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 00:09, 13 September 2007 view sourceAlecmconroy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,935 editsm →Proposal to ban User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling from library-related topics← Previous edit Revision as of 02:21, 13 September 2007 view source LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk | contribs)10,034 edits →Proposal to ban User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling from library-related topics: I ask people to ensure wikipedia policy is followedNext edit →
Line 204: Line 204:
--] 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC) --] 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:Wow! That's about as one-sided, misleading, and flat out false as they come. He even besmirches other people who apparently happen to agree with me! People just need to read the YALSA talk page and the history comments I added when editing the main page, after first clearing their minds of the false information that appears above. And I ask people to ensure wikipedia policy is followed. On another topic, if there is any policy related to stopping Alecmconroy's unsportsmanlike behavior, informing me about that would be appreciated as well. Ditto for Jessamyn. --] 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:21, 13 September 2007

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



Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin

The above arbitration case has closed and the final decision is located at the link above. Vlad fedorov is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a ban on Ron liebman

Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (January 30th, 2007 - May 11th, 2007) has been haunting us with sock puppets since his indefinite block on May 11th. He is using these sock puppets to repeatedly add false information to articles (I think, if I'm wrong please correct me). He has 130 suspected puppets and 12 confirmed accounts. These puppets are frequently popping up, and I think a ban should be in order. I think he has exhausted all of our patience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User has been indefinitely blocked since May. Moving from only one 31 hour block to an indefinite is harsh. Why not try a block of a few months first? Unblock, if he re-offends, indefinitely block. Banno 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Has the user been informed of this discussion, and has the issue of identity been solved? Banno 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps more explanation is needed, including links and diffs. Banno 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a ban when no admins are willing to unblock the person? I proposed a ban here for User:Lyle123, and it was closed as "no need to reconfirm existing bans" or something like that (see here). Kwsn(Ni!) 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that he has been blocked indefinitely, after only one block of 31 (why 31?) hours, and that the indefinite ban has been in place since May, I am considering unblocking him. Banno 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then this discussion can produce a result, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Prima faci, this looks like Liebman started editing seriously in March , got into a few disputes and broke 3RR and was blocked briefly, tried to avoid 3RR with a few sockpuppets and was blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a block of a few months would have been better. Since then he has used sockpuppets to avoid the block. I suggest unblocking, so that he doesn't have a need to use sockpuppets, and with the condition that a breach of 3RR, including via sockpuppets, will result in an indefinite block and community ban. Banno 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He has shown no willingness whatsoever to conform to the rules about citations and POV-pushing, ever since his first activities in January up until now (or at least yesterday, when he was very active with his socks). With no commitment from him to do better, how do you imagine that unblocking him will help solve anything? Baseball Bugs 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I can't disagree with this more vehemently, Banno. Liebman has been using the identities of real living people at both SABR and http://baseball-reference.com/bullpen while denying all sockpuppetry and even claiming that other people are stalking him (checkuser says otherwise). This edit at bullpen confirms that he's almost stealing other people's identity. He's been discredited on this wiki and theirs and responded with venomous messages like this and this just for a quick sample. Frankly I'm shocked that someone would be rewarded for months of rampant false information and sockpuppetry by being released from their block! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman's indef block was only after we warned and blocked his sockpuppets for increasingly long times and he kept making new ones (about a dozen at the time, more since) despite repeated warnings on his page and the sock pages to stop making more. The combination set of user accounts and IPs were all clearly and repeatedly warned and told to stop escalating the sockpuppetry and vandalism. There are also very serious concerns in that he's impersonated almost 50 members of the SABR baseball statistics organization with account names. Please see: WP:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman for an overall summary, though I don't know if it's up to date on all the socks (check the categories). Georgewilliamherbert 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To follow myself up, also look at the 5 checkusers; 4 were actually run and confirmed 41 named socks and 15 plus IPs or IP ranges in New York City libraries and universities, and we've identified a lot more than that by edit pattern alone. Per Kwsn below, he also out and out lied about being associated with the socks, right before the largest CU confirmed that he was. He's also persistently lied in emails to unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Now you are telling us things we need to know, if the community is going to endorse a ban. Not all of us are familiar with the minutia of the case, and it is up to those making the case for a ban to present the evidence. Since my interest in baseball ranks somewhere below my concern for what you do with your breakfast scraps, a bit of detail is needed, especially links and diffs. Banno 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"A list of diffs"? There are hundreds of them. I suggest you start with the history for Hideki Matsui and cross-check it with the list of sockpuppets (listed in the first paragraph, above) to see which ones are his, and then you will just begin to get the idea. Baseball Bugs 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My advice to you, which will be lost on you if you're under the age of 50 or so, but that's OK: "Duke 'im, Banno!" Baseball Bugs 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
""Duke 'im"??? Banno 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It was the best spoonerism I could come up with for "Book 'im, Danno!" Baseball Bugs 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Nuh. You've lost me. Banno 01:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hawaii Five-O. Georgewilliamherbert 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks. Banno 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban I am quite happy that the sockpuppet evidence provided above is sufficient to warrant the denial of editing privileges to this person. I was the blocking admin. (aeropagitica) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support. Looking at the evidence, each offense taken by itself would warrant a ban. Deliberately adding false information, egregious sockpuppetry (over 80 socks, by my count) and impersonating real people. All together? Gone. Blueboy96 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I was only peripherally involved with this mess, but what I saw was plenty awful enough. -Hit bull, win steak 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: He is already indefinitely blocked, but he keeps using a public library, with its multiple IP addreses, to create new accounts and continue his activities. I would like to know how or if banning will solve that problem? Baseball Bugs 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Currently the "ban" is only implied, i.e. it falls under #1 of Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Decision to ban where he is indefblocked and no admin is willing to unblock. A consensus here would be an upgrade of sorts, falling under the umbrella of Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban. That's my understanding anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Aha. It's a formal proceeding that prohibits an admin from unilaterally unblocking him, but from Liebman's standpoint it would be business as usual. Baseball Bugs 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Mostly yes. It also may bring the situation to more people's attention so Liebman's antics become more difficult for him. Otherwise, it's just another entry in the long list at WP:LTA. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • A formal ban will make it much easier to deal with his tactics--i.e., unlimited Checkuser requests, revert/delete-on-sight of all his contributions and block-on-sight of all socks.Blueboy96 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I remember that a range block of one of the library systems he uses was put into effect at one point, for the IP starting with 141, I think. A formal ban would definitely be a good thing, imho. I've been doing a lot of watching for his "edits" and reporting them to WP:AIV. His snarky comments towards me and others have been a real treat, not so much. Plus his creating sockpuppet IDs as digs at people, like this one of Baseball Bugs and No Guru and me, for instance. Whatever can be done to stem the tide, so that we might all spend our time actually making constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, would be muchly appreciated. Thanks all. :) -Ebyabe 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence presented so far is that Liebman has

Enough for a Ban. Baseball Bugs has made one last attempt at a reconciliation. If unsuccessful, I recommend a community ban. Banno 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is now a rather unconvincing reply at User talk:Ron liebman. I am not willing to unblock this user on this basis. Banno 11:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse ban The indefinite block on his original account should be upgraded to, or interpreted as, a community ban. --Ryan Delaney 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban The indef block was appropriate for this disruption only account, especially considering its bad faith actions. Indef blocks aren't infinite. The user can come around at any point and ask to be unblocked. Ongoing sock puppetry merits the ban. - Jehochman 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI, Ron has asked for unblock on his user talk page repeatedly in the last roughly couple or three weeks (see there for exact dates) and been declined by everyone who reviewed it. I have today told him to file an arbcom appeal if he wants to pursue this further, though of course with any community ban / indef block another administrator has the perogative to give him another chance. I don't recommend it, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware. Georgewilliamherbert 18:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: arbitration, Mr. Liebman has been yelling about that for quite some time. I believe he's been given the e-mail address but does nothing with it. It appears his yelling now amounts to trolling (disruption to get some attention) and protection of his talk page may be necessary before long. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but any admin who unblocks this guy ought to be desysopped for gross dereliction of duty, IMHO. You're talking about a person who impersonated real people ... I could be wrong here, but in doing this, he exposed Misplaced Pages to a good deal of legal danger. Blueboy96 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a threat of leagal action in his recent post. Further reason to consider a block on his talk page. Banno 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Per that sally, I move to close this discussion. Hate to say it, but Mr. Liebman just dislodged his own snowball from the cliff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Extending the ban of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All to indef

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was indefinite ban for abusive sock/meat puppetry. Personal attacks focusing on homophobic and/or racist overtones were aggravating factors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by ArbCom for one year for activities documented at this case. The ban was initially set to expire on March 29 2008 but has been extended twice due to instances of meatpuppetry and proxy editing.

Today, it emerged that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a meatpuppet of FAAFA, stating rather brazenly that half of his edits were proxy edits for FAAFA. In particular, he admitted to deliberately sinking Crockspot's RFA by introducing evidence of his off-wiki conduct.

FAAFA's ban has already been reset twice, but to my mind, when you deliberately attempt to sink an RFA--with a meatpuppet no less--you have no business being here. I therefore propose that FAAFA's ban be extended to indefinite. Blueboy96 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, FAAFA/Bmedley has also used the identity of NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has its own sorid history of blocks. Dman727 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As the indef blocking admin of the Bmedley Sutler account I agree. The FAAFA account's ban should be made indefinite. Seeing what we have all had to deal with for the past few months I see no reason why he should be allowed to come back after one year.--Jersey Devil 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it would be appropriate to extend the siteban on FAAFA from 1 year to indefinite as a formality. In practice, I seriously doubt any admin would or should consider unblocking him at this point anyhow. MastCell 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The community's patience with FAAFA and crew has ended. They've been given many opportunities to contribute productively but instead they have disrupted the project over and over. The parting statement of Bmedley boastful and unrepentant. I agree with an indefinite ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems silly not to, considering FAAFA's block log. --Deskana (talky) 23:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Tend to agree with the above. You don't get to circumvent your block, accumulate a new block log like this user did, and then boast about it later without some serious consequences. --Haemo 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Endorse per basically everybody. We should probably indef the non-FAAFA half of Bmedley, too, just for formality's sake (assuming he wasn't just pulling our chains there). -Hit bull, win steak 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure he was just pulling our chains there.Proabivouac 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if he was, though, better safe than sorry? -Hit bull, win steak 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite ban as one of the victim of his attacks and homophobic rants. --DHeyward 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious endorse. Here are a few more probable socks I have collected.

- Crockspot 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If I may be allowed to play devil's advocate, Bmedley did admit to being a meatpuppet for a banned user, and thus as far as we're concerned, he's a meatpuppet for a banned user. However, should his admission be taken to definitively condemn another user? How do we know for sure that Bmedley isn't just "pulling our chains" with something that isn't true after all? If that were true, FAAFA would have no control over his actions and no recourse. To block one user on his or her own admission is one thing, but blocking a user based on the admission of a lying malcontent who claims to be his or her meatpuppet seems a bit off.

It also seems a bit off not to extend some form of courtesy to the user (Crockspot) whose RfA was "sunk" by Bmedley. I don't know exactly what to do, but it's pretty obvious that he'd be an administrator now without Bmedley's "outing" of a politically incorrect comment he or she made on another forum which Bmedley spread all over the place trying to make the potential administrator seem homophobic. Given my user name, I'm not exactly happy that another user would say, "Pretty much any dude with 'bear' in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass," on CU or DU or any of those stupid "underground" websites, but this comment, which sunk the RfA, shouldn't have done so. It is rude, politically incorrect, and insensitive (to LGBTs, people with "bear" in their handle, and asses), but this whole business of dragging people's extra-Misplaced Pages lives into Misplaced Pages decisions is a horrible thing, and Bmedley's the one who is responsible for it in this case. Is he going to be able to get away with it? Calbaer 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read fnord23's posts (which is FAAFA) on WR, it's pretty clear that he was not being victimized. - Crockspot 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then it should be made clear that the evidence used to indefinitely ban FAAFA is not Bmedley's say-so. This discussion makes it seem as though it is. Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefnite ban Disruptive user, already should have been banned indefinitely. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot's RFA

People opposed his RfA. He did not pass. We can't say "oh, well it turns out the evidence you guys all used was provided by a banned user, so your opinions don't count." -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It does pose an interesting problem. Assuming for the moment that they are actually two people, Bmedley did not only admit to proxy editing, he stated that FAAFA was actually logging in on Bmedley's account. According to the Misplaced Pages banning policy, banned users are not welcome to contribute, and all of their contributions to the project are subject to deletion. So how do you unring a bell? - Crockspot 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If I knew, I'd propose something, but I don't, so I'm just throwing it out there.... Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have a short list of alternate workable remedies, but this is probably not the appropriate place to discuss them. - Crockspot 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been quite convinced for sometime that Faafa and Bmedley are the same person, even before he admitted to proxy editing for faafa and sharing the account yesterday. Heck his very first edits screamed sock. His behavior, language, agenda, article interests and mode of operation are completely identical. As for the Crockspot RFA....well its really unfortunate and troublesome. If Faafa had not interfered, Crockspot WOULD be an admin right now. However there is no indication that the majority of editors who opposed Crockspot were "in league" with faafa/bmedley. They simply voted their conscious and I think that should be respected. Essentially Faafa/Bmedley found a way to exploit the WIKI process. While Faafa/Bmedley has proven himself to be a dishonest troublemaker, there doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to compensate Crockspot and thats a failure of WIKI. I think that Crockspot best course of action is to simply abandon his account and start anew. He's a quality editor and deserving of adminship, however there is no unringing the bell at this point. Dman727 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone explain why we are treating this revelation as bad? Clearly, the information swayed many people's opinions. For what reason should we not allow people to give information that will change the outcome of a RfA? -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Its not bad or good. It just is. RFA's are structured like a game of poker IMO. You use any and all information available to make a decision. Sometimes your cards get flashed and your opponents get more information than they are normally entitled to. In this case Crockspot hand was revealed through his decision to use a less than anonymous user-id. Others have been more circumspect with their identity and are rewarded for it. As I mentioned above its a failure of the wiki process, and unfortunately the miscreant faafa exploited it. Dman727 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's an interesting question, if Bmedley didn't ask the question, would someone else have? Personally, on a side note, points to Crockspot for keeping a cool head through all that. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    I think there was a decent chance that at least part of that information would have come out. There were significant opposes prior to the information getting out and discussed. --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Revisiting the Crockspot RFA--in which I did not participate--is not a good idea, even in light of FAAFA/Bmedley's ridiculous disruptions. The number of oppose votes was extremely high, and obviously oppose voters were evaluating Crockspot's comments on Conservative Underground (and his response to the questions about them) rather than Bmedley's post and we therefore need to respect their opinions. Also it should be noted that the majority of CU posts (including the one that people may have felt was most egregious) which were added to the RFA came from User:BenB4 and if anything it may have been his post that pushed a bunch of people into oppose (Bmedley already had a bad reputation at that point, and at least one editor encouraged Crockspot not to even respond to his post--Crockspot only responded after BenB4 posted additional CU comments). Trying to undo the RFA results will create an enormous amount of bad blood and will be bad for the project. Crockspot should continue contributing in a positive fashion and try again down the road or, if he feels that is impossible, create a new account and start from scratch. Or just live without being an admin, which, after all, is no big deal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree, my point is just that it was not a slam dunk passage prior and there was the appearance of folks looking for a reason to say no. However, my observation is that this community forgives that sort of thing slowly, if at all, so I don't know that the crockspot handle will ever be able to pass an Rfa. --Rocksanddirt 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was cruising to an easy pass before the CU material was introduced. See Image:RFA Crockspot - off wiki activity influence.png. - Crockspot 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but as I said much of the CU material was not introduced by Bmedley. Regardless of how it got there, many editors found it quite troublesome and voted Oppose in good faith. We can't, as you said, unring the bell (or put the genie back in the bottle) so I don't think there's any remedy that will undo the results of that RFA (and even if there was it would be a dramafest to the nth degree). I also agree with Amarkov above that, in spite of Bmedley/FAAFA's major incivility and justifiable long-term ban, the revelation of the CU stuff was a good thing. The very fact that it changed the outcome of the RFA makes it good that we had the information (had it come out after a successful sysopping it could have been much more of a problem). I think the best thing we could do is move on from this whole situation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Per community consensus here, I extended the ban to indef. Thanks Jaranda 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, this is the second time this year that we've had to ban someone at least in part for disruption at RFAs ... maybe we should let it be known on the main RFA page that disruption there will be dealt with very severely. Blueboy96 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Proposal to ban User:Crossmr and User:Njyoder from PayPal and Talk:PayPal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was no consensus for a ban.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Addhoc (talk • contribs)

Will an admin please look at the behavior of Crossmr (talk · contribs) and Njyoder (talk · contribs) on PayPal and Talk:PayPal? This is a dispute about whether to include Paypalsux.com as a source or external link. They filed an RFC, but instead of actually waiting for comments, have continued to argue with each other. There are about 16,000 words on the talk page after the filing of the RFC, almost all by the two of them. (I doubt they read each others' posts any more, or at least they don't seriously consider their merits.) They have also been forum shopping at WT:RFAR trying to get arbitrators to enforce some three-year old case against one of them or something. Other editors including arbitrator JPgordon have tried to be voices of reason on the talk page but no use. The article is currently protected.

Protection locks out all editors when there are only two problem editors here. I propose a community ban of Crossmr and Njyoder from the article and its talk page for a good long time, months at least, to be enforced by blocking, so other editors who are not so polarized can deal with this. I also ask that lookout be kept for sockpuppets and SPAs since I suspect that one or both will be unable to truly disengage. Dread Pirate Westley• 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to try a little good faith and have a look at the full details surrounding the case before proposing a ban with vague details about what's going on and lots of assumptions about how we're really thinking and editing. For some clarification: the dispute is about not only the inclusion of that link among other similar links, but also about whether or not a forum is a reliable source for criticism. The dispute arose when 2 editors commented from the RfC and stated they didn't feel paypalsux was an appropriate external link. Following that an IP added some old, improperly sourced criticism to the article which was removed with explanation. Edit warring ensued despite more than another editor attempting to explain to Njyoder that this was not an appropriate citation to support the material. As far as a "three year old case" its a 2 year old case, and the sanctions from that case only expired 1 year ago. The reason it was brought up again was because I saw his current behaviour and method of handling the current dispute to be identical to that previous behaviour, and there was very little editing on his part since the expiration of the sanctions. I also sought input as to whether or not to file that case, and was told that if it was the same behaviour there was no need to go through the same DR process that obviously did not work last time. As to whether or not we can disengage, we've already disengaged at IntelliTXT, at least I have while the discussion continues. I've refrained from reverting the article further, even though the majority has agreed with my interpretation of the policies.--Crossmr 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Need more hard evidence rather than vague statements. A community ban proposal is a serious thing. Durova 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't make much sense. Crossmr is correct about the sourcing issue, I think. I've recused myself from any ArbCom activity here, because of my eBay connections; but a cursory look at the sources (and unsourced language) that Njyoder wants in the article should be sufficient. Go to Talk:PayPal and help instead. It's hard; there's verbosity there; but the issue isn't that complicated. --jpgordon 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jpgordon. I'm not sure if your comment was direct at me or the OP, but the situation would be much better resolved if anyone commenting here instead went to the paypal and IntelliTXT talk pages and weighed in on those respective discussions.--Crossmr 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Crossmr is definitely a good faith editor and although I haven't edited alongside Njyoder, this appears to be a content dispute. In this context, I agree with Durova that insufficient evidence has been presented for a community ban and with Jpgordon that proposing a ban doesn't make a lot of sense. Would suggest this discussion is closed and some form of dispute resolution attempted. Possibly formal mediation? Addhoc 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the main issue here is that we haven't had enough outside input. If we can get editors to go to the talk page and weigh in on the issue it should (hopefully) solve the issue without the need for formal mediation, or anything further. if we can't get people to go to the article pages and give input, something like formal mediation will become necessary.--Crossmr 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the discussion here, I think we won't be needed formal mediation or anything as one user seems unable to work with the original research and reliable source criteria for an encyclopedia and will likely end up blocked for disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Bormalagurski

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
ArbCom bans are not to be adjusted without taking it to ArbCom SirFozzie 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Last week, Bormalagurski (talk · contribs), who is subject to a one-year ArbCom ban, was caught using the account TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs), and thus had his ban reset. He has now come back with yet another sock, KasterJeShupak (talk · contribs), begging for a new start . I wonder what should be done here - should we reset his ban again, or should we allow him a "fresh new start"? TML 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

it sounds like he wants to invoke his right to vanish, which I support to a certain extent, but less so in the case of an editor who is or has edited inappropriately (especially to the point of a banning). Given his statement (assuming he's being truthful about none of the edits with the new account being disruptive), I'd make the following recommending: leave an indef block on the main account. Tell him he has to finish his original ban until october, however impose an additional 6 month parole on his behaviour. If during that time he doesn't edit war or vandalize or commit any similar disruptive behaviour which got him banned in the first place he can be left to edit in peace with no undue attention paid to him.--Crossmr 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with 'second chances', though we need to get an admin or two who are willing to agree with this, and agree to monitor his second chance. (i.e., if something moderately disruptive is done, that editors don't complain here about someone still see it and puts him back under the ban) This does make extra work for folks, no doubt. --Rocksanddirt 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If we reach a consensus on the sanction, we don't necessarily need an admin to monitor him. Any editor could monitor for violation and just make sure it gets put on AN/I with a link to this discussion if necessary. Having an admin on board though would be ideal.--Crossmr 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Woah woah woah woah woah! If he wants the ArbCom ban reduced, he needs to go to ArbCom. End of story. SirFozzie 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Proposal to ban AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was: transfer to Request for comment.
}

I apoligize if this is the wrong place to report this. This user has been causing many problems with multiple articles. There have been tons of warnings and messages left on this user's talk page, but there has never been a single reply. The user does not use the preview button, and never leaves an edit summary. Most of their edits are unconstructive, and sometimes vandalism. Once in a great while will they provide something constructive, but it's usually not much. Most of the articles they edit are related to tv shows on Disney Channel and Nickelodean. For an example, see . But also check out their user talk page and constributions. If any other info is needed, please let me know. But I think something needs to be done with this user. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, except the part about "Please discuss this with her on her talk page and on the article pages." That's useless; communication is not this user's forte. She is similar in many respects to MascotGuy, which I mentioned on an ANI thread about the same editor earlier this week. MascotGuy and his socks are blocked indefinitely. I'm not sure ATC deserves the same fate, but she's certainly testing the community's patience.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your replies...

To JetLover: Did I not say that I was not sure if this was the correct place or not?
To Georgewilliamherbert: See The Fat Man's post.
To The Fat Man...: Thank you for seeing the issue here. Any ideas on how to go about fixing the situation?
Pilotboi / talk / contribs 04:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just give it a little time. I left AFC an encouraging post about a constructive edit she made. If the quality of her edits continues to improve, great. If not, she'll eventually exhaust her warnings and be blocked.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That works. :) --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest opening one or more content requests for comment to develop consensus at disputed pages. A ban discussion sounds premature. Durova 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Proposal to ban User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling from library-related topics

LAEC runs a website, Safelibraries that is opposed to the American Library Association and other library-related organizations. In addition to promoting his agenda on his own website, on blogs, and message board, he has also joined wikipedia and he has devoted the bulk of his wikipedia activities to crusading against libraries / promoting his website. The existence of his website is a redflag that LAEC probably has a conflict of interest.

His first username was SafeLibraries.org (the url of his website), although at some point he was required to give up that username, since it was his site's url, and instead he chose his site's motto: "Legitimate And Even Compelling", (referring I believe to need to keep children from accessing unsafe libraries). The username choices are a redflag that LAEC primarily sees wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his agenda.

Along the way, he's caused more than his share of disruption. In Oct '06, and RFC was filed against him. Glancing over his talk page, it seems like he's been causing plenty of stir in the intervening year. And now, he's been editwarring Another American Libraries Association article. These past and ongoing editwars are a redflag to me that LAEC's has been sufficently disruptive to merit a topic ban.

The conflicts of interest is troublesome, but if his edits were in the ballpark of being good ones, I'd wouldn't sweat the COI. It's more the tendentious use of wikipedia as a soapbox-- undertaking a systemic campaign to insert any possible criticisms of libraries into wikipedia, however tenuous.

Take for example the latest edit war. The YALSA, a library organization, does a billion different things, one of which is publish lists of popular books. It once included a book called "The Gossip Girl" on a reader list. Some people think "The Gossip Girl" is controversial. LAEC uses the diseparate facts to contruct an argument that the YALSA is immoral, and he goes to the YALSA repeatedly reinserts an article about "The Gossip Girl is racy reading"-- a news article which doesn't even mention YALSA. The text of the YASLA wikipedia article doesn't mention "The Gossip Girl." The link so inappropriate for the article, I don't know where to begin on what it violates: Battlefield, Soapboxing, Conflict of Interest, Original Research. But LAEC reinserts the link . When 3RR prevents him from readding it, another editor with a suspiciously meaty/socky edit history shows up to add it back in for him.

One or two of these incidents would be overlookable-- I'd just do whatever was necessary to restore the article and move on. But this sort of think has been going on for the better part of a year, despite an RFC against him. I'm at the point where I don't even feel like bothering to do the "edit war, recruit nonpartisan eyeballs, acheive consensus, editwar" cycle-- he'll just stop for a few weeks, move to a different library article, and start the process over again.

Over the past I and others have spent lots of words communicating with LAEC trying to help in understand why his use of Misplaced Pages hasn't been appropriate. I regretfully have concluded It's at the point where the community has to step in and ban LAEC from editing on articles related to his website agenda-- topics like libraries, library organizations, content filtering/censorship, etc.

--Alecmconroy 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's about as one-sided, misleading, and flat out false as they come. He even besmirches other people who apparently happen to agree with me! People just need to read the YALSA talk page and the history comments I added when editing the main page, after first clearing their minds of the false information that appears above. And I ask people to ensure wikipedia policy is followed. On another topic, if there is any policy related to stopping Alecmconroy's unsportsmanlike behavior, informing me about that would be appreciated as well. Ditto for Jessamyn. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)



Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin

The above arbitration case has closed and the final decision is located at the link above. Vlad fedorov is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a ban on Ron liebman

Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (January 30th, 2007 - May 11th, 2007) has been haunting us with sock puppets since his indefinite block on May 11th. He is using these sock puppets to repeatedly add false information to articles (I think, if I'm wrong please correct me). He has 130 suspected puppets and 12 confirmed accounts. These puppets are frequently popping up, and I think a ban should be in order. I think he has exhausted all of our patience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User has been indefinitely blocked since May. Moving from only one 31 hour block to an indefinite is harsh. Why not try a block of a few months first? Unblock, if he re-offends, indefinitely block. Banno 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Has the user been informed of this discussion, and has the issue of identity been solved? Banno 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps more explanation is needed, including links and diffs. Banno 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a ban when no admins are willing to unblock the person? I proposed a ban here for User:Lyle123, and it was closed as "no need to reconfirm existing bans" or something like that (see here). Kwsn(Ni!) 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that he has been blocked indefinitely, after only one block of 31 (why 31?) hours, and that the indefinite ban has been in place since May, I am considering unblocking him. Banno 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then this discussion can produce a result, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Prima faci, this looks like Liebman started editing seriously in March , got into a few disputes and broke 3RR and was blocked briefly, tried to avoid 3RR with a few sockpuppets and was blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a block of a few months would have been better. Since then he has used sockpuppets to avoid the block. I suggest unblocking, so that he doesn't have a need to use sockpuppets, and with the condition that a breach of 3RR, including via sockpuppets, will result in an indefinite block and community ban. Banno 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He has shown no willingness whatsoever to conform to the rules about citations and POV-pushing, ever since his first activities in January up until now (or at least yesterday, when he was very active with his socks). With no commitment from him to do better, how do you imagine that unblocking him will help solve anything? Baseball Bugs 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I can't disagree with this more vehemently, Banno. Liebman has been using the identities of real living people at both SABR and http://baseball-reference.com/bullpen while denying all sockpuppetry and even claiming that other people are stalking him (checkuser says otherwise). This edit at bullpen confirms that he's almost stealing other people's identity. He's been discredited on this wiki and theirs and responded with venomous messages like this and this just for a quick sample. Frankly I'm shocked that someone would be rewarded for months of rampant false information and sockpuppetry by being released from their block! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman's indef block was only after we warned and blocked his sockpuppets for increasingly long times and he kept making new ones (about a dozen at the time, more since) despite repeated warnings on his page and the sock pages to stop making more. The combination set of user accounts and IPs were all clearly and repeatedly warned and told to stop escalating the sockpuppetry and vandalism. There are also very serious concerns in that he's impersonated almost 50 members of the SABR baseball statistics organization with account names. Please see: WP:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman for an overall summary, though I don't know if it's up to date on all the socks (check the categories). Georgewilliamherbert 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To follow myself up, also look at the 5 checkusers; 4 were actually run and confirmed 41 named socks and 15 plus IPs or IP ranges in New York City libraries and universities, and we've identified a lot more than that by edit pattern alone. Per Kwsn below, he also out and out lied about being associated with the socks, right before the largest CU confirmed that he was. He's also persistently lied in emails to unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Now you are telling us things we need to know, if the community is going to endorse a ban. Not all of us are familiar with the minutia of the case, and it is up to those making the case for a ban to present the evidence. Since my interest in baseball ranks somewhere below my concern for what you do with your breakfast scraps, a bit of detail is needed, especially links and diffs. Banno 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"A list of diffs"? There are hundreds of them. I suggest you start with the history for Hideki Matsui and cross-check it with the list of sockpuppets (listed in the first paragraph, above) to see which ones are his, and then you will just begin to get the idea. Baseball Bugs 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My advice to you, which will be lost on you if you're under the age of 50 or so, but that's OK: "Duke 'im, Banno!" Baseball Bugs 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
""Duke 'im"??? Banno 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It was the best spoonerism I could come up with for "Book 'im, Danno!" Baseball Bugs 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Nuh. You've lost me. Banno 01:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hawaii Five-O. Georgewilliamherbert 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks. Banno 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban I am quite happy that the sockpuppet evidence provided above is sufficient to warrant the denial of editing privileges to this person. I was the blocking admin. (aeropagitica) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support. Looking at the evidence, each offense taken by itself would warrant a ban. Deliberately adding false information, egregious sockpuppetry (over 80 socks, by my count) and impersonating real people. All together? Gone. Blueboy96 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I was only peripherally involved with this mess, but what I saw was plenty awful enough. -Hit bull, win steak 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: He is already indefinitely blocked, but he keeps using a public library, with its multiple IP addreses, to create new accounts and continue his activities. I would like to know how or if banning will solve that problem? Baseball Bugs 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Currently the "ban" is only implied, i.e. it falls under #1 of Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Decision to ban where he is indefblocked and no admin is willing to unblock. A consensus here would be an upgrade of sorts, falling under the umbrella of Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban. That's my understanding anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Aha. It's a formal proceeding that prohibits an admin from unilaterally unblocking him, but from Liebman's standpoint it would be business as usual. Baseball Bugs 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Mostly yes. It also may bring the situation to more people's attention so Liebman's antics become more difficult for him. Otherwise, it's just another entry in the long list at WP:LTA. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • A formal ban will make it much easier to deal with his tactics--i.e., unlimited Checkuser requests, revert/delete-on-sight of all his contributions and block-on-sight of all socks.Blueboy96 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I remember that a range block of one of the library systems he uses was put into effect at one point, for the IP starting with 141, I think. A formal ban would definitely be a good thing, imho. I've been doing a lot of watching for his "edits" and reporting them to WP:AIV. His snarky comments towards me and others have been a real treat, not so much. Plus his creating sockpuppet IDs as digs at people, like this one of Baseball Bugs and No Guru and me, for instance. Whatever can be done to stem the tide, so that we might all spend our time actually making constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, would be muchly appreciated. Thanks all. :) -Ebyabe 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence presented so far is that Liebman has

Enough for a Ban. Baseball Bugs has made one last attempt at a reconciliation. If unsuccessful, I recommend a community ban. Banno 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is now a rather unconvincing reply at User talk:Ron liebman. I am not willing to unblock this user on this basis. Banno 11:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse ban The indefinite block on his original account should be upgraded to, or interpreted as, a community ban. --Ryan Delaney 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban The indef block was appropriate for this disruption only account, especially considering its bad faith actions. Indef blocks aren't infinite. The user can come around at any point and ask to be unblocked. Ongoing sock puppetry merits the ban. - Jehochman 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI, Ron has asked for unblock on his user talk page repeatedly in the last roughly couple or three weeks (see there for exact dates) and been declined by everyone who reviewed it. I have today told him to file an arbcom appeal if he wants to pursue this further, though of course with any community ban / indef block another administrator has the perogative to give him another chance. I don't recommend it, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware. Georgewilliamherbert 18:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: arbitration, Mr. Liebman has been yelling about that for quite some time. I believe he's been given the e-mail address but does nothing with it. It appears his yelling now amounts to trolling (disruption to get some attention) and protection of his talk page may be necessary before long. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but any admin who unblocks this guy ought to be desysopped for gross dereliction of duty, IMHO. You're talking about a person who impersonated real people ... I could be wrong here, but in doing this, he exposed Misplaced Pages to a good deal of legal danger. Blueboy96 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a threat of leagal action in his recent post. Further reason to consider a block on his talk page. Banno 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Per that sally, I move to close this discussion. Hate to say it, but Mr. Liebman just dislodged his own snowball from the cliff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Extending the ban of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All to indef

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was indefinite ban for abusive sock/meat puppetry. Personal attacks focusing on homophobic and/or racist overtones were aggravating factors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by ArbCom for one year for activities documented at this case. The ban was initially set to expire on March 29 2008 but has been extended twice due to instances of meatpuppetry and proxy editing.

Today, it emerged that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a meatpuppet of FAAFA, stating rather brazenly that half of his edits were proxy edits for FAAFA. In particular, he admitted to deliberately sinking Crockspot's RFA by introducing evidence of his off-wiki conduct.

FAAFA's ban has already been reset twice, but to my mind, when you deliberately attempt to sink an RFA--with a meatpuppet no less--you have no business being here. I therefore propose that FAAFA's ban be extended to indefinite. Blueboy96 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, FAAFA/Bmedley has also used the identity of NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has its own sorid history of blocks. Dman727 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As the indef blocking admin of the Bmedley Sutler account I agree. The FAAFA account's ban should be made indefinite. Seeing what we have all had to deal with for the past few months I see no reason why he should be allowed to come back after one year.--Jersey Devil 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it would be appropriate to extend the siteban on FAAFA from 1 year to indefinite as a formality. In practice, I seriously doubt any admin would or should consider unblocking him at this point anyhow. MastCell 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The community's patience with FAAFA and crew has ended. They've been given many opportunities to contribute productively but instead they have disrupted the project over and over. The parting statement of Bmedley boastful and unrepentant. I agree with an indefinite ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems silly not to, considering FAAFA's block log. --Deskana (talky) 23:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Tend to agree with the above. You don't get to circumvent your block, accumulate a new block log like this user did, and then boast about it later without some serious consequences. --Haemo 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Endorse per basically everybody. We should probably indef the non-FAAFA half of Bmedley, too, just for formality's sake (assuming he wasn't just pulling our chains there). -Hit bull, win steak 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure he was just pulling our chains there.Proabivouac 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if he was, though, better safe than sorry? -Hit bull, win steak 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite ban as one of the victim of his attacks and homophobic rants. --DHeyward 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious endorse. Here are a few more probable socks I have collected.

- Crockspot 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If I may be allowed to play devil's advocate, Bmedley did admit to being a meatpuppet for a banned user, and thus as far as we're concerned, he's a meatpuppet for a banned user. However, should his admission be taken to definitively condemn another user? How do we know for sure that Bmedley isn't just "pulling our chains" with something that isn't true after all? If that were true, FAAFA would have no control over his actions and no recourse. To block one user on his or her own admission is one thing, but blocking a user based on the admission of a lying malcontent who claims to be his or her meatpuppet seems a bit off.

It also seems a bit off not to extend some form of courtesy to the user (Crockspot) whose RfA was "sunk" by Bmedley. I don't know exactly what to do, but it's pretty obvious that he'd be an administrator now without Bmedley's "outing" of a politically incorrect comment he or she made on another forum which Bmedley spread all over the place trying to make the potential administrator seem homophobic. Given my user name, I'm not exactly happy that another user would say, "Pretty much any dude with 'bear' in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass," on CU or DU or any of those stupid "underground" websites, but this comment, which sunk the RfA, shouldn't have done so. It is rude, politically incorrect, and insensitive (to LGBTs, people with "bear" in their handle, and asses), but this whole business of dragging people's extra-Misplaced Pages lives into Misplaced Pages decisions is a horrible thing, and Bmedley's the one who is responsible for it in this case. Is he going to be able to get away with it? Calbaer 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read fnord23's posts (which is FAAFA) on WR, it's pretty clear that he was not being victimized. - Crockspot 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then it should be made clear that the evidence used to indefinitely ban FAAFA is not Bmedley's say-so. This discussion makes it seem as though it is. Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefnite ban Disruptive user, already should have been banned indefinitely. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot's RFA

People opposed his RfA. He did not pass. We can't say "oh, well it turns out the evidence you guys all used was provided by a banned user, so your opinions don't count." -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It does pose an interesting problem. Assuming for the moment that they are actually two people, Bmedley did not only admit to proxy editing, he stated that FAAFA was actually logging in on Bmedley's account. According to the Misplaced Pages banning policy, banned users are not welcome to contribute, and all of their contributions to the project are subject to deletion. So how do you unring a bell? - Crockspot 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If I knew, I'd propose something, but I don't, so I'm just throwing it out there.... Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have a short list of alternate workable remedies, but this is probably not the appropriate place to discuss them. - Crockspot 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been quite convinced for sometime that Faafa and Bmedley are the same person, even before he admitted to proxy editing for faafa and sharing the account yesterday. Heck his very first edits screamed sock. His behavior, language, agenda, article interests and mode of operation are completely identical. As for the Crockspot RFA....well its really unfortunate and troublesome. If Faafa had not interfered, Crockspot WOULD be an admin right now. However there is no indication that the majority of editors who opposed Crockspot were "in league" with faafa/bmedley. They simply voted their conscious and I think that should be respected. Essentially Faafa/Bmedley found a way to exploit the WIKI process. While Faafa/Bmedley has proven himself to be a dishonest troublemaker, there doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to compensate Crockspot and thats a failure of WIKI. I think that Crockspot best course of action is to simply abandon his account and start anew. He's a quality editor and deserving of adminship, however there is no unringing the bell at this point. Dman727 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone explain why we are treating this revelation as bad? Clearly, the information swayed many people's opinions. For what reason should we not allow people to give information that will change the outcome of a RfA? -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Its not bad or good. It just is. RFA's are structured like a game of poker IMO. You use any and all information available to make a decision. Sometimes your cards get flashed and your opponents get more information than they are normally entitled to. In this case Crockspot hand was revealed through his decision to use a less than anonymous user-id. Others have been more circumspect with their identity and are rewarded for it. As I mentioned above its a failure of the wiki process, and unfortunately the miscreant faafa exploited it. Dman727 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's an interesting question, if Bmedley didn't ask the question, would someone else have? Personally, on a side note, points to Crockspot for keeping a cool head through all that. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    I think there was a decent chance that at least part of that information would have come out. There were significant opposes prior to the information getting out and discussed. --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Revisiting the Crockspot RFA--in which I did not participate--is not a good idea, even in light of FAAFA/Bmedley's ridiculous disruptions. The number of oppose votes was extremely high, and obviously oppose voters were evaluating Crockspot's comments on Conservative Underground (and his response to the questions about them) rather than Bmedley's post and we therefore need to respect their opinions. Also it should be noted that the majority of CU posts (including the one that people may have felt was most egregious) which were added to the RFA came from User:BenB4 and if anything it may have been his post that pushed a bunch of people into oppose (Bmedley already had a bad reputation at that point, and at least one editor encouraged Crockspot not to even respond to his post--Crockspot only responded after BenB4 posted additional CU comments). Trying to undo the RFA results will create an enormous amount of bad blood and will be bad for the project. Crockspot should continue contributing in a positive fashion and try again down the road or, if he feels that is impossible, create a new account and start from scratch. Or just live without being an admin, which, after all, is no big deal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree, my point is just that it was not a slam dunk passage prior and there was the appearance of folks looking for a reason to say no. However, my observation is that this community forgives that sort of thing slowly, if at all, so I don't know that the crockspot handle will ever be able to pass an Rfa. --Rocksanddirt 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was cruising to an easy pass before the CU material was introduced. See Image:RFA Crockspot - off wiki activity influence.png. - Crockspot 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but as I said much of the CU material was not introduced by Bmedley. Regardless of how it got there, many editors found it quite troublesome and voted Oppose in good faith. We can't, as you said, unring the bell (or put the genie back in the bottle) so I don't think there's any remedy that will undo the results of that RFA (and even if there was it would be a dramafest to the nth degree). I also agree with Amarkov above that, in spite of Bmedley/FAAFA's major incivility and justifiable long-term ban, the revelation of the CU stuff was a good thing. The very fact that it changed the outcome of the RFA makes it good that we had the information (had it come out after a successful sysopping it could have been much more of a problem). I think the best thing we could do is move on from this whole situation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Per community consensus here, I extended the ban to indef. Thanks Jaranda 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, this is the second time this year that we've had to ban someone at least in part for disruption at RFAs ... maybe we should let it be known on the main RFA page that disruption there will be dealt with very severely. Blueboy96 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Proposal to ban User:Crossmr and User:Njyoder from PayPal and Talk:PayPal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was no consensus for a ban.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Addhoc (talk • contribs)

Will an admin please look at the behavior of Crossmr (talk · contribs) and Njyoder (talk · contribs) on PayPal and Talk:PayPal? This is a dispute about whether to include Paypalsux.com as a source or external link. They filed an RFC, but instead of actually waiting for comments, have continued to argue with each other. There are about 16,000 words on the talk page after the filing of the RFC, almost all by the two of them. (I doubt they read each others' posts any more, or at least they don't seriously consider their merits.) They have also been forum shopping at WT:RFAR trying to get arbitrators to enforce some three-year old case against one of them or something. Other editors including arbitrator JPgordon have tried to be voices of reason on the talk page but no use. The article is currently protected.

Protection locks out all editors when there are only two problem editors here. I propose a community ban of Crossmr and Njyoder from the article and its talk page for a good long time, months at least, to be enforced by blocking, so other editors who are not so polarized can deal with this. I also ask that lookout be kept for sockpuppets and SPAs since I suspect that one or both will be unable to truly disengage. Dread Pirate Westley• 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to try a little good faith and have a look at the full details surrounding the case before proposing a ban with vague details about what's going on and lots of assumptions about how we're really thinking and editing. For some clarification: the dispute is about not only the inclusion of that link among other similar links, but also about whether or not a forum is a reliable source for criticism. The dispute arose when 2 editors commented from the RfC and stated they didn't feel paypalsux was an appropriate external link. Following that an IP added some old, improperly sourced criticism to the article which was removed with explanation. Edit warring ensued despite more than another editor attempting to explain to Njyoder that this was not an appropriate citation to support the material. As far as a "three year old case" its a 2 year old case, and the sanctions from that case only expired 1 year ago. The reason it was brought up again was because I saw his current behaviour and method of handling the current dispute to be identical to that previous behaviour, and there was very little editing on his part since the expiration of the sanctions. I also sought input as to whether or not to file that case, and was told that if it was the same behaviour there was no need to go through the same DR process that obviously did not work last time. As to whether or not we can disengage, we've already disengaged at IntelliTXT, at least I have while the discussion continues. I've refrained from reverting the article further, even though the majority has agreed with my interpretation of the policies.--Crossmr 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Need more hard evidence rather than vague statements. A community ban proposal is a serious thing. Durova 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't make much sense. Crossmr is correct about the sourcing issue, I think. I've recused myself from any ArbCom activity here, because of my eBay connections; but a cursory look at the sources (and unsourced language) that Njyoder wants in the article should be sufficient. Go to Talk:PayPal and help instead. It's hard; there's verbosity there; but the issue isn't that complicated. --jpgordon 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jpgordon. I'm not sure if your comment was direct at me or the OP, but the situation would be much better resolved if anyone commenting here instead went to the paypal and IntelliTXT talk pages and weighed in on those respective discussions.--Crossmr 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Crossmr is definitely a good faith editor and although I haven't edited alongside Njyoder, this appears to be a content dispute. In this context, I agree with Durova that insufficient evidence has been presented for a community ban and with Jpgordon that proposing a ban doesn't make a lot of sense. Would suggest this discussion is closed and some form of dispute resolution attempted. Possibly formal mediation? Addhoc 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the main issue here is that we haven't had enough outside input. If we can get editors to go to the talk page and weigh in on the issue it should (hopefully) solve the issue without the need for formal mediation, or anything further. if we can't get people to go to the article pages and give input, something like formal mediation will become necessary.--Crossmr 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the discussion here, I think we won't be needed formal mediation or anything as one user seems unable to work with the original research and reliable source criteria for an encyclopedia and will likely end up blocked for disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Bormalagurski

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
ArbCom bans are not to be adjusted without taking it to ArbCom SirFozzie 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Last week, Bormalagurski (talk · contribs), who is subject to a one-year ArbCom ban, was caught using the account TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs), and thus had his ban reset. He has now come back with yet another sock, KasterJeShupak (talk · contribs), begging for a new start . I wonder what should be done here - should we reset his ban again, or should we allow him a "fresh new start"? TML 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

it sounds like he wants to invoke his right to vanish, which I support to a certain extent, but less so in the case of an editor who is or has edited inappropriately (especially to the point of a banning). Given his statement (assuming he's being truthful about none of the edits with the new account being disruptive), I'd make the following recommending: leave an indef block on the main account. Tell him he has to finish his original ban until october, however impose an additional 6 month parole on his behaviour. If during that time he doesn't edit war or vandalize or commit any similar disruptive behaviour which got him banned in the first place he can be left to edit in peace with no undue attention paid to him.--Crossmr 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with 'second chances', though we need to get an admin or two who are willing to agree with this, and agree to monitor his second chance. (i.e., if something moderately disruptive is done, that editors don't complain here about someone still see it and puts him back under the ban) This does make extra work for folks, no doubt. --Rocksanddirt 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If we reach a consensus on the sanction, we don't necessarily need an admin to monitor him. Any editor could monitor for violation and just make sure it gets put on AN/I with a link to this discussion if necessary. Having an admin on board though would be ideal.--Crossmr 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Woah woah woah woah woah! If he wants the ArbCom ban reduced, he needs to go to ArbCom. End of story. SirFozzie 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Proposal to ban AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was: transfer to Request for comment.
}

I apoligize if this is the wrong place to report this. This user has been causing many problems with multiple articles. There have been tons of warnings and messages left on this user's talk page, but there has never been a single reply. The user does not use the preview button, and never leaves an edit summary. Most of their edits are unconstructive, and sometimes vandalism. Once in a great while will they provide something constructive, but it's usually not much. Most of the articles they edit are related to tv shows on Disney Channel and Nickelodean. For an example, see . But also check out their user talk page and constributions. If any other info is needed, please let me know. But I think something needs to be done with this user. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, except the part about "Please discuss this with her on her talk page and on the article pages." That's useless; communication is not this user's forte. She is similar in many respects to MascotGuy, which I mentioned on an ANI thread about the same editor earlier this week. MascotGuy and his socks are blocked indefinitely. I'm not sure ATC deserves the same fate, but she's certainly testing the community's patience.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your replies...

To JetLover: Did I not say that I was not sure if this was the correct place or not?
To Georgewilliamherbert: See The Fat Man's post.
To The Fat Man...: Thank you for seeing the issue here. Any ideas on how to go about fixing the situation?
Pilotboi / talk / contribs 04:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just give it a little time. I left AFC an encouraging post about a constructive edit she made. If the quality of her edits continues to improve, great. If not, she'll eventually exhaust her warnings and be blocked.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That works. :) --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest opening one or more content requests for comment to develop consensus at disputed pages. A ban discussion sounds premature. Durova 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Proposal to ban User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling from library-related topics

LAEC runs a website, Safelibraries that is opposed to the American Library Association and other library-related organizations. In addition to promoting his agenda on his own website, on blogs, and message board, he has also joined wikipedia and he has devoted the bulk of his wikipedia activities to crusading against libraries / promoting his website. The existence of his website is a redflag that LAEC probably has a conflict of interest.

His first username was SafeLibraries.org (the url of his website), although at some point he was required to give up that username, since it was his site's url, and instead he chose his site's motto: "Legitimate And Even Compelling", (referring I believe to need to keep children from accessing unsafe libraries). The username choices are a redflag that LAEC primarily sees wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his agenda.

Along the way, he's caused more than his share of disruption. In Oct '06, and RFC was filed against him. Glancing over his talk page, it seems like he's been causing plenty of stir in the intervening year. And now, he's been editwarring Another American Libraries Association article. These past and ongoing editwars are a redflag to me that LAEC's has been sufficently disruptive to merit a topic ban.

The conflicts of interest is troublesome, but if his edits were in the ballpark of being good ones, I'd wouldn't sweat the COI. It's more the tendentious use of wikipedia as a soapbox-- undertaking a systemic campaign to insert any possible criticisms of libraries into wikipedia, however tenuous.

Take for example the latest edit war. The YALSA, a library organization, does a billion different things, one of which is publish lists of popular books. It once included a book called "The Gossip Girl" on a reader list. Some people think "The Gossip Girl" is controversial. LAEC uses the diseparate facts to contruct an argument that the YALSA is immoral, and he goes to the YALSA repeatedly reinserts an article about "The Gossip Girl is racy reading"-- a news article which doesn't even mention YALSA. The text of the YASLA wikipedia article doesn't mention "The Gossip Girl." The link so inappropriate for the article, I don't know where to begin on what it violates: Battlefield, Soapboxing, Conflict of Interest, Original Research. But LAEC reinserts the link . When 3RR prevents him from readding it, another editor with a suspiciously meaty/socky edit history shows up to add it back in for him.

One or two of these incidents would be overlookable-- I'd just do whatever was necessary to restore the article and move on. But this sort of think has been going on for the better part of a year, despite an RFC against him. I'm at the point where I don't even feel like bothering to do the "edit war, recruit nonpartisan eyeballs, acheive consensus, editwar" cycle-- he'll just stop for a few weeks, move to a different library article, and start the process over again.

Over the past I and others have spent lots of words communicating with LAEC trying to help in understand why his use of Misplaced Pages hasn't been appropriate. I regretfully have concluded It's at the point where the community has to step in and ban LAEC from editing on articles related to his website agenda-- topics like libraries, library organizations, content filtering/censorship, etc.

--Alecmconroy 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's about as one-sided, misleading, and flat out false as they come. He even besmirches other people who apparently happen to agree with me! People just need to read the YALSA talk page and the history comments I added when editing the main page, after first clearing their minds of the false information that appears above. And I ask people to ensure wikipedia policy is followed. On another topic, if there is any policy related to stopping Alecmconroy's unsportsmanlike behavior, informing me about that would be appreciated as well. Ditto for Jessamyn. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)