Albanian footballers and similar topics).

The Arvanites page is an ideologically sensitive one with a very long history of disputes, but the article itself has been virtually stable since last summer. However, talkpage trolling like this always carries the risk of inflaming the old disputes again, and unfortunately several other editors have repeatedly taken the bait. The results have always been so chaotic that whole threads had to be removed to keep the page readable. A previous WP:ANI thread about the problem is here.

I myself blocked Dodona's IPs twice for disruption on various of these articles, but since I'm a long-time contributor to the Arvanites page and have taken part in the debate with Dodona (or whatever sorry substitute for a debate it was), I'd consider myself too much involved to hand out longer blocks here.

I would like to propose a full community ban for having exhausted the community's patience with his off-topic soapboxing. We need to be able to simply revert this guy on sight.

Here's Dodona's IPs
And some representative samples of his edits

Oldest contribution: 2 January. Other representative samples: , , . Latest: 5 April, 5 April

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of IP addresses. Could you simplify things for visitors by linking directly to the bans? And has any dispute resolution been tried? Durova 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. The blocks are documented on these talk pages: User_talk:80.90.85.46 (for off-topic rants such as and elsewhere), User_talk:217.24.240.8 (for block evasion), and User talk:217.24.247.51 (for edits such as ). There has been little attempt at "dispute resolution", content-wise, for the simple reason that there was no content dispute. In fact, there never was any content to dispute, because Dodona's rants don't rise to the level of proposing any concrete, coherent claim. The "dispute" there was was purely about asking him not to abuse the talk page for off-topic debates. Such requests can be seen at , , . On some occasions, one user even tried addressing Dodona in Albanian in order to get a better communication with him (, ), but the result was only that Dodona accused him of being a traitor to his own ethnicity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I could support that and I'll add another question: would a topic ban be adequate? That's a lot of IP addresses and I'd like to leave the door open a crack, particularly if some of those IPs change hands. Durova 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, topic ban will be just as fine. Actually, I'm not asking for all those IPs to be technically blocked. We don't do IP blocks like that anyway, do we. I just want community endorsement for being allowed to roll him back when needed without further ado. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Support topic ban. Nudge to other editors: this thread needs more participants. Durova 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


RfA reform

Okay. I'm going to try to push the issue a bit more. According to the top of this page, "his forum was created for the discussion of issues requiring broad community approval," and this may, in fact, be the place to do it, considering the voices at WT:RFA (which is usually RfA regulars and not a broader cross-section of users) and the soon-to-be-rejected ArbCom request regarding RfA reform. As ArbCom isn't going to touch it, and Jimbo is unfortunately not going to step in, and discussion is futile at the RfA talk page, I think it's imoportant to get some discussion rolling on how to reform RfA. I guess we should see if this is even something we can tackle here first, and if it is, start trying to figure out what's best for the situation and just friggin' do it already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen first is establish what isn't going to happen. Once we've gotten out of the way things which either should not change or can not concievably get enough support to change, it will be easier to find where problems we can fix are. -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see what is wrong with the current system, I know some people don't like it, but that does not mean it is broken. InBC 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This subject is currently undergoing a rigorous and extended debate at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship. I agree with HighInBC. The current system works successfully and I have yet to see an argument against it beyond "I don't like it". Gwernol 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Adminship has become a "big deal" in exactly the way it was once said not to be. requiring millions of edits in all areas, a perfect record, etc, before the bit can be set is not how things were supposed to be, and I don't think _anyone_ really wants it this way. --Random832 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The current system does NOT work successfully. There are perpetual backlogs, and we're all absolutely petrified to desysop anyone for fear of being unable to replace them. Requiring more than a basic level of competence and good intent to be demonstrated before it can be handed out violates WP:AGF. --Random832 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The difficulties in passing seems to be based on the supply and demand for admins. There are so many people running, why not take only the best? I passed my second RfA, and I did not have to perform any miracles, I just needed some experience. It was good I did not pass my first, I was not ready. InBC 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Has everyone here taken a good look at CAT:AB recently? It's gotten quite large (even though we're slowly chipping away at it). But really, adminship has become a huge deal, even though it shouldn't be. In my opinion, provided you have 1000 or so edits and haven't screwed things over then you're clearly suitable for adminship. Hell, getting approval for AWB or VP takes less work... ^demon 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have backlogs due to a lack of admins, we have them because they are boring to go through. InBC 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And adminship becoming a big deal is not the problem of the system, but of the voters themselves. —physicq (c) 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First, in response to the forum question I'm not philosophically opposed to discussing this here. If you find a better venue you can move the thread. Second, I agree there's a need for more sysops. Yet I think it skips a couple of steps to leap to a discussion about procedural changes to RFA. My focus this calendar year is on recruitment and coaching. Partly toward that end I've just started a new personal user award User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle that could help identify outstanding content editors as potential sysop candidates. I suspect a lot of the good volunteers aren't even entering the RFA grinder because they're out there writing articles and we don't know their usernames. Let's try some more outreach and be innovative in our methods. Durova 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely OT, but what a cute award! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, that is a very on topic alternative solution to the perceived problem, good thinking. InBC 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we talking about requirements for voters or something? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We'd all like to get a few more hands swabbing the deck. I just have a different approach. I've started two successful RFA nominations and am coaching about half a dozen editors who'd like to earn mops of their own. It shouldn't be too hard for one active sysop to mentor ten people in the course of a year. If enough of us make that a priority our manpower problems would be solved - and admin coaching isn't tough to do. Durova 06:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Another instance is for the folks at RFA to calm down for just a bit. While Danny's RFA is pretty much the exception than the rule, we need to realize this: people screw up, give them a break and RFA isn't a vote or a vehicle to decimate the opposition. It is not to wage your personal campaigns or to rehash greviences from eons ago. And if you do not think someone is right for adminship, say it in a manner that not only it is civil, but acts as constructive criticism so the nominee can actually use those comments to better themselves. It has become too cut-throat, it needs to end now. User:Zscout370 08:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem isn't RFA, which probably does more inappropriate promotions than inappropriate rejections. It's not even especially that there aren't enough people willing and competent to deal with those backlogs; but rather, that those backlogs exist at all is symptomatic of the general dysfunction on Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to launch a meta-essay on what the deeper problems are since everyone has a litany of them already. For sure, RFA is broken. But more admins running around isn't going to help. More important than reforming RFA is reforming Misplaced Pages to reduce the amount of stress and bullshit that the existing admins have to deal with. 64.160.39.153 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The above moved from WP:CN. >Radiant< 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Why did this get moved? The entire point was to have it at the community noticeboard for a different set of eyes following the Arbcom's refusal to hear it. This completely misses the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Because it is unrelated to "community sanctions" and therefore does not belong on the "community sanction noticeboard". For additional eyes, I'd suggest posting a note on WP:VP and WP:GO and WP:SIG. >Radiant< 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I already explained at the top as to why it fit the description of the page. And, in fact, it may involve a community sanction - the community sanctioning the bureaucrats as to how to deal with this. I'm very close to moving this back at the moment, so I'd need a better reason than "it's unrelated" when that's been addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Community ban or lengthy block of Reddi

Reddi (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) is apparently a longtime contributor to parascience-related articles. A cursory look at his block log and talk page indicate that he is also a user whose (recent) interactions with others tend to be unpleasant (see also his RfAr). I have no prior experience with this user, but was asked by an admin who has been in disputes with him to evaluate this rant on his user talk page (since expanded). My impression of it is – gross violations of WP:NPA, etc. aside – that he is not a user interested in contributing productively to Misplaced Pages any more. I'm inclined to issue either a lengthy block to cool him down and make him understand how we work with one another here, or an indefinite block – i.e., since we're discussing it here, a community ban. Opinions? (I've notified Reddi of this discussion.) Sandstein 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot express the situation? If i have to remove it, I will, but it is what happened. I am a user interested in contributing productively to Misplaced Pages. I have created several articles since I have came back. Kansas State Board of Education, Ancient Egyptian technology, War of Currents citations, Timeline of Kansas history, Adolphus Slaby, "Expert" References and external articles, and Invention of radio timeline are a few. J. D. Redding 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • May we have some diffs of the actual edits in question. And just to clarify, is it mostly user conduct, or mostly content dispute? Diffs of continuing "abuse" would be helpful. Regards, Navou 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a lengthy block history. But the situation looks like DR ought to be tried. Has it? Durova 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Very soon after his last block and has removed the f-word comment, accordingly, suggest dispute resolution. Addhoc 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to follow his edits and attract editors by article content RfC if necessary. I don't know whether the alleged identity of User:Hillman Reddi "discloses" on his talkpage should be considered actable. --Pjacobi 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a complaint at WP:AN/I over Reddi's list on his talkpage. He has refused to take it down. Can anyone help? --ScienceApologist 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Arkhamite and 68.84.17.112

Arkamite (talk · contribs · count) is banned per consensus community discussion. The blocking administrator is encouraged to note this ban by reblocking the editor noting ther ban in the block log, user poage and ban page. Navou 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Arkhamite (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

68.84.17.112 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

I'm putting this situation up for a community ban because this editor has a substantial history of vandalism and disruption and has developed a sexual fixation regarding me. This person also has a self-confessed inpatient psychiatric history. Per the editor's self-description:

Committed to the asylum in October 2000 after defying a police officer. Diagnosis was bipolar, later revised to schizoaffective. Obsessed with dinosaurs, aviation history, and girls in dangerous situations. Delusions frequently take the form of scientific theories. Paranoia focuses on sexually transmitted diseases, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Kennedy political dynasty.User:Arkhamite

I blocked the editor for 1 week for a comment at Talk:Joan of Arc that included She's your sexual fantasy, you look it up. ;-D LOL OMFG

The next day he altered my block notice at his user talk page and add Just because I'm a lesbo doesn't mean you can insult me on my Joan of Arc website. to my statement. Also of note are the following Misplaced Pages edits to my user talk page from 22 February,, which had seemed nonsensical to me at that time, and this (which I didn't see until much later). On April 3 he made a similar assertion about me at his blog where his self-description is remorseless troll.

The overall editing history of this account is dismal, as a browse of the contribution history and comments at his talk page shows (representative examples are at Talk:Robin_(comics)#Robin:_Gayest_of_all_Gothamites.3F_FBI_Involvement.3F). The following edits demonstrate that this editor and this IP are the same person.

He also issued a personal threat against me.

There's no place for this behavior at Misplaced Pages. Durova 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Support indefinite commitment to Arkham Asylum. - Merzbow 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I haven't indef blocked this user and I'm asking for a siteban. Durova 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote also includes "Should be banned immediately" - I suggest you oblige. Addhoc 10:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've indef blocked the registered account and put six months on the IP. Durova 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully endorse block. I appreciate your respect for process but gross threats of this nature do not require extended discussion before blocking. Newyorkbrad 01:48, 11 April 2007 (*UTC)

Endorse community ban. Newyorkbrad, sometimes a block and a ban end up being acted on differently when a person returns with socks. Mak (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Ban or block of Ernham

Ernham (talk · contribs · count) is banned per consensus discussion, the blocking administrator are encouraged to note the ban on the user page, block log and correct ban log. Navou 12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Ernham has been indefblocked by The bainer per this ban. Mangojuice 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Ernham (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

This user is chronically incivil, and is a highly tendentious editor and edit warrior. He edits in an aggressive biased manner, and has been blocked for a total of eight times. In one case of October 30 , he did a 9RR in about three hours and continually accuses opposing edits of being vandalism. As noted in the link to ANI Archive 178, he repeatedly removes negative and critical information about Michael Schumacher's driving tactics on the MS article and various related Formula One articles. He does the same on some tennis players, such as Steffi Graf, shifting the article to extremely pro-German state. This style extends to various German footballers, as previously noted, he has repeatedly blanked out information that Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski have Polish blood. As also previously noted, this extends to German Jews, and he has constantly deleted information about the Nazis expelling Jewish faculty from Gottingen. He also frequents Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua Genocide continually blanking info about the negative activities of German colonial troops in the African colonies. He was blocked for a month, but has returned, and continues to engage in the same activity, , deleting info about famous German Jew scientists to portray them as pure blooded Germans. This is in addition to continually blanking parts of the other articles which doesn't sit well with his viewpoint. His rather unhealthy editing behaviour in his attitude to race topics can be seen here If this does not get deleted, I'd probably consider creating a "Ashkenazi Incestousness" wiki, and we will see if the same people use the same arguments for keeping it. We will use all sorts of fun stuff, like propensity for genetic defects, inbreeding customs, and niffty annecdotal things like Einstein marrying his cousin. Then we can all watch what a crock wikipedia is. He is again calling other users liars . Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse; this user clearly seems to be more trouble than he's worth, and that "Ashkenazi Incestousness" edit (which also calls Misplaced Pages "a crock") is really bad. History of blocks and bans shows that he's had several chances to change his ways. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Das ist hier nicht erlaubt. Durova 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse, strongly. I've been watching from the sidelines, with minimal interest - Ernham's behaviour is so constantly disruptive and annoying that it gets boring after a while. Strongly endorse community ban. By the way, as a note, I refactored CH's comment above, to remove the bolding - no need for this to become more like a vote (per the header). Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. He continues to ride roughshod over community consensus since returning from his most recent ban. Greenman 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - no improvement since his RfC. Addhoc 10:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Highly disruptive behaviour which has not been modified by either his blocks or the countless appeals made on his talk page to calm down and follow Misplaced Pages policy. Mark83 10:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I haven't been had dealings with Ernham since he got blocked for harrassing Mark83 sometime last year, but it seems apparent he has only got worse (the ani-semitism hadn't surfaced, for example). I guess I just don't get why people dedicate months of their lives to trying to disrupt websites they must know they will be eventually banned from. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - edits he makes are clearly POV-pushing, tendentious and some of the latest ones could even be construed as racism. I don't think we need anyone plastering these kinds of views all over Wikpedia articles.--Ramdrake 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Has had more then enough chances to modify his behavior and to contribute responsibly, and hasn't. SirFozzie 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - similar behavior on Talk:Barack Obama. Tvoz |talk 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per incivility and edit warring already noted by Tvoz at Barack Obama. Italiavivi 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - his behavior hasn't improved since I blocked him. Ernham has exhausted the community's patience. Khoikhoi 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page-ban suggested for User:CyclePat

I am requesting that the community ban User:CyclePat from Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance, as well as all its subpages and talk pages. If CyclePat violates this ban, he may be blocked by any uninvolved adminstrator for a maximum of 24 hours: after 3 such violations, the blocks may escalate in accordance with adminstrative discretion. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. As is usual, this ban applies to all sockpuppets or proxies of CyclePat, such as User:CyclePat2.

Evidence of conduct that requires this sanction: Has already been blocked once in connection for this matter, insults and personal attacks also in connection with this, templating the regulars, Disrupting AIV, Personal attacks on a group of editors, False accusations of vandalism, More personal attacks on a group, More false accusations of vandalism, Ditto, And again, and again, Disruption, incivility, wasting time, more attacks towards Kim Bruning, Two disruptive moves that were reverted that nobody wanted, More disruption, and more!

Narrative: WP:ASSIST was set up in order to assist editors. CyclePat, a devoted member of the WP:AMA, takes this as a challenge to the AMA, and has been enthusiastically trying to disrupt ASSIST: first by requesting a merge - see - but nobody wanted that. Unsurprising, as this was a flagrant abuse of process: WP:RM is not the venue for one project to attempt to usurp another! He has then continued to disrupt WP:ASSIST and harass anyone who has tried to revert/stop him/tell him he's not wanted or needed, as the diffs show. The existence of ASSIST seems to have thrown CyclePat into a frenzy: ban him from it and the disruption will cease. Moreschi 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some choice quotes:

. What needs to be done is to get everyone working on the same page. As Boomer said in an article on the Alliance Party in Canada "it's time to come back to the fold. Let this be a formal olive branch to those treasonous, mutinous bastards."

And:

In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)" Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism.

Best of all:

"I call EA a mutiny on a boat, and currently, the mutineers, instead of trying to fix ship have decided to bail into a little life boat. It's time the ship went back, even if we have to do it with our guns, and gather the mutineers. We need their help just as much as they need our help to make it out alive of the high sea. Personnally, I think they should all be gathered up and shot... forced to do one AMA case."

There is only so much we can put up with. This limited page-ban is the best solution to the problem. Moreschi 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering a lot of the disruption has taken part on user talk pages, I don't think it could HURT to ban CyclePat from WP:ASSIST, I think that his behavior will merit a site block shortly, if it hasn't already. SirFozzie 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This will hopefully prevent that unfortunate outcome. We do not wish to lose this editor altogether, but the disruption must stop. This is the best way of doing so without indefblocking/community banning outright. The cause of this is CyclePat's reaction to WP:ASSIST: cut off that, and hopefully this nastiness will end. Moreschi 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed as well. I don't want to end up seeing CyclePat gone, I know he's done a lot of good work, but this has got to stop. This seems like the least harmful way to do so. Seraphimblade 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I definitely support a ban from editing WP:ASSIST and its subpages, though I think a short-term block may be needed to give him time to cool down. He seems determined to keep disrupting WP:ASSIST despite many requests from many editors to leave that project alone. ChazBeckett 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed then, Moreschi. I'd be happier if it had a bit stronger teeth to it, but I guess that a 72 hour block for violating it would be punitive and not preventative (24 hours should be enough of a cool down time). Maybe a short 4-6 hour block to give him a chance to absorb this without saying something in the heat of the moment that would make it harder on him? SirFozzie 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with that last part. Needs a couple hours to cool down, especially after this. Feel free to go and beep an admin. Cheers, Moreschi 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification about the narrative...first CyclePat moved Editor's assistance to () without so much as a word, then I reverted () with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/absolute shock that this was happening in mind, and since them it has been looniness. --Iamunknown 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I support the narrow page ban as described by Moreschi (talk · contribs). CyclePat (talk · contribs) is a good faith editor and I don't doubt that he has very good intentions, but his actions at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance talkpage and archives is having the exact opposite effect that I think he intends them to have. As I've said before, it is time for him to disengage here and if he won't do it voluntarily, this seems like the next best step to avoid the eventual disruption blocks he will get if he continues this behavior.--Isotope23 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say the proposed decision would give the best chance of this user avoiding an otherwise likely indef block. InBC 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that if he attacks ASSIST because of his adherence to AMA, then we can contact User:The Thadman (head of AMA) to admonish CyclePat. This works better than a ban. Wooyi 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Already been tried, failed, multiple times. --Iamunknown 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's already been tried. See . Nothing: the disruption has continued unabated. This needs community intervention. Moreschi
If this has been done and failed, I will not object a page ban. Wooyi 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that this user has already been admonished. If you think a particular person will be more persuasive then I am all for a solution that is voluntary, if it works that is. InBC 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the fact that he's been blocked once yesterday, for three hours about this same issue and been asked to stop disrupting WP:ASSIST by.. well, just about EVERYONE, I'm beginning to wonder if he's already squandered a "final" chance. SirFozzie 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's kind of what I think, but I'm involved with WP:ASSIST so don't rely solely on my judgement. --Iamunknown 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
He's certainly squandered a final chance on this issue, which is why we're here, but this is a contributor worth attempting to retain. Not an out-and-out troll: he has done valuable work. If he continues to disrupt other stuff, we can always turn this into a siteban later. Cheers, Moreschi 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing other peoples comments (as per WP:VAN) is not right. As per WP:VAN we are allowed to revert such actions. Many editors have decided to remove, not only my comments, but comments from other users at WP:ASSIST. Please, this is an issue of vandalism and perhaps now harassment (since it is ongoing). Of my limited time here are just a few examples.Archive I tried, Moreschi removes my recent comments. I created an archive for the page and the comments which all these user want so badly removed for some reason, (I wish they would explain why?), are actually helpfull towards building a better EA and AMA. Why can't you just leave the comments there and stop harassing me... perhaps then we could work on improving other issues? --CyclePat 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pat, PLEASE take a couple steps back and take a deep breath. Look at how many people have asked you to stop disrupting EA. You've already been blocked once for disruption, and are quite probably heading for longer blocks. It's not worth it. Some fights shouldn't be fought. SirFozzie 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pat, it comes down to this: your comments and actions at WP:ASSIST are not helpful. You have been asked my many members of the community to stay away from that project. Please listen to them. ChazBeckett 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:STICK applies here. Just hit "log out", take a break for a couple days, and come back ready to work on the encyclopedia. It's in everyone's best interests. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish that it was that simple. I would love to agree with drop the stick... even felt this would come this far once I didn't receive an appology from one of the many users that have reverted me. The stick thing sounds so nice compared to this thing... where they keep trying to "delete" the past conversation... even it's archives. The debate was dead a long... long... long time ago. But the removal of important comments however is a big no no! And is still happening even now. One of the reasons the RM was proposed in the first place is that I knew even if it didn't work I would be able to go back and look at some of the comments and perhaps fix some of the highlited issues, to help fix up AMA, as suggested in the Mfd of AMA. If we keep deleting our history (comments and debates), what do have to work with in the future? --CyclePat 19:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite simply, these things have been reverted because they constituted a flagrant abuse of WP:RM, which is not for project usurpation. Even without this, your personal attacks, harassment, false allegations of vandalism, templating the regulars, personal attacks on a group of editors, comparing them to mutineers and Hitler, cannot be ignored. Moreschi 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I support the ban, but suggest it be preceded by a week long block. As someone so helpfully pointed out, since EA started CyclePat's every single edit has been devoted to trying to destroy it. Maybe a week would force him to calm down. I also suggest that if he fails to heed this ban or insists he is going to ignore it (through either "WP:VAN trumps CN, I am being HARASSED, I tell you!" or whatever means) he be blocked indefinitely. CyclePat has been incivil, repeatedly characterised good faith edits as vandalism even after warnings from at least a dozen people, has been blocked for his aggressiveness and use of vandalism templates on regular users, including me (and if anything pisses me off most it's being accused of being a vandal), and to be honest, he is wikilawyering with his constant spouting off legal definitions of harrassment and propaganda, not to mention disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point (I've had to deal with him rather than work on more important matters). As even his defenders are now starting to leave extremely blunt comments on his talkpage and he is still not listening to them, I think this man has exhausted the community's patience enough. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Moreschi, why is it you believe WP:RM constitutes a flagrant abuse of WP:RM? I fail to see personal attacks... unless you consider stating things like "this edit of yours" falls within the realms of WP:VAN and may be considered vandalism? or Please do not blank talk pages? As for the mutineers... if the analogy offended you then I appologize. Perhaps I should have used the bible analogy of Jesus going to get the lost sheep? But then again, perhaps the reference to religion may then offend you. When explaining, it is inherent that everyone understands differently. To meet the different characteristics of these people it is sometimes important to give a different angle or a story to go along. At that point I felt it necessary so people could understand. Finally, as you probably wanted to hear me say... but I did not refere to Hitler... I refered to popoganda theory called Reducio ad Hitlerum which is taken from the wikipedia article. If this has offended you, I again, appoligize... You may wish to see my comments on my talk page regarding this. Personally I believe the fact that you have constantly removed my comments (which fall under the definition of vandalism) cannot be ignored. This is an issue of Vandalism of my comments... it has nothing to do with AMA anymore... this is my personal affair and those people that keep reverting and removing my attempt to try and historically preserve a conversation or even my most recent comments... should be dealt with. Again, all I am asking is that the comments be preserved as per WP:VAN, and what is common practice. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The more you remove the more revert violations that there are to talk about. Please just let the comments be. In the mean time I will take a break from WP:ASSIST. I am not totally unreasonable towards compromises. --CyclePat 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikilawyering like this is why the AMA has a bad reputation. You are rewriting history in this manner: your disruption and evident intent to disrupt further is intent for all to see. Moreschi 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As Dev put it," I have to disagree with this. Normally I am fine with just archiving stuff, but the RfM poll was forced onto our pages, Pat edit warred to keep it here, tried repeatedly to reopen it, and then starting trying to force the remaining mess here again with a discussion closed template". Not only did you use totally the wrong procedure for your attempted usurpation, you then edit-warred against consensus. Then you accuse everyone else of vandalism. No, not really. You still refuse to admit you have done anything wrong: even if you did, this sanction should still be applied, because we can't tolerate such disruption and must not let it go. Moreschi 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Following another vandalism warning issued to Moreschi's talkpage, even while we are discussing the terms of his ban, I have requested an indef block at AN/I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that, just for now, we let that slide. Or maybe I'm just in a good mood because the English clubs all won in the Champions league tonight. I agree that usually that would be a indefblock offence, but in the heat of the moment...Moreschi 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would agree that an indef block probably isn't necessary at this point. I think the topic ban will do the job just fine, though I do still support enacting that, just to ensure that this doesn't recur. Seraphimblade 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest community removal from WP:AMA

I suggest extending the suggested WP:ASSIST ban to a general removal from WP:AMA and a ban on all pages related to the two. Certainly the community can do this if AMA will not. CyclePat is creating a great deal of animosity across Misplaced Pages against the AMA in general, and that project as well as everyone else will probably be aided if he simply cuts all of this out. It doesn't have to be forever, but something is needed. /me ducks -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:Endorse this, with the alteration that the ban from the AMA is for six months only: the ban from ASSIST is indefinite. Moreschi 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC) On second thoughts, maybe not. Moreschi 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While I would strongly suggest that AMA do this (it is reflecting badly on them for one of their members to be so far off the plot), A) They have tried to reign in Pat as much as any other folks, and B) I am VERY leery of telling a volunteer group that they must kick out one of their own, even temporarily. SirFozzie 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Fozzie. I hear he's inflammatory and divisive as an advocate as well. I have to say though, I find it weird that a middle-aged man who apparently is a part-time lobbyist offline is incapble of reading the signs, even when they are twenty foot high neon signs saying "STOP" on them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I take that back, his website appears to indicate he is in his mid to late twenties. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This would be something for the AMA coordinator to decide. I've also just emailed Cyclepat, perhaps we can talk this through. --Kim Bruning 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is necessary. CyclePat (talk · contribs) has stated above that he is going to disengage from WP:ASSIST and I'm going to hold him to that. Removing him from AMA seems a bit punitive at this point and the WP:ASSIST ban should be enough right now. Regardless, per Kim I'd prefer to let AMA decide what, if anything, they want to do about this.--Isotope23 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Aye, agreed. But the ASSIST ban is necessary: CyclePat has had more than enough chances to talk this through amicably and has spurned the lot. This kind of disruption must not be tolerated, ever. Moreschi 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me get a couple things straight:
  1. I'm am usually a pretty nice guy.
  2. I do not want to take over EA.
  3. I am interim coordinator (temp) of the teams section at AMA. That means all someone needs to do is propose or call for an election anytime to "take over" the resposibility.
  4. My actions for a "move page" request to the AMA have been viewed as hostile.
  5. Removing these comments in the RM process is however considered hostile as well. (they should emain preserved in archive).
  6. A resentement still exist for this hostile "move."
  7. Despite the fact that I am following rules... it is unpleasant for everyone.

I think what needs to happen is that I run the other way, and wait for everyone here to "calm" down. Perhaps then, I may be able, later on, to walk by without getting punched. --CyclePat 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, you don't think you did anything wrong. Do you still not get it? Moreschi 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pat, when you look at the NUMBER of people who have spoken here, in ANI, on your talk page, people who respect your contributions to WP otherwise, people who are viewing the AMA/EA situation for the first time, and they ALL agree you are in the wrong and need to step back, is it not beyond the realm of possibility that yes, you were and are in the wrong here? SirFozzie 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Evidently not, which is why this sanction is, regrettably, necessary. Moreschi 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you read carefully, you'll see he recognizes all the errors people have claimed he has made, but one. Note that English is not Cyclepat's first language. --Kim Bruning 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Kim, the use of the passive voice means that "My actions for a "move page" request to the AMA have been viewed as hostile..." is most certainly not the same as an admission of doing anything wrong. "Despite the fact that I am following rules" - how is that an admission of anything? CyclePat not following the rules is the problem here. Moreschi 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What Kim Bruning said. I wouldn't like people picking over my crap French grammar to find the hidden meaning. Based on Pat's message of 21:06 UTC here, and this comment, he isn't just stepping back, he's "running the other way". It seems like that should be enough. Or am I missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad. Hopefully, this is the end of it. (well, I still would want the ban from WP:ASSIST to go through, just to try to keep from a possible repeat. SirFozzie 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's something best left to Steve Caruso, perhaps. And perhaps he can think of a better idea, who knows. --Kim Bruning 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why best left to Steve Caruso? At least on the EA/ASSIST side, that can be a remedy the community can levy.. (just curious) SirFozzie 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to give him a chance to be seen and heard from, since he's the current AMA coordinator. He might have some useful insights. That, and I'm not sure it's a good idea for the community to interfere with projects like that, especially after we basically disagreed with CyclePat about doing something similar. --Kim Bruning 23:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You are aware that WP:ASSIST is unconnected to WP:AMA, are you not? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The AMA have consistently failed to rein in CyclePat, though not for lack of trying. They've has their chance had it hasn;t worked. I agree that there is no pressing reason as of yet to ban him from the AMA, but that would be within our rights as a community should there be a good reason. Moreschi 08:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to remove CyclePat from AMA, especially given that it appears there is consensus to restrict him from interfering in the editor assistance project. Removal from AMA as well seems more punitive then preventative to me. Seraphimblade 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, CyclePat's issues are with EA and not the AMA. I would recomend a ban from EA but not the AMA as I agree with above it would be punitive and doesn't address the issue correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeon1006 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm not familiar with EA, but well aware of CyclePat's "advocacy" for one of our most disruptive trolls, User:Cplot. That included leaving vandalism warnings for admins and long time editors Such "advocacy" isn't helpful for the project and was disruptive. Regretfully, I think having CyclePat step down from AMA would be for the greater good of the wiki community. --Aude (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Those diffs were a while ago. Did CyclePat ever indicate a change of attitude or at least say that those warnings were mistaken? — coelacan — 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. In the recent WP:AMA MfD discussion, he disrupted the discussion by Canvassing several groups of AMA members to join the discussion, and stated that he would avoid consensus if it went against AMA by hosting it on his user page. He also stated that he did not believe his advocacy for CPlot was harmful. You can see the discussion here SirFozzie 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In that discussion, CyclePat mentions handing over Cplot's IP (from an email) to an admin or checkuser. That helps. I couldn't support a ban from AMA at this time, as I think it would be punitive and not preventative. Any future actions like those taken for Cplot would change my mind, though. And the ban from ASSIST should go ahead immediately. — coelacan — 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Topic ban for CyclePat on the AMA...no doubt, his efforts to aide and abet notorious vandal User:Cplot was well above and beyond the call of duty of an AMA representative.--MONGO 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support banning him from both EA and AMA, his behaviour is too close to trolling. Also I don't mind if he'll be blocked for a week (but not indef yet), to calm down and realise that he went too far. MaxSem 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose on principle forcing people to leave a Wikiproject they are truly a part of. If he wants to leave voluntarily, fine, and if you want to try to convince him to leave, fine again. But even if we do have the power to do this, which it isn't clear we do, I don't believe that it should be used. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disruption is at Assist. This would be punative. Spartaz 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have consensus for a ban from ASSIST but not one from the AMA: having said that, it is perfectly within our rights as a community to ban anyone from any set of pages for any length of time. If there was a really good reason to ban CyclePat from the AMA, we could. However, there isn't as of yet. Note to those above: stepping back and running the other way is not the same as admission of doing anything wrong, crap grammar or no. The question is: how soon do we wrap this discussion up and enact the ban from ASSIST? Moreschi 08:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Review all old-style "community bans"

(This is in response to the failing Daniel Brandt arbcom case) The conflation of the old-style (no admin willing to unblock) and new-style (a formal discussion has taken place resulting in a consensus to ban) leads to a catch-22 situation - where the reason no admin is willing to unblock is because of the belief that there is a ban with more substance than "no-one has unblocked them" in place. In practice, this means there is NO avenue for someone under an "old-style" community ban to appeal, since an {{unblock}} is essentially a landmine. My proposal is to stop documenting old-style so-called "community bans", and just call them what they are, "indefblocks that haven't been lifted" - and since almost certainly most of these users do deserve community bans, they should be discussed and the bans made official. --Random832 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All prior community bans were discussed on WP:AN or WP:ANI to the best of my knowledge. This board was created as community ban requests were filling up ANI too much. Bans like those on Blu Aardvark, Daniel Brandt, etc. are effective. And removing the "banned" status from the users prevents the editor from preventing abuse from them in the future (a banned user is not allowed to edit, and anyone is allowed to undo their edits regardless of 3RR, sorta like BLP)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, an unknown percentage of the banned users have moved on to other pursuits and it would be a poor use of time to debate whether someone is allowed to edit who hasn't even thought of editing in months anyway. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
At Brandt's RFAR I proposed to formalize his status under the present system by holding a ban discussion here. From the tenor of his request to ArbCom, such an action could protect Wikipedians from potential liability by removing any ambiguity about whether indefinite blocked or community banned is the appropriate terminology. Mr. Brandt didn't take up my offer, but perhaps it's worth running a formal community ban discussion for any presumptively banned editor who contests status. Durova 01:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (fixed - my bad) Durova 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Um ... I think you mean Daniel Brandt, not Daniel Bryant! :) Newyorkbrad 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good idea, because the catch-22 described is real. Seconded. -Amarkov moo! 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
More thoughts about this matter: we could open a blanket proposal to convert all old indef blocks into (formal new style) community bans for blocks that were implemented prior to (insert appropriate date here). It's been almost seven months since I became active in this side of the process and things seemed to be gelling at that point, so I suppose it's fair to say that any editor who hasn't gotten an indef block lifted in half a year probably had serious enough problems to merit community discussion before editing privileges get restored. If I understand correctly, a confidential arbitration case that took place a few months back probably could have been avoided if the community had handled things this way. Sounds like a plan? Durova 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about handling old-style community ban appeals like appeals to ArbCom are currently done? If someone would like to appeal an old-style community ban, they can email an administrator, who will then post their request here on that person's behalf. That process could also work for those who have been banned a year or two, and may wish to apologize and ask to be let back in. Seraphimblade 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify here, they could probably email any editors, regardless to admin or not. However, I would that unban requests go to arbcom email. Navou 13:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We'd need community approval to do that anyway plus agreement on a dividing line for which indef blocks are covered and which aren't. It would be useful to make a formal statement and clarify the ambiguous status at the same time: Daniel Brandt asserted that it may have been libellous to call him community banned if his actual status was indef blocked. Editors shouldn't need to worry about a lawsuit over semantics. Durova 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this being a forum for discussing any and all unbanning, regardless of what type of ban it is. I do have a problem with saying that only admins could post an unban request, surely any user in good standing should be able to do so. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC) PS. This page was created not because AN/ANI was being overloaded, but because community bans are more than just an admin decision.
That's an extraordinarily odd reply. How do you construe an implication that only sysops would post a ban proposal into my words? And there's absolutely no need to tell me why this board was created: I'm the editor who proposed this board. Durova 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there's no need for us to go back over community bans that were endorsed by the community at ANI, but it would probably be a good idea to have a look at indefblocks that became de facto community bans if someone complains, such as Daniel Brandt. Were would the burden of consensus be: there has to be consensus to unban - if no consensus then they stay banned - or consensus to endorse the ban - if no consensus they are unbanned? I personally favour the former: any thoughts? Moreschi 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (reset indent) I agree that we don't need to proactively review de facto bans. The appeals process as currently constituted is ArbCom, and banned users can contact ArbCom by mail. No further action required, other than to clarify the appeal route and email address. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that we shouldn't revist a ban unless someone specifically asks for it to be appealed. The question about threshold is a good one that I think is worth a subsection of its own. I'll start one and continue there. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Guy, we really don't need to preemptively review old cases. Should someone insist that their indefinite block is not really a ban, they can appeal to ArbCom, which can either accept the appeal or refer the matter to this board for community clarification. In the case of Brandt, it is clear from the majority of the arbitrators' comments that they accept the status quo as a ban rather than as a block. Thatcher131 12:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at hold yer horses below before posting here, please. This has morphed into something that barely resembles the actual questions. Durova 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Threshold for unbanning

  • would the burden of consensus be: there has to be consensus to unban - if no consensus then they stay banned - or consensus to endorse the ban - if no consensus they are unbanned?

I personally favour the former: any thoughts? Moreschi

If there was no strong argument to ban or unban, then I would support unbanning. But if there is a strong push both ways, I don't know. Both banning and unbanning feel wrong for different reasons. My feel is that such cases ought to be refered upwards to the ArbCom. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The threshold for unbanning should be an appeal to ArbCom, in my view, or a new debate which includes most of those who contributed to the original debate. Otherwise we may end up with bans quietly undone without reference to the people who originally investigated the abuse. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold yer horses, folks. The replies here don't jibe with the question: I've proposed that we hold a single discussion where we mass-convert a bunch of old indef block/de facto bans into formal community bans. That means bans under the old process more than half a year ago. The reasons for doing so are to protect Wikipedians from potential libel suits over the semantic distinction between a block and a ban and to prevent troublesome matters such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom. Durova 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The excessively legalistic distinction between "block" and "ban" should be removed from Misplaced Pages policy pages. We implement blocks. We can remove all use of the word "ban" from the policy pages and be done with this nonsense. The community has a consensus to indefitely block so and so. No need for the word "ban" in the first place. WAS 4.250 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Where did this...notion...about libel suits come from? And – even if it were a legitimate concern – how would waving our magic wand months or years after the fact provide protection?
Honestly, if there are indef bans that need to be reviewed, let the ArbCom handle it—there shouldn't be a lot of traffic, and most cases can be dealt with very quickly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The notion comes from Daniel Brandt. Durova 15:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Daniel Brandt would still be a pain in the ass even if we make the declaration you suggest. If he wants to sue me for saying so, he's welcome to it—and you didn't answer the second part of my question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of the request either. Just because we have a new procedure for discussion community bans doesn't mean that bans discussed under the old procedure are invalid, and I don't see any reason to worry about individual or corporate liability here. No one has the right to edit wikipedia, and if Joe Smith decides to edit under his own real name, and acts in such a manner so as to be shown the door, and that fact becomes general knowledge, well whose fault is that? Thatcher131 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at it this way: if we routed old indef blocks through community discussion before unblocking then Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom probably wouldn't have happened. It's a simple matter to incorporate a blanket statement along the lines of all existing indef blocks issued prior to October 2006 are declared to be community bans, regardless of their former status. It's a simple step to reduce our worries about Brandt and people like him and the basic notion received initial support until I posted at WP:AN and some off target replies began. Durova 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be difficult to get consensus on such a broad statement. There's always going to be exceptions and the community would probably spend an eternity arguing over minor points. Additionally, arguing that such a conversion is necessary could actually lead to wikilawyering by banned users who (incorrectly) claim their ban is invalid it was implemented using the old method. I think that reviews should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the ArbCom. ChazBeckett 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If anyone raises a concern about any specific indefinite ban, it can be discussed here or taken to ArbCom; I hesitate to issue a blanket statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan has closed. The Arbitration Committee's decision is as follows.

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Rms125a@hotmail.com

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Rms125a@hotmail.com pushes an anti-Irish/anti-Catholic POV into articles, and attacks any editors who disagree with him with charming comments like"FIFTH COLUMNIST PARASITE/CENSOR", "Demiurge--I AM NO ONE'S SOCKPUPPET AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT BY NOW, NO MATTER HOW THICK YOU ARE" and "You are a disgrace to the UK.". That's just the tip of the iceberg, more can be seen here and here.

After an RfC in March 2006 a case was put before the Arbitration Committee. The case was not accepted, but two arbitrators recommended that Rms125a@hotmail.com should be banned by acclamation, and was indefinitely blocked in April 2006 after this ANI report.

Since then he's evaded the block using a large number of sockpuppets, see the list of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets.

Checkuser confirmed use of sockpuppets for votestacking in the following AfDs about Irish republicans:

Recent examples of personal attacks are User:Vintagekits and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters, the above user and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters and/or former volunteers and User:One Night In Hackney, one of the cadre of supporters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (such as User:Vintagekits, User:Pauric, User:GiollaUidir, User:Domer48, et al). Note that the second comment is particularly virulent as "volunteer" refers to Volunteer (Irish republican) and is an accusation that editors are former members of a terrorist organisation. One Night In Hackney303 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been whacking this editor's sockpuppets for a few days now. It's time to deal with this firmly, calmly, and decisively. Endorsing Hackney's proposal. Durova 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse ban. --ElKevbo 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks to be about time to help this one find the door, endorse banning. Seraphimblade 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As per the above evidence, endorse. Ben Aveling 09:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Jesus, this if you got paid for on-wiki puppet shows this guy would be up there with Bill Gates by now. Endorse community ban per patent disruption, time-wasting, and non-stop sockpuppetry. Moreschi 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of block or ban for User:Just_H

It has been confirmed that Just H (talk · contribs) has used sockpuppets to game the system in Danny's rfa. All accounts are blocked indefinitely. A discussion at WP:AN showed significant support for an indefinite block, but also some resistance that things were moving too quickly. Now the the RFA is over and a couple of days have passed, I submit the following remedies to the community for consideration.

  1. Block Just_H for two weeks for sock puppetry and then let him come back.
  2. Indefinite block all accounts but let him return with another account.
  3. Community ban.

In favor of the community ban I will point out this message claiming that he has done this before and promises to do it again. I also suggest that it was not a "blunder" or accident that he voted 4 times on Danny's RFA, in fact, these socks have been active for a long time and have voted multiply in several additional RFAs and possibly AfDs as well. The three sockpuppet accounts were all dormant, and a checkuser would not even have detected them if not for the fact that they became recently active to oppose Danny's RFA. Who knows how many additional accounts he has been using?

In favor of the 2 week block or the indefinite block (but allowing him to come back) I will point out that Just_H is a long-time contributor with many useful contributions. There is very little overlap in the accounts contributions except for the overlapping RFA votes shown below (courtesy of bainer)

Page Just H Centurion 5 Georgian Jungle Yankee Rajput
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Zzuuzz Support Support
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/RandyWang Support Oppose Support
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 Oppose Neutral Oppose
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Pascal.Tesson Oppose Oppose
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose

Discussion? Thatcher131 13:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Has a request for checkuser been conducted, and had the editor been warned about sockpuppetry? Navou 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
All this and more answered if I take the time to scan the diffs. Navou 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The consensus on WP:AN was to ban. I'm not sure why we're wasting time with another discussion on another forum. – Steel 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There was also some resistance and a request to discuss it here. If it is to be a ban I would be happier if it was confirmed with a more sober discussion than at AN, which ocurred while the bureaucrats were still trying to decide how to close the RFA, which may have had some influence on the discussion. Thatcher131 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Just_H (talk · contribs)'s final comment on being blocked says it all . He's here to engage in a kind of campaigning which is not permitted on Misplaced Pages (I suppose the Karmafist arbitration is most relevant here). In addition he has systematically cheated at RFA. There is no place for extremely untrustworthy behavior on Misplaced Pages. Ban. --Tony Sidaway 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban per Tony. Long-term systematic deception aimed at corrupting the project's decision-making processes. Stated intent to continue to be a DICK. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I browsed through these accounts' Misplaced Pages namespace contributions to begin with, and came up with this list of RfAs that have been edited by more than one of them. Centurion 5 and Georgian Jungle have few edits each, mainly stub tagging with a little cleanup work, done in blocks of a couple of hours at a time (all of Centurion 5's contribs were made on just 7 different days, for example). Their only edits outside of this have been to their userpages and to the RfAs mentioned above. Yankee Rajput was also used for AfDs alongside the stub tagging and cleanup edits, although I can't find any overlap with the AfDs that Just H participated in. So the only uses of these socks in a manner prohibited by the sockpuppetry policy is the multiple participation in these RfAs (without combing through all article contribs looking for 3RR breaches and so forth); but that more than warrants a ban. These were clearly "sleeper" accounts which were brought out of the sock drawer as needed to participate in RfAs, and that kind of behaviour is clearly not acceptable. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban per utter lack of contrition in parting statement. What this guy did wasn't simple vandalism; he was gaming the system for the better part of a year. --Cyde Weys 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban per Cyde and Tony for now, though I would perhaps allow a potential unban if and when we get the biggest apology ever, coupled with an end to the sockpuppetry and a limited ban from project space. Having said that, the complete lack of remorse in the parting shot clearly merits a siteban for the present. Moreschi 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation by User:Grimerking

Grimerking (talk · contribs · block log)

See here. This seems to be a SPA, and the user has been warned various times about a number of Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)





Anon "Dodona"

No consensus for Ban. Navou 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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


For three months now, an anon editor signing his posts as "Dodona" has been plaguing Talk:Arvanites and several other article talk pages related to Balkan ethnicities (Talk:Bulgarians, Talk:Albanians) with a deluge of incessant political ranting, in broken English, about alleged ethnic continuity of Albanians with ancient Illyrians and similar nationalist memes. Often these rants have degenerated into personal attacks and ethnic slurs. He is unstoppable, impervious to reason or debate, and unable to make a coherent point that would amount to a suggestion for actually modifying an article. In fact, he has never even tried to edit any of them (his only edits in article space seem to be minor edits on Albanian footballers and similar topics).

The Arvanites page is an ideologically sensitive one with a very long history of disputes, but the article itself has been virtually stable since last summer. However, talkpage trolling like this always carries the risk of inflaming the old disputes again, and unfortunately several other editors have repeatedly taken the bait. The results have always been so chaotic that whole threads had to be removed to keep the page readable. A previous WP:ANI thread about the problem is here.

I myself blocked Dodona's IPs twice for disruption on various of these articles, but since I'm a long-time contributor to the Arvanites page and have taken part in the debate with Dodona (or whatever sorry substitute for a debate it was), I'd consider myself too much involved to hand out longer blocks here.

I would like to propose a full community ban for having exhausted the community's patience with his off-topic soapboxing. We need to be able to simply revert this guy on sight.

Here's Dodona's IPs
And some representative samples of his edits

Oldest contribution: 2 January. Other representative samples: , , . Latest: 5 April, 5 April

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of IP addresses. Could you simplify things for visitors by linking directly to the bans? And has any dispute resolution been tried? Durova 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. The blocks are documented on these talk pages: User_talk:80.90.85.46 (for off-topic rants such as and elsewhere), User_talk:217.24.240.8 (for block evasion), and User talk:217.24.247.51 (for edits such as ). There has been little attempt at "dispute resolution", content-wise, for the simple reason that there was no content dispute. In fact, there never was any content to dispute, because Dodona's rants don't rise to the level of proposing any concrete, coherent claim. The "dispute" there was was purely about asking him not to abuse the talk page for off-topic debates. Such requests can be seen at , , . On some occasions, one user even tried addressing Dodona in Albanian in order to get a better communication with him (, ), but the result was only that Dodona accused him of being a traitor to his own ethnicity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I could support that and I'll add another question: would a topic ban be adequate? That's a lot of IP addresses and I'd like to leave the door open a crack, particularly if some of those IPs change hands. Durova 01:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, topic ban will be just as fine. Actually, I'm not asking for all those IPs to be technically blocked. We don't do IP blocks like that anyway, do we. I just want community endorsement for being allowed to roll him back when needed without further ado. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Support topic ban. Nudge to other editors: this thread needs more participants. Durova 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


RfA reform

Okay. I'm going to try to push the issue a bit more. According to the top of this page, "his forum was created for the discussion of issues requiring broad community approval," and this may, in fact, be the place to do it, considering the voices at WT:RFA (which is usually RfA regulars and not a broader cross-section of users) and the soon-to-be-rejected ArbCom request regarding RfA reform. As ArbCom isn't going to touch it, and Jimbo is unfortunately not going to step in, and discussion is futile at the RfA talk page, I think it's imoportant to get some discussion rolling on how to reform RfA. I guess we should see if this is even something we can tackle here first, and if it is, start trying to figure out what's best for the situation and just friggin' do it already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen first is establish what isn't going to happen. Once we've gotten out of the way things which either should not change or can not concievably get enough support to change, it will be easier to find where problems we can fix are. -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see what is wrong with the current system, I know some people don't like it, but that does not mean it is broken. InBC 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This subject is currently undergoing a rigorous and extended debate at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship. I agree with HighInBC. The current system works successfully and I have yet to see an argument against it beyond "I don't like it". Gwernol 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Adminship has become a "big deal" in exactly the way it was once said not to be. requiring millions of edits in all areas, a perfect record, etc, before the bit can be set is not how things were supposed to be, and I don't think _anyone_ really wants it this way. --Random832 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The current system does NOT work successfully. There are perpetual backlogs, and we're all absolutely petrified to desysop anyone for fear of being unable to replace them. Requiring more than a basic level of competence and good intent to be demonstrated before it can be handed out violates WP:AGF. --Random832 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The difficulties in passing seems to be based on the supply and demand for admins. There are so many people running, why not take only the best? I passed my second RfA, and I did not have to perform any miracles, I just needed some experience. It was good I did not pass my first, I was not ready. InBC 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Has everyone here taken a good look at CAT:AB recently? It's gotten quite large (even though we're slowly chipping away at it). But really, adminship has become a huge deal, even though it shouldn't be. In my opinion, provided you have 1000 or so edits and haven't screwed things over then you're clearly suitable for adminship. Hell, getting approval for AWB or VP takes less work... ^demon 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have backlogs due to a lack of admins, we have them because they are boring to go through. InBC 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And adminship becoming a big deal is not the problem of the system, but of the voters themselves. —physicq (c) 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First, in response to the forum question I'm not philosophically opposed to discussing this here. If you find a better venue you can move the thread. Second, I agree there's a need for more sysops. Yet I think it skips a couple of steps to leap to a discussion about procedural changes to RFA. My focus this calendar year is on recruitment and coaching. Partly toward that end I've just started a new personal user award User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle that could help identify outstanding content editors as potential sysop candidates. I suspect a lot of the good volunteers aren't even entering the RFA grinder because they're out there writing articles and we don't know their usernames. Let's try some more outreach and be innovative in our methods. Durova 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely OT, but what a cute award! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, that is a very on topic alternative solution to the perceived problem, good thinking. InBC 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we talking about requirements for voters or something? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We'd all like to get a few more hands swabbing the deck. I just have a different approach. I've started two successful RFA nominations and am coaching about half a dozen editors who'd like to earn mops of their own. It shouldn't be too hard for one active sysop to mentor ten people in the course of a year. If enough of us make that a priority our manpower problems would be solved - and admin coaching isn't tough to do. Durova 06:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Another instance is for the folks at RFA to calm down for just a bit. While Danny's RFA is pretty much the exception than the rule, we need to realize this: people screw up, give them a break and RFA isn't a vote or a vehicle to decimate the opposition. It is not to wage your personal campaigns or to rehash greviences from eons ago. And if you do not think someone is right for adminship, say it in a manner that not only it is civil, but acts as constructive criticism so the nominee can actually use those comments to better themselves. It has become too cut-throat, it needs to end now. User:Zscout370 08:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem isn't RFA, which probably does more inappropriate promotions than inappropriate rejections. It's not even especially that there aren't enough people willing and competent to deal with those backlogs; but rather, that those backlogs exist at all is symptomatic of the general dysfunction on Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to launch a meta-essay on what the deeper problems are since everyone has a litany of them already. For sure, RFA is broken. But more admins running around isn't going to help. More important than reforming RFA is reforming Misplaced Pages to reduce the amount of stress and bullshit that the existing admins have to deal with. 64.160.39.153 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The above moved from WP:CN. >Radiant< 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Why did this get moved? The entire point was to have it at the community noticeboard for a different set of eyes following the Arbcom's refusal to hear it. This completely misses the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Because it is unrelated to "community sanctions" and therefore does not belong on the "community sanction noticeboard". For additional eyes, I'd suggest posting a note on WP:VP and WP:GO and WP:SIG. >Radiant< 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I already explained at the top as to why it fit the description of the page. And, in fact, it may involve a community sanction - the community sanctioning the bureaucrats as to how to deal with this. I'm very close to moving this back at the moment, so I'd need a better reason than "it's unrelated" when that's been addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Community ban or lengthy block of Reddi

Reddi (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) is apparently a longtime contributor to parascience-related articles. A cursory look at his block log and talk page indicate that he is also a user whose (recent) interactions with others tend to be unpleasant (see also his RfAr). I have no prior experience with this user, but was asked by an admin who has been in disputes with him to evaluate this rant on his user talk page (since expanded). My impression of it is – gross violations of WP:NPA, etc. aside – that he is not a user interested in contributing productively to Misplaced Pages any more. I'm inclined to issue either a lengthy block to cool him down and make him understand how we work with one another here, or an indefinite block – i.e., since we're discussing it here, a community ban. Opinions? (I've notified Reddi of this discussion.) Sandstein 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot express the situation? If i have to remove it, I will, but it is what happened. I am a user interested in contributing productively to Misplaced Pages. I have created several articles since I have came back. Kansas State Board of Education, Ancient Egyptian technology, War of Currents citations, Timeline of Kansas history, Adolphus Slaby, "Expert" References and external articles, and Invention of radio timeline are a few. J. D. Redding 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • May we have some diffs of the actual edits in question. And just to clarify, is it mostly user conduct, or mostly content dispute? Diffs of continuing "abuse" would be helpful. Regards, Navou 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a lengthy block history. But the situation looks like DR ought to be tried. Has it? Durova 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Very soon after his last block and has removed the f-word comment, accordingly, suggest dispute resolution. Addhoc 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to follow his edits and attract editors by article content RfC if necessary. I don't know whether the alleged identity of User:Hillman Reddi "discloses" on his talkpage should be considered actable. --Pjacobi 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a complaint at WP:AN/I over Reddi's list on his talkpage. He has refused to take it down. Can anyone help? --ScienceApologist 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Arkhamite and 68.84.17.112

Arkamite (talk · contribs · count) is banned per consensus community discussion. The blocking administrator is encouraged to note this ban by reblocking the editor noting ther ban in the block log, user poage and ban page. Navou 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Arkhamite (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

68.84.17.112 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

I'm putting this situation up for a community ban because this editor has a substantial history of vandalism and disruption and has developed a sexual fixation regarding me. This person also has a self-confessed inpatient psychiatric history. Per the editor's self-description:

Committed to the asylum in October 2000 after defying a police officer. Diagnosis was bipolar, later revised to schizoaffective. Obsessed with dinosaurs, aviation history, and girls in dangerous situations. Delusions frequently take the form of scientific theories. Paranoia focuses on sexually transmitted diseases, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Kennedy political dynasty.User:Arkhamite

I blocked the editor for 1 week for a comment at Talk:Joan of Arc that included She's your sexual fantasy, you look it up. ;-D LOL OMFG

The next day he altered my block notice at his user talk page and add Just because I'm a lesbo doesn't mean you can insult me on my Joan of Arc website. to my statement. Also of note are the following Misplaced Pages edits to my user talk page from 22 February,, which had seemed nonsensical to me at that time, and this (which I didn't see until much later). On April 3 he made a similar assertion about me at his blog where his self-description is remorseless troll.

The overall editing history of this account is dismal, as a browse of the contribution history and comments at his talk page shows (representative examples are at Talk:Robin_(comics)#Robin:_Gayest_of_all_Gothamites.3F_FBI_Involvement.3F). The following edits demonstrate that this editor and this IP are the same person.

He also issued a personal threat against me.

There's no place for this behavior at Misplaced Pages. Durova 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Support indefinite commitment to Arkham Asylum. - Merzbow 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I haven't indef blocked this user and I'm asking for a siteban. Durova 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote also includes "Should be banned immediately" - I suggest you oblige. Addhoc 10:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've indef blocked the registered account and put six months on the IP. Durova 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully endorse block. I appreciate your respect for process but gross threats of this nature do not require extended discussion before blocking. Newyorkbrad 01:48, 11 April 2007 (*UTC)

Endorse community ban. Newyorkbrad, sometimes a block and a ban end up being acted on differently when a person returns with socks. Mak (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Ban or block of Ernham

Ernham (talk · contribs · count) is banned per consensus discussion, the blocking administrator are encouraged to note the ban on the user page, block log and correct ban log. Navou 12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Ernham has been indefblocked by The bainer per this ban. Mangojuice 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Ernham (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

This user is chronically incivil, and is a highly tendentious editor and edit warrior. He edits in an aggressive biased manner, and has been blocked for a total of eight times. In one case of October 30 , he did a 9RR in about three hours and continually accuses opposing edits of being vandalism. As noted in the link to ANI Archive 178, he repeatedly removes negative and critical information about Michael Schumacher's driving tactics on the MS article and various related Formula One articles. He does the same on some tennis players, such as Steffi Graf, shifting the article to extremely pro-German state. This style extends to various German footballers, as previously noted, he has repeatedly blanked out information that Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski have Polish blood. As also previously noted, this extends to German Jews, and he has constantly deleted information about the Nazis expelling Jewish faculty from Gottingen. He also frequents Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua Genocide continually blanking info about the negative activities of German colonial troops in the African colonies. He was blocked for a month, but has returned, and continues to engage in the same activity, , deleting info about famous German Jew scientists to portray them as pure blooded Germans. This is in addition to continually blanking parts of the other articles which doesn't sit well with his viewpoint. His rather unhealthy editing behaviour in his attitude to race topics can be seen here If this does not get deleted, I'd probably consider creating a "Ashkenazi Incestousness" wiki, and we will see if the same people use the same arguments for keeping it. We will use all sorts of fun stuff, like propensity for genetic defects, inbreeding customs, and niffty annecdotal things like Einstein marrying his cousin. Then we can all watch what a crock wikipedia is. He is again calling other users liars . Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse; this user clearly seems to be more trouble than he's worth, and that "Ashkenazi Incestousness" edit (which also calls Misplaced Pages "a crock") is really bad. History of blocks and bans shows that he's had several chances to change his ways. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Das ist hier nicht erlaubt. Durova 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse, strongly. I've been watching from the sidelines, with minimal interest - Ernham's behaviour is so constantly disruptive and annoying that it gets boring after a while. Strongly endorse community ban. By the way, as a note, I refactored CH's comment above, to remove the bolding - no need for this to become more like a vote (per the header). Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. He continues to ride roughshod over community consensus since returning from his most recent ban. Greenman 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - no improvement since his RfC. Addhoc 10:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Highly disruptive behaviour which has not been modified by either his blocks or the countless appeals made on his talk page to calm down and follow Misplaced Pages policy. Mark83 10:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I haven't been had dealings with Ernham since he got blocked for harrassing Mark83 sometime last year, but it seems apparent he has only got worse (the ani-semitism hadn't surfaced, for example). I guess I just don't get why people dedicate months of their lives to trying to disrupt websites they must know they will be eventually banned from. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - edits he makes are clearly POV-pushing, tendentious and some of the latest ones could even be construed as racism. I don't think we need anyone plastering these kinds of views all over Wikpedia articles.--Ramdrake 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Has had more then enough chances to modify his behavior and to contribute responsibly, and hasn't. SirFozzie 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - similar behavior on Talk:Barack Obama. Tvoz |talk 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per incivility and edit warring already noted by Tvoz at Barack Obama. Italiavivi 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - his behavior hasn't improved since I blocked him. Ernham has exhausted the community's patience. Khoikhoi 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page-ban suggested for User:CyclePat

I am requesting that the community ban User:CyclePat from Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance, as well as all its subpages and talk pages. If CyclePat violates this ban, he may be blocked by any uninvolved adminstrator for a maximum of 24 hours: after 3 such violations, the blocks may escalate in accordance with adminstrative discretion. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. As is usual, this ban applies to all sockpuppets or proxies of CyclePat, such as User:CyclePat2.

Evidence of conduct that requires this sanction: Has already been blocked once in connection for this matter, insults and personal attacks also in connection with this, templating the regulars, Disrupting AIV, Personal attacks on a group of editors, False accusations of vandalism, More personal attacks on a group, More false accusations of vandalism, Ditto, And again, and again, Disruption, incivility, wasting time, more attacks towards Kim Bruning, Two disruptive moves that were reverted that nobody wanted, More disruption, and more!

Narrative: WP:ASSIST was set up in order to assist editors. CyclePat, a devoted member of the WP:AMA, takes this as a challenge to the AMA, and has been enthusiastically trying to disrupt ASSIST: first by requesting a merge - see - but nobody wanted that. Unsurprising, as this was a flagrant abuse of process: WP:RM is not the venue for one project to attempt to usurp another! He has then continued to disrupt WP:ASSIST and harass anyone who has tried to revert/stop him/tell him he's not wanted or needed, as the diffs show. The existence of ASSIST seems to have thrown CyclePat into a frenzy: ban him from it and the disruption will cease. Moreschi 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some choice quotes:

. What needs to be done is to get everyone working on the same page. As Boomer said in an article on the Alliance Party in Canada "it's time to come back to the fold. Let this be a formal olive branch to those treasonous, mutinous bastards."

And:

In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)" Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism.

Best of all:

"I call EA a mutiny on a boat, and currently, the mutineers, instead of trying to fix ship have decided to bail into a little life boat. It's time the ship went back, even if we have to do it with our guns, and gather the mutineers. We need their help just as much as they need our help to make it out alive of the high sea. Personnally, I think they should all be gathered up and shot... forced to do one AMA case."

There is only so much we can put up with. This limited page-ban is the best solution to the problem. Moreschi 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering a lot of the disruption has taken part on user talk pages, I don't think it could HURT to ban CyclePat from WP:ASSIST, I think that his behavior will merit a site block shortly, if it hasn't already. SirFozzie 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This will hopefully prevent that unfortunate outcome. We do not wish to lose this editor altogether, but the disruption must stop. This is the best way of doing so without indefblocking/community banning outright. The cause of this is CyclePat's reaction to WP:ASSIST: cut off that, and hopefully this nastiness will end. Moreschi 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed as well. I don't want to end up seeing CyclePat gone, I know he's done a lot of good work, but this has got to stop. This seems like the least harmful way to do so. Seraphimblade 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I definitely support a ban from editing WP:ASSIST and its subpages, though I think a short-term block may be needed to give him time to cool down. He seems determined to keep disrupting WP:ASSIST despite many requests from many editors to leave that project alone. ChazBeckett 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed then, Moreschi. I'd be happier if it had a bit stronger teeth to it, but I guess that a 72 hour block for violating it would be punitive and not preventative (24 hours should be enough of a cool down time). Maybe a short 4-6 hour block to give him a chance to absorb this without saying something in the heat of the moment that would make it harder on him? SirFozzie 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with that last part. Needs a couple hours to cool down, especially after this. Feel free to go and beep an admin. Cheers, Moreschi 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification about the narrative...first CyclePat moved Editor's assistance to () without so much as a word, then I reverted () with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/absolute shock that this was happening in mind, and since them it has been looniness. --Iamunknown 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I support the narrow page ban as described by Moreschi (talk · contribs). CyclePat (talk · contribs) is a good faith editor and I don't doubt that he has very good intentions, but his actions at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance talkpage and archives is having the exact opposite effect that I think he intends them to have. As I've said before, it is time for him to disengage here and if he won't do it voluntarily, this seems like the next best step to avoid the eventual disruption blocks he will get if he continues this behavior.--Isotope23 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say the proposed decision would give the best chance of this user avoiding an otherwise likely indef block. InBC 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that if he attacks ASSIST because of his adherence to AMA, then we can contact User:The Thadman (head of AMA) to admonish CyclePat. This works better than a ban. Wooyi 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Already been tried, failed, multiple times. --Iamunknown 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's already been tried. See . Nothing: the disruption has continued unabated. This needs community intervention. Moreschi
If this has been done and failed, I will not object a page ban. Wooyi 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that this user has already been admonished. If you think a particular person will be more persuasive then I am all for a solution that is voluntary, if it works that is. InBC 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the fact that he's been blocked once yesterday, for three hours about this same issue and been asked to stop disrupting WP:ASSIST by.. well, just about EVERYONE, I'm beginning to wonder if he's already squandered a "final" chance. SirFozzie 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's kind of what I think, but I'm involved with WP:ASSIST so don't rely solely on my judgement. --Iamunknown 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
He's certainly squandered a final chance on this issue, which is why we're here, but this is a contributor worth attempting to retain. Not an out-and-out troll: he has done valuable work. If he continues to disrupt other stuff, we can always turn this into a siteban later. Cheers, Moreschi 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing other peoples comments (as per WP:VAN) is not right. As per WP:VAN we are allowed to revert such actions. Many editors have decided to remove, not only my comments, but comments from other users at WP:ASSIST. Please, this is an issue of vandalism and perhaps now harassment (since it is ongoing). Of my limited time here are just a few examples.Archive I tried, Moreschi removes my recent comments. I created an archive for the page and the comments which all these user want so badly removed for some reason, (I wish they would explain why?), are actually helpfull towards building a better EA and AMA. Why can't you just leave the comments there and stop harassing me... perhaps then we could work on improving other issues? --CyclePat 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pat, PLEASE take a couple steps back and take a deep breath. Look at how many people have asked you to stop disrupting EA. You've already been blocked once for disruption, and are quite probably heading for longer blocks. It's not worth it. Some fights shouldn't be fought. SirFozzie 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pat, it comes down to this: your comments and actions at WP:ASSIST are not helpful. You have been asked my many members of the community to stay away from that project. Please listen to them. ChazBeckett 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:STICK applies here. Just hit "log out", take a break for a couple days, and come back ready to work on the encyclopedia. It's in everyone's best interests. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish that it was that simple. I would love to agree with drop the stick... even felt this would come this far once I didn't receive an appology from one of the many users that have reverted me. The stick thing sounds so nice compared to this thing... where they keep trying to "delete" the past conversation... even it's archives. The debate was dead a long... long... long time ago. But the removal of important comments however is a big no no! And is still happening even now. One of the reasons the RM was proposed in the first place is that I knew even if it didn't work I would be able to go back and look at some of the comments and perhaps fix some of the highlited issues, to help fix up AMA, as suggested in the Mfd of AMA. If we keep deleting our history (comments and debates), what do have to work with in the future? --CyclePat 19:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite simply, these things have been reverted because they constituted a flagrant abuse of WP:RM, which is not for project usurpation. Even without this, your personal attacks, harassment, false allegations of vandalism, templating the regulars, personal attacks on a group of editors, comparing them to mutineers and Hitler, cannot be ignored. Moreschi 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I support the ban, but suggest it be preceded by a week long block. As someone so helpfully pointed out, since EA started CyclePat's every single edit has been devoted to trying to destroy it. Maybe a week would force him to calm down. I also suggest that if he fails to heed this ban or insists he is going to ignore it (through either "WP:VAN trumps CN, I am being HARASSED, I tell you!" or whatever means) he be blocked indefinitely. CyclePat has been incivil, repeatedly characterised good faith edits as vandalism even after warnings from at least a dozen people, has been blocked for his aggressiveness and use of vandalism templates on regular users, including me (and if anything pisses me off most it's being accused of being a vandal), and to be honest, he is wikilawyering with his constant spouting off legal definitions of harrassment and propaganda, not to mention disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point (I've had to deal with him rather than work on more important matters). As even his defenders are now starting to leave extremely blunt comments on his talkpage and he is still not listening to them, I think this man has exhausted the community's patience enough. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Moreschi, why is it you believe WP:RM constitutes a flagrant abuse of WP:RM? I fail to see personal attacks... unless you consider stating things like "this edit of yours" falls within the realms of WP:VAN and may be considered vandalism? or Please do not blank talk pages? As for the mutineers... if the analogy offended you then I appologize. Perhaps I should have used the bible analogy of Jesus going to get the lost sheep? But then again, perhaps the reference to religion may then offend you. When explaining, it is inherent that everyone understands differently. To meet the different characteristics of these people it is sometimes important to give a different angle or a story to go along. At that point I felt it necessary so people could understand. Finally, as you probably wanted to hear me say... but I did not refere to Hitler... I refered to popoganda theory called Reducio ad Hitlerum which is taken from the wikipedia article. If this has offended you, I again, appoligize... You may wish to see my comments on my talk page regarding this. Personally I believe the fact that you have constantly removed my comments (which fall under the definition of vandalism) cannot be ignored. This is an issue of Vandalism of my comments... it has nothing to do with AMA anymore... this is my personal affair and those people that keep reverting and removing my attempt to try and historically preserve a conversation or even my most recent comments... should be dealt with. Again, all I am asking is that the comments be preserved as per WP:VAN, and what is common practice. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The more you remove the more revert violations that there are to talk about. Please just let the comments be. In the mean time I will take a break from WP:ASSIST. I am not totally unreasonable towards compromises. --CyclePat 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikilawyering like this is why the AMA has a bad reputation. You are rewriting history in this manner: your disruption and evident intent to disrupt further is intent for all to see. Moreschi 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As Dev put it," I have to disagree with this. Normally I am fine with just archiving stuff, but the RfM poll was forced onto our pages, Pat edit warred to keep it here, tried repeatedly to reopen it, and then starting trying to force the remaining mess here again with a discussion closed template". Not only did you use totally the wrong procedure for your attempted usurpation, you then edit-warred against consensus. Then you accuse everyone else of vandalism. No, not really. You still refuse to admit you have done anything wrong: even if you did, this sanction should still be applied, because we can't tolerate such disruption and must not let it go. Moreschi 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Following another vandalism warning issued to Moreschi's talkpage, even while we are discussing the terms of his ban, I have requested an indef block at AN/I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that, just for now, we let that slide. Or maybe I'm just in a good mood because the English clubs all won in the Champions league tonight. I agree that usually that would be a indefblock offence, but in the heat of the moment...Moreschi 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would agree that an indef block probably isn't necessary at this point. I think the topic ban will do the job just fine, though I do still support enacting that, just to ensure that this doesn't recur. Seraphimblade 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest community removal from WP:AMA

I suggest extending the suggested WP:ASSIST ban to a general removal from WP:AMA and a ban on all pages related to the two. Certainly the community can do this if AMA will not. CyclePat is creating a great deal of animosity across Misplaced Pages against the AMA in general, and that project as well as everyone else will probably be aided if he simply cuts all of this out. It doesn't have to be forever, but something is needed. /me ducks -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:Endorse this, with the alteration that the ban from the AMA is for six months only: the ban from ASSIST is indefinite. Moreschi 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC) On second thoughts, maybe not. Moreschi 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While I would strongly suggest that AMA do this (it is reflecting badly on them for one of their members to be so far off the plot), A) They have tried to reign in Pat as much as any other folks, and B) I am VERY leery of telling a volunteer group that they must kick out one of their own, even temporarily. SirFozzie 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Fozzie. I hear he's inflammatory and divisive as an advocate as well. I have to say though, I find it weird that a middle-aged man who apparently is a part-time lobbyist offline is incapble of reading the signs, even when they are twenty foot high neon signs saying "STOP" on them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I take that back, his website appears to indicate he is in his mid to late twenties. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This would be something for the AMA coordinator to decide. I've also just emailed Cyclepat, perhaps we can talk this through. --Kim Bruning 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is necessary. CyclePat (talk · contribs) has stated above that he is going to disengage from WP:ASSIST and I'm going to hold him to that. Removing him from AMA seems a bit punitive at this point and the WP:ASSIST ban should be enough right now. Regardless, per Kim I'd prefer to let AMA decide what, if anything, they want to do about this.--Isotope23 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Aye, agreed. But the ASSIST ban is necessary: CyclePat has had more than enough chances to talk this through amicably and has spurned the lot. This kind of disruption must not be tolerated, ever. Moreschi 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me get a couple things straight:
  1. I'm am usually a pretty nice guy.
  2. I do not want to take over EA.
  3. I am interim coordinator (temp) of the teams section at AMA. That means all someone needs to do is propose or call for an election anytime to "take over" the resposibility.
  4. My actions for a "move page" request to the AMA have been viewed as hostile.
  5. Removing these comments in the RM process is however considered hostile as well. (they should emain preserved in archive).
  6. A resentement still exist for this hostile "move."
  7. Despite the fact that I am following rules... it is unpleasant for everyone.

I think what needs to happen is that I run the other way, and wait for everyone here to "calm" down. Perhaps then, I may be able, later on, to walk by without getting punched. --CyclePat 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, you don't think you did anything wrong. Do you still not get it? Moreschi 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pat, when you look at the NUMBER of people who have spoken here, in ANI, on your talk page, people who respect your contributions to WP otherwise, people who are viewing the AMA/EA situation for the first time, and they ALL agree you are in the wrong and need to step back, is it not beyond the realm of possibility that yes, you were and are in the wrong here? SirFozzie 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Evidently not, which is why this sanction is, regrettably, necessary. Moreschi 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you read carefully, you'll see he recognizes all the errors people have claimed he has made, but one. Note that English is not Cyclepat's first language. --Kim Bruning 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Kim, the use of the passive voice means that "My actions for a "move page" request to the AMA have been viewed as hostile..." is most certainly not the same as an admission of doing anything wrong. "Despite the fact that I am following rules" - how is that an admission of anything? CyclePat not following the rules is the problem here. Moreschi 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What Kim Bruning said. I wouldn't like people picking over my crap French grammar to find the hidden meaning. Based on Pat's message of 21:06 UTC here, and this comment, he isn't just stepping back, he's "running the other way". It seems like that should be enough. Or am I missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad. Hopefully, this is the end of it. (well, I still would want the ban from WP:ASSIST to go through, just to try to keep from a possible repeat. SirFozzie 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's something best left to Steve Caruso, perhaps. And perhaps he can think of a better idea, who knows. --Kim Bruning 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why best left to Steve Caruso? At least on the EA/ASSIST side, that can be a remedy the community can levy.. (just curious) SirFozzie 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to give him a chance to be seen and heard from, since he's the current AMA coordinator. He might have some useful insights. That, and I'm not sure it's a good idea for the community to interfere with projects like that, especially after we basically disagreed with CyclePat about doing something similar. --Kim Bruning 23:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You are aware that WP:ASSIST is unconnected to WP:AMA, are you not? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The AMA have consistently failed to rein in CyclePat, though not for lack of trying. They've has their chance had it hasn;t worked. I agree that there is no pressing reason as of yet to ban him from the AMA, but that would be within our rights as a community should there be a good reason. Moreschi 08:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to remove CyclePat from AMA, especially given that it appears there is consensus to restrict him from interfering in the editor assistance project. Removal from AMA as well seems more punitive then preventative to me. Seraphimblade 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, CyclePat's issues are with EA and not the AMA. I would recomend a ban from EA but not the AMA as I agree with above it would be punitive and doesn't address the issue correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeon1006 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm not familiar with EA, but well aware of CyclePat's "advocacy" for one of our most disruptive trolls, User:Cplot. That included leaving vandalism warnings for admins and long time editors Such "advocacy" isn't helpful for the project and was disruptive. Regretfully, I think having CyclePat step down from AMA would be for the greater good of the wiki community. --Aude (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Those diffs were a while ago. Did CyclePat ever indicate a change of attitude or at least say that those warnings were mistaken? — coelacan — 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. In the recent WP:AMA MfD discussion, he disrupted the discussion by Canvassing several groups of AMA members to join the discussion, and stated that he would avoid consensus if it went against AMA by hosting it on his user page. He also stated that he did not believe his advocacy for CPlot was harmful. You can see the discussion here SirFozzie 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In that discussion, CyclePat mentions handing over Cplot's IP (from an email) to an admin or checkuser. That helps. I couldn't support a ban from AMA at this time, as I think it would be punitive and not preventative. Any future actions like those taken for Cplot would change my mind, though. And the ban from ASSIST should go ahead immediately. — coelacan — 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Topic ban for CyclePat on the AMA...no doubt, his efforts to aide and abet notorious vandal User:Cplot was well above and beyond the call of duty of an AMA representative.--MONGO 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support banning him from both EA and AMA, his behaviour is too close to trolling. Also I don't mind if he'll be blocked for a week (but not indef yet), to calm down and realise that he went too far. MaxSem 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose on principle forcing people to leave a Wikiproject they are truly a part of. If he wants to leave voluntarily, fine, and if you want to try to convince him to leave, fine again. But even if we do have the power to do this, which it isn't clear we do, I don't believe that it should be used. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disruption is at Assist. This would be punative. Spartaz 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have consensus for a ban from ASSIST but not one from the AMA: having said that, it is perfectly within our rights as a community to ban anyone from any set of pages for any length of time. If there was a really good reason to ban CyclePat from the AMA, we could. However, there isn't as of yet. Note to those above: stepping back and running the other way is not the same as admission of doing anything wrong, crap grammar or no. The question is: how soon do we wrap this discussion up and enact the ban from ASSIST? Moreschi 08:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Review all old-style "community bans"

(This is in response to the failing Daniel Brandt arbcom case) The conflation of the old-style (no admin willing to unblock) and new-style (a formal discussion has taken place resulting in a consensus to ban) leads to a catch-22 situation - where the reason no admin is willing to unblock is because of the belief that there is a ban with more substance than "no-one has unblocked them" in place. In practice, this means there is NO avenue for someone under an "old-style" community ban to appeal, since an {{unblock}} is essentially a landmine. My proposal is to stop documenting old-style so-called "community bans", and just call them what they are, "indefblocks that haven't been lifted" - and since almost certainly most of these users do deserve community bans, they should be discussed and the bans made official. --Random832 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All prior community bans were discussed on WP:AN or WP:ANI to the best of my knowledge. This board was created as community ban requests were filling up ANI too much. Bans like those on Blu Aardvark, Daniel Brandt, etc. are effective. And removing the "banned" status from the users prevents the editor from preventing abuse from them in the future (a banned user is not allowed to edit, and anyone is allowed to undo their edits regardless of 3RR, sorta like BLP)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, an unknown percentage of the banned users have moved on to other pursuits and it would be a poor use of time to debate whether someone is allowed to edit who hasn't even thought of editing in months anyway. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
At Brandt's RFAR I proposed to formalize his status under the present system by holding a ban discussion here. From the tenor of his request to ArbCom, such an action could protect Wikipedians from potential liability by removing any ambiguity about whether indefinite blocked or community banned is the appropriate terminology. Mr. Brandt didn't take up my offer, but perhaps it's worth running a formal community ban discussion for any presumptively banned editor who contests status. Durova 01:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (fixed - my bad) Durova 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Um ... I think you mean Daniel Brandt, not Daniel Bryant! :) Newyorkbrad 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good idea, because the catch-22 described is real. Seconded. -Amarkov moo! 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
More thoughts about this matter: we could open a blanket proposal to convert all old indef blocks into (formal new style) community bans for blocks that were implemented prior to (insert appropriate date here). It's been almost seven months since I became active in this side of the process and things seemed to be gelling at that point, so I suppose it's fair to say that any editor who hasn't gotten an indef block lifted in half a year probably had serious enough problems to merit community discussion before editing privileges get restored. If I understand correctly, a confidential arbitration case that took place a few months back probably could have been avoided if the community had handled things this way. Sounds like a plan? Durova 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about handling old-style community ban appeals like appeals to ArbCom are currently done? If someone would like to appeal an old-style community ban, they can email an administrator, who will then post their request here on that person's behalf. That process could also work for those who have been banned a year or two, and may wish to apologize and ask to be let back in. Seraphimblade 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify here, they could probably email any editors, regardless to admin or not. However, I would that unban requests go to arbcom email. Navou 13:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We'd need community approval to do that anyway plus agreement on a dividing line for which indef blocks are covered and which aren't. It would be useful to make a formal statement and clarify the ambiguous status at the same time: Daniel Brandt asserted that it may have been libellous to call him community banned if his actual status was indef blocked. Editors shouldn't need to worry about a lawsuit over semantics. Durova 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this being a forum for discussing any and all unbanning, regardless of what type of ban it is. I do have a problem with saying that only admins could post an unban request, surely any user in good standing should be able to do so. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC) PS. This page was created not because AN/ANI was being overloaded, but because community bans are more than just an admin decision.
That's an extraordinarily odd reply. How do you construe an implication that only sysops would post a ban proposal into my words? And there's absolutely no need to tell me why this board was created: I'm the editor who proposed this board. Durova 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there's no need for us to go back over community bans that were endorsed by the community at ANI, but it would probably be a good idea to have a look at indefblocks that became de facto community bans if someone complains, such as Daniel Brandt. Were would the burden of consensus be: there has to be consensus to unban - if no consensus then they stay banned - or consensus to endorse the ban - if no consensus they are unbanned? I personally favour the former: any thoughts? Moreschi 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (reset indent) I agree that we don't need to proactively review de facto bans. The appeals process as currently constituted is ArbCom, and banned users can contact ArbCom by mail. No further action required, other than to clarify the appeal route and email address. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that we shouldn't revist a ban unless someone specifically asks for it to be appealed. The question about threshold is a good one that I think is worth a subsection of its own. I'll start one and continue there. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Guy, we really don't need to preemptively review old cases. Should someone insist that their indefinite block is not really a ban, they can appeal to ArbCom, which can either accept the appeal or refer the matter to this board for community clarification. In the case of Brandt, it is clear from the majority of the arbitrators' comments that they accept the status quo as a ban rather than as a block. Thatcher131 12:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at hold yer horses below before posting here, please. This has morphed into something that barely resembles the actual questions. Durova 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Threshold for unbanning

  • would the burden of consensus be: there has to be consensus to unban - if no consensus then they stay banned - or consensus to endorse the ban - if no consensus they are unbanned?

I personally favour the former: any thoughts? Moreschi

If there was no strong argument to ban or unban, then I would support unbanning. But if there is a strong push both ways, I don't know. Both banning and unbanning feel wrong for different reasons. My feel is that such cases ought to be refered upwards to the ArbCom. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The threshold for unbanning should be an appeal to ArbCom, in my view, or a new debate which includes most of those who contributed to the original debate. Otherwise we may end up with bans quietly undone without reference to the people who originally investigated the abuse. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold yer horses, folks. The replies here don't jibe with the question: I've proposed that we hold a single discussion where we mass-convert a bunch of old indef block/de facto bans into formal community bans. That means bans under the old process more than half a year ago. The reasons for doing so are to protect Wikipedians from potential libel suits over the semantic distinction between a block and a ban and to prevent troublesome matters such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom. Durova 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The excessively legalistic distinction between "block" and "ban" should be removed from Misplaced Pages policy pages. We implement blocks. We can remove all use of the word "ban" from the policy pages and be done with this nonsense. The community has a consensus to indefitely block so and so. No need for the word "ban" in the first place. WAS 4.250 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Where did this...notion...about libel suits come from? And – even if it were a legitimate concern – how would waving our magic wand months or years after the fact provide protection?
Honestly, if there are indef bans that need to be reviewed, let the ArbCom handle it—there shouldn't be a lot of traffic, and most cases can be dealt with very quickly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The notion comes from Daniel Brandt. Durova 15:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Daniel Brandt would still be a pain in the ass even if we make the declaration you suggest. If he wants to sue me for saying so, he's welcome to it—and you didn't answer the second part of my question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of the request either. Just because we have a new procedure for discussion community bans doesn't mean that bans discussed under the old procedure are invalid, and I don't see any reason to worry about individual or corporate liability here. No one has the right to edit wikipedia, and if Joe Smith decides to edit under his own real name, and acts in such a manner so as to be shown the door, and that fact becomes general knowledge, well whose fault is that? Thatcher131 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at it this way: if we routed old indef blocks through community discussion before unblocking then Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom probably wouldn't have happened. It's a simple matter to incorporate a blanket statement along the lines of all existing indef blocks issued prior to October 2006 are declared to be community bans, regardless of their former status. It's a simple step to reduce our worries about Brandt and people like him and the basic notion received initial support until I posted at WP:AN and some off target replies began. Durova 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be difficult to get consensus on such a broad statement. There's always going to be exceptions and the community would probably spend an eternity arguing over minor points. Additionally, arguing that such a conversion is necessary could actually lead to wikilawyering by banned users who (incorrectly) claim their ban is invalid it was implemented using the old method. I think that reviews should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the ArbCom. ChazBeckett 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If anyone raises a concern about any specific indefinite ban, it can be discussed here or taken to ArbCom; I hesitate to issue a blanket statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan has closed. The Arbitration Committee's decision is as follows.

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Rms125a@hotmail.com

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Rms125a@hotmail.com pushes an anti-Irish/anti-Catholic POV into articles, and attacks any editors who disagree with him with charming comments like"FIFTH COLUMNIST PARASITE/CENSOR", "Demiurge--I AM NO ONE'S SOCKPUPPET AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT BY NOW, NO MATTER HOW THICK YOU ARE" and "You are a disgrace to the UK.". That's just the tip of the iceberg, more can be seen here and here.

After an RfC in March 2006 a case was put before the Arbitration Committee. The case was not accepted, but two arbitrators recommended that Rms125a@hotmail.com should be banned by acclamation, and was indefinitely blocked in April 2006 after this ANI report.

Since then he's evaded the block using a large number of sockpuppets, see the list of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets.

Checkuser confirmed use of sockpuppets for votestacking in the following AfDs about Irish republicans:

Recent examples of personal attacks are User:Vintagekits and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters, the above user and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters and/or former volunteers and User:One Night In Hackney, one of the cadre of supporters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (such as User:Vintagekits, User:Pauric, User:GiollaUidir, User:Domer48, et al). Note that the second comment is particularly virulent as "volunteer" refers to Volunteer (Irish republican) and is an accusation that editors are former members of a terrorist organisation. One Night In Hackney303 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been whacking this editor's sockpuppets for a few days now. It's time to deal with this firmly, calmly, and decisively. Endorsing Hackney's proposal. Durova 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse ban. --ElKevbo 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks to be about time to help this one find the door, endorse banning. Seraphimblade 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As per the above evidence, endorse. Ben Aveling 09:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Jesus, this if you got paid for on-wiki puppet shows this guy would be up there with Bill Gates by now. Endorse community ban per patent disruption, time-wasting, and non-stop sockpuppetry. Moreschi 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of block or ban for User:Just_H

It has been confirmed that Just H (talk · contribs) has used sockpuppets to game the system in Danny's rfa. All accounts are blocked indefinitely. A discussion at WP:AN showed significant support for an indefinite block, but also some resistance that things were moving too quickly. Now the the RFA is over and a couple of days have passed, I submit the following remedies to the community for consideration.

  1. Block Just_H for two weeks for sock puppetry and then let him come back.
  2. Indefinite block all accounts but let him return with another account.
  3. Community ban.

In favor of the community ban I will point out this message claiming that he has done this before and promises to do it again. I also suggest that it was not a "blunder" or accident that he voted 4 times on Danny's RFA, in fact, these socks have been active for a long time and have voted multiply in several additional RFAs and possibly AfDs as well. The three sockpuppet accounts were all dormant, and a checkuser would not even have detected them if not for the fact that they became recently active to oppose Danny's RFA. Who knows how many additional accounts he has been using?

In favor of the 2 week block or the indefinite block (but allowing him to come back) I will point out that Just_H is a long-time contributor with many useful contributions. There is very little overlap in the accounts contributions except for the overlapping RFA votes shown below (courtesy of bainer)

Page Just H Centurion 5 Georgian Jungle Yankee Rajput
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Zzuuzz Support Support
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/RandyWang Support Oppose Support
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 Oppose Neutral Oppose
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Pascal.Tesson Oppose Oppose
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Danny Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose

Discussion? Thatcher131 13:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Has a request for checkuser been conducted, and had the editor been warned about sockpuppetry? Navou 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
All this and more answered if I take the time to scan the diffs. Navou 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The consensus on WP:AN was to ban. I'm not sure why we're wasting time with another discussion on another forum. – Steel 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There was also some resistance and a request to discuss it here. If it is to be a ban I would be happier if it was confirmed with a more sober discussion than at AN, which ocurred while the bureaucrats were still trying to decide how to close the RFA, which may have had some influence on the discussion. Thatcher131 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Just_H (talk · contribs)'s final comment on being blocked says it all . He's here to engage in a kind of campaigning which is not permitted on Misplaced Pages (I suppose the Karmafist arbitration is most relevant here). In addition he has systematically cheated at RFA. There is no place for extremely untrustworthy behavior on Misplaced Pages. Ban. --Tony Sidaway 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban per Tony. Long-term systematic deception aimed at corrupting the project's decision-making processes. Stated intent to continue to be a DICK. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I browsed through these accounts' Misplaced Pages namespace contributions to begin with, and came up with this list of RfAs that have been edited by more than one of them. Centurion 5 and Georgian Jungle have few edits each, mainly stub tagging with a little cleanup work, done in blocks of a couple of hours at a time (all of Centurion 5's contribs were made on just 7 different days, for example). Their only edits outside of this have been to their userpages and to the RfAs mentioned above. Yankee Rajput was also used for AfDs alongside the stub tagging and cleanup edits, although I can't find any overlap with the AfDs that Just H participated in. So the only uses of these socks in a manner prohibited by the sockpuppetry policy is the multiple participation in these RfAs (without combing through all article contribs looking for 3RR breaches and so forth); but that more than warrants a ban. These were clearly "sleeper" accounts which were brought out of the sock drawer as needed to participate in RfAs, and that kind of behaviour is clearly not acceptable. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban per utter lack of contrition in parting statement. What this guy did wasn't simple vandalism; he was gaming the system for the better part of a year. --Cyde Weys 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban per Cyde and Tony for now, though I would perhaps allow a potential unban if and when we get the biggest apology ever, coupled with an end to the sockpuppetry and a limited ban from project space. Having said that, the complete lack of remorse in the parting shot clearly merits a siteban for the present. Moreschi 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation by User:Grimerking

Grimerking (talk · contribs · block log)

See here. This seems to be a SPA, and the user has been warned various times about a number of Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)