Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive5

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

ResolvedCommunity ban enacted.

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

Original post copied from ANI:

Okay, the backstory of this case will not be easy to explain, but I will make a try. SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · block log) is a problematic user in many ways, but he also makes some useful contributions, which makes this case a little more difficult than other similar ones. To cite my first report to ANI from late last year, "[SndrAndrss] has a history of not wanting to answer messages left as the user's talk page (or he is just not understanding that messages there are directed to him), even though this has been pointed out to him on several occations (see his talk page)."

This has lead to several conflicts, mainly on a wide variety of templates where he has added parameters or changed the looks of the template without any consensus whatsoever, or has made incomprehensible edits (such as changing svg images to png, or removing borders around flags). After trying to initiate a discussion with him (either on the talk page of the template or on his user page), nothing happens, and a week later or so, he makes the same edit over again. A few examples of this behaviour:

• Template:Infobox Football club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Country data England (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:ENGf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Nordic skiing World Championships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As noted in my first incident report, I blocked him 48 hours for disruption on 6 December last year, and everyone that reviewed it agreed that it was justified. I had of course hoped that the short block would be a wake-up call for SndrAndrss to start communicating, but was I wrong. Only five days later, User:Morwen blocked him for a week for the same disrupting behaviour, and reported it on ANI. Of course, a longer block didn't help either.

And as soon as he returned from the block, he had the same behaviour as before, and I blocked him for another week on 19 December. This time something actually happened. He promised to start communicating, and I assumed good faith, and unblocked him. Of course nothing happened. He made som half-hearted attempts at communicating at various talk pages, but never answered any replies he got.

I wasn't very active in January, so I didn't keep an eye on him during that time, but when I returned, there were no signs of improvement. He was as disrupting as before, combining a few good edits with the undiscussed template edits or page moves. So, I blocked him for two weeks on 18 February this year. This time, it was discovered that he created new accounts to evade the block. In the middle of all this, he asked to be unblocked, a request that was of course declined.

Since the first of his sockpuppet accounts were blocked, he started editing anonymously which was confirmed in a request for checkuser. All discovered accounts and IPs were blocked, but new ones keep showing up. They can be quite easily detected though, either as a variation on the form SndrAndrss##, or as IPs in the 88.88.xxx.xxx range. They are found by checking the waterholes, he almost exclusively edits articles related to football, the Olympics, skiing and rally. Sockpuppets and IPs include:

His latest two week block has been restarted twice now as he has kept trying to evade it. I've run out of options now because I am not in the mood to play this game forever. Communication with SndrAndrss has failed, blocking him has failed, and I sincerely doubt that an RFC or RFAR will do any good since he would probably not discuss or read anything there. What to do next? Since I've not seen a single user that thinks I've gone on too hard, more like the opposite, I find it unthinkable to just let him go and revert whatever he does that is not good. And indefblocking him would just lead to more sockpuppet accounts and a just as hard time finding and blocking them.

End copy original post

Three editors expressed support for a community ban and I was adviced to post here. I reluctantly request a community ban on him, as SndrAndrss has a few good traits, but it seems impossible to make him change all bad habits he has. If you oppose this, please give an option on how to solve the problem with him. – Elisson • T • C • 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BAN#Community ban: Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on the Community noticeboard as part of the review process. That is, block him and report here. Consensus for ban is already established on ANI. MaxSem 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed a reexamination of that language because it appears to have been revised without appropriate support or discussion. The consensus at WP:DE was to discuss before banning. Two recently banned editors have raised that issue at WP:RFAR because it effectively prevented them from making a defense. Durova^Charge! 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, the block log looks substantial. Have any dispute resolution options been tried? Durova^Charge! 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just follow dispute resolution? I'm not hearing many community members speak out on this one.... 71.112.7.212 08:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

SndrAndrss won't/can't communicate with other users. Check his talk page for proof of this. Thus all forms of dispute resolution will end up in nothing. – Elisson • T • C • 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur that meaningful communication doesn't really happen. Some form of dispute resolution has been tried however, because I attempted to mediate this case for MedCab, which didn't really go anywhere. Addhoc 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support in light of the MedCab attempt: DR has been attempted. Refusal to participate should not constute a license for continued disruption. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban per my original ANI post. Sandstein 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban per above. Addhoc 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• support I think I recall some other case with a person who had a dysfunction that made him unable to comprehend what he was doing here, I wonder if SndrAndrss has a similar dysfunction. In such a case, I wonder if some sort of authority is to be contacted. _→AzaToth 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I really doubt that would be appropriate. Unless the decision is clear and uncontroversial (I once contacted the police regarding a suicide note) the editor's possible problems are out of our ball park, and it seems counterproductive to venture that sort of speculation. We're only an encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • AzaToth, you might be referring to the user Sheynhertz-Unbayg? Following severe communication problems, he was blocked in the end and now has a WikiProject dedicating to cleaning up after him. I whole-heartedly agree with Durova. Punkmorten 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Refusal to engage in discussion. Refusal to participate in DR. Repeated sockpuppet abuse. Repeated failure to learn from bans. He may make some good edits, but that cannot be use to excuse the disruptive behaviour. Vassyana 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good edits not near worth the trouble. IronDuke 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, particularly difficult to cooperate with. Not only has he has failed to discuss, but instead of this he has made disruptive page moves. The fact that another user SndrAndrss10 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) appeared on 15 March doesn't exactly help. Punkmorten 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• It appears we have unanimous consensus for a community ban by a reasonable number of editors commenting over the course of several days. I've gone ahead and enacted the ban. Sandstein 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

ResolvedCommunity ban enacted.

Verdict (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected)

Verdict (talk • contribs) was initially blocked by Samuel Blanning (talk • contribs). He was created at least 70 abusive sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Verdict). User continues to abusively upload and use fair-use images in violation of WP:FU. User continues to make disputed edits to a number of Wikipedia articles such as Dave Bautista, Brock Lesnar, Franklin Lashley, etc. User requested a block review on unblock-en-l and the unblock was declined at that time. User has requested numerous unblocks using the unblock template, all of which have been declined. User has expressed a desire that I die, and has promised to continue creating abusive sockpuppets for the next 4 years. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. User often falsely claims to be a different person (see also User:Greatkhali). Blocked by a number of different administrators (partial list available on User talk:Haron181).

I would like to move for an official community ban. I believe this is effectively already in place given the unblock-en-l decline, the numerous blocks by independent admins, and the numerous unblock request declines, but I'd prefer this be made official. --Yamla 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is now attempting to impersonate other users. Oaksti (talk • contribs) and Oakstor (talk • contribs) both in reference to the productive editor, Oakster (talk • contribs). --Yamla 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Support Reading the Checkuser results and various bits and pieces available about Verdict's activities.. this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Under no circumstances should he be allowed back. SirFozzie 18:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support a community ban, because the user expressed a wish that Yamla die. I really have no sympathy for that sort of action. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Wilful violation of copyright policy places the entire project in legal jeopardy, plus the user is clearly a low-life and no loss at all. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. That sock category alone is quite enough. Sandstein 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Agree the sockpuppetry exceeds all good faith interpretation. Although I'm no lawyer, common sense tells me to guard the site's potential liability conservatively and a formal ban could be one way to accomplish that. This isn't advice to anyone else (since I'm not qualified to venture legal advice or opinions), just a candid description of my own thoughts here. Clearly this editor refuses to conform to site standards. Durova^Charge! 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - per non-stop sockpuppetry. This user has clearly no intention of playing by the rules: ergo, we can't let them play at all. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - He's still making sockpuppets. PTO 12:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - per non-stop sockpuppetry, copyvios and continuously making bad edits in general and becoming difficult when they are reverted. Not to mention his wish that Yamla die, his abuse of the unblock template, and his persistent lies that he is another person when discovered under another sock. Clearly has no intention of being a good contributor here on Wikipedia. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - this disruption has gotta stop. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I'm getting a bit fed up with all the trouble caused by him, most of all the death threat he made. The guy also likes to make copyvio uploads, which is pretty much a problem now that's he's at Commons as well. --  oakster  TALK  17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hold up, a death threat? Community consensus isn't needed to indef block for a death threat. Please post the relevant diff. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  I believe here it is mentioned that the threat came over e-mail, not on-wiki. Bitnine 22:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. An obvious case in which community banning is appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and close - Based on the information provided, as well as community consensus. I will not only endorse this ban, but close this as resolved. Death threats as well as disurption at this level is not tolorable. I recommend reporting this user to his/her internet service provider as well. --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment And how will this stop verdict from just making another sock? Just H^{editor review} 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• It won't. However, it WILL make it easier to deal with the consequences of his sockpuppetry (immediate indefs for all socks, immediate rollback for all content added, etc.). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

ResolvedIP was trolling; frivolous complaint. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Metros232 (talk • contribs) from Cumberland, Maryland He just keeps vandalizing the discussion page and the main article. He's not even really involved with the project on this page...he's just hording the discussion page using his sock puppets and pester the people who are really working on it. I tried to take a vote on this topic on the discussion page of cumberland, maryland but he keeps deleting it. I don't see what he has to fear if he's innocent. I say let people vote if they think he's being an unfair pest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.199.187 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

To anyone reviewing this situation, see this edit for what's going on here. Metros232 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the history my user discussion page where he vandelized our discussion and didn't allow me to even have a accurate record of my discussion... this is exactly the crooked behavior that is typical of him... place assign a different admin to watch this page who is honest. thank you (talk)

I took a look at the history, and apparently it is you who has been violating policy, including WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and possibly even WP:NPA. May I suggest that you tone down your posts instead of propagating an "us vs. them" mentality that frankly hurts you more than it helps. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. No previous userblocks on Metros232, no evidence of dispute resolution attempts. Even if this were a problem editor a topic ban would be very premature. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no reason to oppose, because there was nothing to support anyway. Obviously, the IP was trolling. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• This is funny. Accusation of vandalism for edits he doesn't agree with, complaining about all the bad behavior he's done himself, with a random accusation of sockpuppetry thrown in. Looks like the standard symptoms of someone who is wrong but thinks everyone else is wrong instead. -Amarkov moo! 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but...I've blocked the IP address for 72 hours because the user went and made the same exact disruptive edits to Talk:Cumberland, Maryland again despite the final warnings and this discussion. Metros232 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It appears there were no objections to the motion to close. BhaiSaab (talk • contribs) ban is reset 1 year, His excellency (talk • contribs) ban is reset 6 months. The banning administrators are asked to log actions executed at applicable locations to include the list of community bans and and applicable ArbCom enforcement logs. v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed)
• His excellency (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected)

moved from WP:AN/I

They've been evading their bans again using their IP range. See User:72.88.162.57 and the associated links. I think we might as well community ban them, since they clearly are just going to do whatever they like to promote their agenda. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: The original Arbcom ban on His excellency appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is not violating any current ban, unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A phrase containing the words "door" and "don't let" comes to mind immediately. - Merzbow 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who have had enough with both, I support the ban. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse a community ban on these guys (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BhaiSaab, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MinaretDk). Rama's arrow 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What do those results have to do with BhaiSaab? 72.88.159.80 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen can't figure out which one it is so he figures he might as well ax both. Typical. 72.88.159.80 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Rama's arrow 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You read English perfectly well. What's so confusing?

What? Rama's arrow 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am assuming good faith naïvely but having known "both" of the editors being discussed here and having known their editing/communicating patterns and having reviewed how this anon has addressed themself to others I would estimate that he is User:His excellency and not User:BhaiSaab. I never saw User:BhaiSaab express himself with the same level of incivility that HE does so unless it is one person who's rather adept at playing Doctor Jekyl and Mister Hyde I see two separate individuals at play here. This anon strikes me more as HE than BhaiSaab. (→Netscott) 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know HE, but I did know BhaiSaab, and his edits were characterised by edit warring, canvassing, arguing and obsessing over other people's Jewishness, but NEVER incivility. I'll give him that much. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have far less experience with BhaiSaab; I don't recall him being as bad as H.E., and offhand it seems a lot of the issues with BhaiSaab had to do with his interaction with Hkelkar; the two got along like matter and anti-matter. If BhaiSaab is indeed conclusively puppeting, then sure, deep-6 him, but otherwise, perhaps another chance is in order. - Merzbow 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for community bans used to go on WP:ANI but now go on the Community noticeboard per policy. The idea of the change is that bans are not a matter for admins specifically but for as broad a section of the community as possible. Please move this proposal there. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I never met BhaiSaab, but I do know His_excellency. He's probably the worst personal attacker ever allowed to edit Wikipedia, and has attacked nearly every ethnic and religious group on earth at one point or another. I say allowed because he's already been indefinitely banned twice by Tom Harrison and Jeffrey O. Gustafson, then blocked for a year by Tawker, but each time was unblocked by Bishonen or by someone she'd asked to unblock him.[1] Then Bishonen helped him in his arbitration case. For this, some arbitrators wanted to "commend" her. His_excellency was supposed to be banned for a year, but some arbitrators said this was too long, so made it only four months. He got another two months for making more attacks on Jews during the case. Since his ban, he's returned with a bunch of sock puppets to attack Hindus as "cow-worshipers" and "dung-eaters," and now I guess to stalk people and harass them. I wonder if the people who helped him stay around are still proud of what they did. His_excellency should definitely be banned indefinitely.HEWatch 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not an insane asylum. These fools have caused substantial disruption to decent, hard-working editors, which is quite frankly, intolerable. Why should someone wanting to learn/teach have to tolerate personal, vitriolic abuse? We have no obligation to anyone not interested in building an encyclopedia - they should be shown the door w/o the slightest hesitation. Rama's arrow 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Timothy, why don't you come out from behind the sockpuppet you are utilizing so that others can fully appreciate the context in which you are making such commentary? It is highly evident this is you given the virtually identical rhetoric you've used before relative to HE. While never excusing HE's incivility and attacks I will say that he seemed fairly even keeled about denigrating ethnic groups including Muslims who he tends to support in his editing. Although I could be entirely wrong about it, I've had the impression that his main objective was to get a riser out of people much as trolls tend to do. Not so much that he genuinely felt what he was saying but for the sake of the drama it caused. Regardless of his motives such behavior is disruptive and my exculpatory explanation is not made to discount that. If this IP is indeed HE then his continued disruption is inexcusable. My only thought is that he is acting out in the way that he is given a rather unwelcoming environment for Muslims there currently exists to a large degree on Wikipedia. There are a group of editors who are doing their best to utilize Wikipedia as a soapbox to turn Islamic articles into indictments against Islam in a very SOAPBOXing manner which is equally unacceptable. I'm not sure what benefit community banning HE is going to achieve... if he's going to want to continue to be disruptive as he appears to be doing with IPs then how's a community ban going to alleviate such nonsense? I would argue that the editing manner of the group of editors who HE appears to be "fighting" against should be looked at equally and possible preventative measures enacted to reduce or outright negate such equally disruptive soapboxery. (→Netscott) 19:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this "reason for being" (User:HEWatch) bothers me. A lot. This is not what we are here for. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked HEWatch indefinitely and stricken through his comment. Creating a separate account specifically to attack another user is absolutely not what we are here for. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason for the use of the separate account is simply that Timothy registered an account in his real name, and was therefore left vulnerable to His excellency's attacks on him showing up in Google searches. His excellency chose a username, and therefore has some kind of protection that Timothy doesn't have. Timothy has also never engaged in the kind of really vile attacks that His excellency engaged in. This should not be seen as a normal case of sockpuppetry. Unlike His excellency, he hasnt't created socks for ban-evasion purposes: he hasn't been banned. Nor has he created socks for multiple reverts or votes. Whether we agree with his posts or not, we should at least sympathize with his wish not to edit from an account that is linked to his real name, and that will make him more visible to Google. Also, since HE is banned, everything he posts should be removed on sight, and in particular, posts that attack another user by his real name should be instantly removed. Musical Linguist 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Except the original Arbcom ban on His excellency appears to have expired on 3 March 2007, which negates the "HE is banned" premise. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A singularly unhelpful comment if I ever saw one, Timothy (if that's really you). The process worked, the process is working, the community as a whole handled this correctly in the end. - Merzbow 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitary section break 1

That is a remarkably instructive example of what is called unaccaptable, intolerable, and inexcusable and what is in fact accepted, tolerated, and excused. His excellency is under an arbcom ban. At the very least his ban should be restarted. If it is, this will be the third time. Since we can now not reasonably believe His excellency will stop his well-established pattern of racial and religious abuse, and will not respect the arbcom remedy, I support indefinitely banning him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: The original Arbcom ban on His excellency appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is not violating any current ban, unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since these two guys edit regularly anyway, the indefinite ban will at least spare the community the trouble of resetting the block every time. Beit Or 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Timothy can reincarnate as User:Bishonenwatch next time. I don't know BhaiSaab, but I'm pretty familiar with HE's writing style and those IP edits in question don't sound anything like HE to me. They're mainly reverts—HE didn't use to do that. The English is poorer and the general approach simpler and less intellectual than HE's. And I note the spelling "Muhammed" — I'm pretty sure HE used to spell it "Muhammad". Bishonen | talk 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Endorse a ban on these two users, BhaiSaab especially since he is a stalker.Bakaman 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This thread is confusing to an editor who doesn't know the history (namely me). Would someone explain the background on situation with some diffs? So far I don't see much more than a couple of checkuser results and most of the commentary builds upon previous conversations that haven't been linked from this discussion. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an arbitration for "Hkelkar" (BhaiSaab's nemesis) and "His excellency", I do not have the link off the top of my head.Bakaman 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It was RfArb/HKelkar. HKelkar has also taken to creating throwaway accounts, apparently. For background, I urge everone to read through the RfArb, as it details the reason that India- related politics and culture pages are, quite simply, possibly the worst group of offenders on WP against NPOV and ATT. Some editors were banned, some were not even considered by Arbcom and continue to be editors in 'good standing'. Hornplease 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly is the need for this discussion? If two editors are already banned on their main accounts then no new consensus is needed to ban the sockpuppets. We don't issue indef blocks on IP addresses, let alone IP ranges, so the usual solution is whack-a-mole on new registered accounts and soft rangeblocks of brief duration on the IP ranges. We just keep at it until the disruptors get tired and go elsewhere. Several editors I know and respect have contributed to this thread, which makes me suspect there's some valid point I don't understand yet. Am I missing something? Durova^Charge! 02:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The two editors are under ArbCom bans, but not community bans. I think that is the issue. With the former, they can just wait out the bans and will automatically return (assuming they acquire no more resets); with the latter, they have are banned until the community decides to let them back in. Given the length of the ArbCom bans and their eagerness to keep resetting them, at this point this would be mostly symbolic, but a symbolic stand against this sort of nonsense is nonetheless important. - Merzbow 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: The original Arbcom ban on His excellency appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is not violating any current ban, unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse community ban on both editors per the above discussion. To the best of my knowledge, no editor has actually waited out a yearlong ArbCom ban (they all seem to keep resetting it), yet I suppose it would be peace of mind for some diligent editors to know that these particular people would need to petition to have their editing privileges restored. Durova^Charge! 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Changing to neutral. Further discussion leads me to conclude there's more here than meets the eye and none of it has been explained to my satisfaction. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I can think of a few, among them Skyring (talk • contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs). Not an endorsement of any kind, just a correction. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Let them come and defend themselves against accusations.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If they're blocked, and constantly resetting an ArbCom ban by creating sockpuppets, then there is no defense. They've shown that they're not going to abide by their penalties, and therefore, they're gone. SirFozzie 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the factual correction. At the moment I don't think there's much chance of them sitting out the ArbCom ban successfully, yet we might as well relieve the hardworking editors who've stayed on top of this matter of that worry. It doesn't look like either of these people have learned from the ArbCom decision. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

His excellency's Arbcom ban appears to have expired on 3 March 2007. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have just reverted comments from an abusive sockpuppet (Tentotwo (talk • contribs)) of His excellency (talk • contribs). If this sockpuppeteer wants to comment here, as he is probably entitled to do, this must happen through the parent account. If the parent account is currently blocked but not banned, the user should request an unblock solely for the purposes of commenting here. --Yamla 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - the ArbCom ruling was final, thus when this discussion was begun, there was no obligation to allow His excellency to comment. His excellency got his chance to do so before ArbCom - this discussion is purely for the community to judge. Plus, both HE and BhaiSaab, as per this discussion, have been perma-banned. Rama's arrow 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

His excellency's ban was just for six months, but if he keeps using socks he will make it de facto indefinite. I blocked another, Elevatordown (talk • contribs), yesterday. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Yamla I'd prefer that His excellency posted comments to the account's own user talk page. It's already linked from the top of this thread. Durova^Charge! 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You know these two users are different people. I do not agree with User:Rama's Arrow's indefinite blocking of User:BhaiSaab. I think that WP:COI very much applies here as User:Rama's Arrow certainly tangled with BhaiSaab prior to his decision to impose this community ban. This unfairness shows itself when User:Hkelkar had his block reset five times while User:BhaiSaab had his reset three times. Why is User:BhaiSaab being made to pay for the disruption of another editor? There was never conclusive checkuser proof that they were one and the same and given my experience with the two I am confident they are not the same people. Even User:Tom harrison agrees that they are not the same person. (→Netscott) 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'm confused again. I had thought this thread was about reinforcing two ArbCom bans with indefinite community bans. Now, from what I'm hearing, that explanation presumes an unstated sockpuppetry charge that CheckUser ruled was uncertain. Well that's a very different matter. Is that the whole story? If it is, then show me a good circumstantial case from a sockpuppet investigation and back it up with complete logic and diffs. I'll strikethrough my endorsement unless I get a solid explanation of what the community is being asked to determine and substantial evidence to back it up. WP:AGF suggests I should strikethrough my opinion now, but I'll wait a bit for clarification. I hope it comes soon. Durova^Charge! 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm a little confused as well. Perhaps this entire discussion needs refactored. Navou ^banter / _contribs 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the two users separately. I think there is clear consensus for an H.E. community ban - even discounting the CheckUser results some of his sockpuppets are clearly identifiable just by language, and display the same sort of incivility he was banned for. As for BhaiSaab, who I agree is a different person, I am open to giving him another chance if he waits out his ArbCom ban without socking (but only if); but my opinion on him carries less weight because I'm not as familiar with him (although our one shared editing experience turned out reasonably positive). - Merzbow 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think each contributer deserves their own position on this topic. The way it looks now, it seems that we are banning them collectively, when we should focus on each of their own. If both of them are disrupting on the same side, then we could easily ban the both of them as meatpuppetry. If it's an edit conflict gone wrong, then let's look at how much each person has disrupted. It seems that H.E. is off the brink of a ban based on his recent activity, but I'm not sure about BhaiSaab. Overall, if these two editors are giving unrelated contributers a hard time one way or another, then that is what a Community ban is for. --w^{L<speak·check>} 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can offer no opinion or information on BhaiSaab, but His excellency edited on 13:40, 18 March 2007 as User:Elevatordown. His user page, User:His excellency, links to his other puppet accounts. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency is the arb case. To me it is straightforward: a banned editor uses sockpuppets to evade the ban, and continues his well-established pattern of attacks. The ban gets reset; he does it again until it becomes clear that he will not respect the arbcom remedy, and he gets an indefinite ban. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not "evading a ban" if the ban has already expired. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am most offended at Netscott's comments - why assume that I acted in a biased manner? I don't think I have never interacted with BhaiSaab or His excellency, certainly not about anything that the RfAr was about. At the same time, he is basically saying that BhaiSaab should not be blocked becoz he had 3 ban resets in comparison to Hkelkar's 5. Should we allow him an opportunity to disrupt WP 2 more times? Do we wait until his sock makes a comment insulting someone's parents (as suggested that BS's comments are not as offensive as HS)? Is that vitriolic enough? Who is measuring exactly how offensive BS's violations are? BhaiSaab has been socking thru accounts as well as IPs. Multiple violations of an ArbCom ruling, compounded with the reasons behind the ArbCom ban and this discussion were grounds enough at the point I indef'd both HS and BhaiSaab. Rama's arrow 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow, would it be fair to say that you've had a close relationship with User:Bakasuprman? Given this statement you made on his behalf it would be fair to say yes. Now it is a known fact that both User:BhaiSaab and User:Bakasuprman were in constant conflict, as this page so cleverly illustrates. So given that this is the case it is perfectly logical to see a conflict of interest on your part in blocking User:BhaiSaab per your apparent friendship with User:Bakasuprman. User:BhaiSaab should have his indefinite block lifted and his ArbCom ban reinstated with his serving out the rest of it prior to his return. (→Netscott) 05:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had stopped sparring with BhaiSaab by September, my nemesis in arbcom was not BhaiSaab at all, it was a couple other trolls. Infact I'm certain Rama's arrow supported the ban on Hkelkar and has subsequently banned hkelkar again. Rama's support was hardly unique, infact apart from an enthusiastic troll and a subsequently banned user, nobody seemed to disagree with Rama. If Rama's Arrow has a close relationship with me, then the same could be said about Aeropagitica (talk • contribs), Tom Harrison (talk • contribs) and Bhaisaab.Bakaman 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of a conflict of interest: You were contacted no less than six times by User:Hkelkar seeking assistance on matters he was editing on. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Here is more evidence of your conflict of interest. You must be aware that prior to his involvement with Hkelkar, BhaiSaab was generally more productive and contributory. It is nonsense that he is being made to pay for HE's latest disruption and indefinitely blocked when he wasn't the cause of it. As to your arguments that I have a conflict of interest you are wrong. I've not blocked or unblocked anyone. (→Netscott) 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mhm, he got blocked 3-4 times when I was his primary foe, I doubt that's indicative of any productiveness. Infact, its hard to see a page where BhaiSaab wasnt in direct conflict with people (who in his view) are kaffirs.Bakaman 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow, you blocked BhaiSaab you had to have interacted with him. This is wrong to be lumping these two users together here. Very wrong. I'm not excusing BhaiSaab's disruptive behavior (most of which stemmed from conflict he had with Indian editor User:Hkelkar) but to suddenly be calling for his head at this point over disruption caused by another editor is wrong. Most eveyone who has interacted with the two see that it is evident they are not the same person. I would better understand this call for BhaiSaab's community bannishment if we were talking about a final act of disruption on his part... but this is not the case. (→Netscott) 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody that I can see is saying they are the same person. Maybe it is based on a misunderstanding, but your insistance on countering a charge nobody is making seems a bit odd. As I said, I know too little about BhaiSaab to have an opinion about him, but he has nothing to do with the case for banning His excellency. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the first line in this thread by Blntguyen : "they've been evading their bans again using their IP range." as though what has brought this call for HE's and BS's community banning was coordinated (or the work of one person). It is not right that they're being lumped together as one given the disruption is coming for one angle (in this instance). (→Netscott) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's Blnguyen's description of what each had been doing, not a claim that they are one person. Rama's arrow clearly recognizes that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no IP sockpuppets listed for BhaiSaab, so what's the basis for comparison? Is the category incomplete? Durova^Charge! 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's the IP info on His Excellency:

• 71.172.136.156: ??[2]
• 72.80.40.154: New York City[3]
• 72.88.139.24: Paterson, New Jersey:[4]

Durova^Charge! 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BhaiSaab requesting a temporary unblock

User:BhaiSaab is requesting a temporary unblock so that he might comment here. Given the details of this case he should be afforded the possibility to comment here (and only here) towards his defense. Would someone kindly temporarly (and limitedly) unblock him so that he may do so? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I support a temporary and short unblock for the reason given above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BhaiSaab was banned for one year under an ArbCom decision in December 2006, and so he is not eligible to be unblocked, even irrespective of any subsequent extensions or community ban. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#BhaiSaab. Any request for a change in this status would have to be approved by the Arbitration Committee, and I think is quite unlikely to happen. Newyorkbrad 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohh I've not read the above thread well enough. Well, in this case, he can comment at his talkpage and paste the comments here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as a banned (rather than merely blocked) user, he shouldn't have a talkpage, but if he confines his comments there very narrowly, I won't take any action on that. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BhaiSaab's commentary

With the utilization of an inclusion BhaiSaab will be able to comment below. (→Netscott) 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I would just like to say that I found the arbcom results a little surprising. I spent about two months tango-ing with Hkelkar and trying to expose his lies. I admit that I went a little too far and found personal details (by a Google search) and took too much into my own hands when trying to verify his identity, but I just wanted to make sure that I was not falsely accusing him. My main problem with that user was that I knew he was User:Shiva's Trident, something he had been denying for a long time, and in the same arbitration page we see acknowledgment that I and other users were right all that time when admins like Blnguyen chose to ignore the situation, while at the same time banning these users who knew what Hkelkar was up to. [5] [6] Alright, I guess it makes a little sense to give me a prolonged ban, but why ban someone like TerryJ-Ho, who had no previous record of blocks and simply got into a few tiffs with a trouble-maker, Hkelkar? There is something seriously wrong with the arbcom decisions in this case. On the same day of his banning, Hkelkar began actively editing with an alternate account, which he used until Feb. 10 (and after which, began using other accounts of course). He has currently taken to possibly using dozens of throwaway accounts (many of which are probably listed here). Also I wanted to comment my ban resets. The first was done because of a checkuser which later proved to be incorrect, as did the third. As usual, Blnguyen did not admit his mistake in identifying the socks. If you want to use my "3 ban resets" against me, at least get your facts straight. I don't particularly care whether or not I'm indefinitely banned. This entire discussion is just lip service to an ineffective solution. Instead of going after the root of the problem, Hkelkar, you're going after whoever Hkelkar seems to cross during his POV-pushing routine. I thank Netscott for defending but I would also suggest to him that he not waste his time. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think H.E. was an always-personal-attack-maker. I didn't follow Hkelkar's conflict with BhaiSaab and don't know what exactly happened there. But as far as I know, BhaiSaab was by no means like H.E. His excellency was moving around throwing insults and I am happy for his block. --Aminz 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so your bans were reset due to supposed sockpuppetry and then later two of those turned out to be verified as User:His excellency by checkuser while User:Hkelkar had his ban reset five times? Something is very wrong about this idea of a community ban against you. (→Netscott) 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I found it odd that it took so long to get Rumpel banned, even from my uninvolved vantage point it was obviously Hkelkar; I think editing and language similarity is in the end the most accurate way to identify socks, CheckUser should only be used to confirm a connection, not to rule it out. Anyways, I'll re-iterate my support for giving BhaiSaab another chance. - Merzbow 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is not about Hkelkar; it's about BhaiSaab and H.E. Hkelkar's sockpuppetry is no excuse for BhaiSaab's behavior. BhaiSaab may have set up fewer socks to evade the ArbComm ban than Hkelkar, but he also edit warred extensively using IPs. An indefinite ban is the only possible solution here. Beit Or 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, where is the proof of this? Check user is showing that User:His excellency has been the editor involved in all of this. (→Netscott) 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"They edit from the same general area, and (at a minimum) are in communication off-wiki, which sometimes makes it hard to tell. There is also a real possibility that they are the same editor."[7] Beit Or 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The IP range Jayjg refers to covers one of the heaviest population centers in the world - New York, Newark, New Jersey. They edit from the same general area and so do thousands of other editors here on Wikipedia particularly as this range literally covers millions of IPs. Jayjg hasn't made a case for them being the same person but is making a relatively casual statement based upon them editing from this several million+ IP range. There is no solid case here. Also you neglected to add, "Actually, User:MinaretDk is User:His excellency (also banned). " to your quote there. Everyone who's edited in areas that these two have covered can tell you that they are not the same individual. (→Netscott) 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, if you wish to reassert that geographic argument, please respond to my relevant questions and analysis. I see no IPs for one of these accounts so I don't even understand its basis. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This block by User:Blnguyen (although he mistakenly labeled it a MinaretDK) should be illustrative. The IP was effectively saying that he was BhaiSaab on Blnguyen's talk page. This latest round of HE disruption was conducted using IPs in this verizon east range (again millions of subscribers). (→Netscott) 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup.[8] But why do you think they're both from greater New York? Durova^Charge! 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Per this note the address: pool-72-88-172-144.nwrknj.east.verizon.net. nwrknj = Newark, New Jersey. (→Netscott) 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting one's ducks in a row

Very little is clear after days of threaded discussion on this request, but I've reached one definitive conclusion. When presenting a complex request to the community it's important to be well prepared. Write up a good summary and support it with diffs, links, and examples. Guide the reader through the necessary logical steps. Communicate enough information to bring an uninformed reader up to speed and demonstrate why the situation requires action. Durova^Charge! 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And when repeatedly thumping on the phrase "evading a ban", at some point check whether the ban had already expired, negating the premise. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:His excellency's ban was reset on 10 February 2007 for 6 months. (→Netscott) 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Such a "reset" was not logged at the Arbcom decision. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move to close. Navou ^banter / _contribs 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is still the matter that User:BhaiSaab has been indefinitely blocked unfairly (and without consensus I might add). (→Netscott) 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked Jayjg if he could comment here regarding the matter. - Merzbow 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As per this discussion, I've reset BhaiSaab's ban to 1 year. Rama's arrow 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Rama's Arrow's response, if someone wants to archive this discussion at this point, fine with me. (→Netscott) 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The recent bans have not been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency and I would politely request the blocking admins list the recent extensions to the page per the ArbCom decision. Vassyana 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Without evidence, and a clearly formatted request, this request appears unclear and premature. Recommend editors attempt dispute resolution. Options here are last resort type.Navou ^banter / _contribs 09:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on WP:ANI and wanted to raise the possibility of a short-term enforced article probation for this user here from Wikipedia and Essjay related articles. Especially on the Essjay article, since the AfD closure, there has been no problems, issues, or artificial drama from any sources... except User:QuackGuru. - Denny 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't regular ol' userblocks been tried? Durova^Charge! 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could we see some DIFF's regarding this behavior, aside from the AN/I link. What is it that is being asked of the community? Additionally, what WP:DR steps have been attempted? Thanks, Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I need to gather it up but there is no one diff that or ten that shows this, just the littered mess that is the Essjay controversy talk page/archives are the best indicator. See also the comments on today's ANI mess. how many times do we let someone tweak the community's nipples like this to be impolite? They're all very silly but it's very on-going and tiring. If more is needed I'll have to gather it tomorrow unless others can first. That ANI link has links all the previous (now 5) incident reports. What I am asking for is admin-enforced probation from the Essjay article and wikipedia-related articles for a week or three to see if helps. - Denny 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What policies are being violated there? A quick summary with some evidence may be helpful. Have we explored other options, RFC, WP:DR. I think this proposed community action needs clarity. It seems, at the moment, unclear. Navou ^banter / _contribs 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Part of the problem I see with this proposal is that it would create an exploitable precedent of imposing community bans before blocks and dispute resolution are tried. That's not something I'm likely to support in any scenario and it's especially problematic in relation to a public Wikipedia scandal. One reasonable interpretation of community action at this juncture would be that it would amount to an attempt at cover up. See WP:DE. If this editor collects several blocks and dispute resolution fails, come back and I may support a nomination. Let's treat this exactly like any other problem user. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This is the wrong place, I think, to bring your concerns. I would also note, unless you're prepared to provide diffs and clear examples of improper behaviour, you're going to have an uphill battle getting blocks/bans imposed on a user. This user has not received a single block.[9] If the user has been warned about their behaviour and dispute resolution has been tried, then it might be time for an RfC. Regardless, with no clear diffs or clear examples of improper behaviour, no bans, no damning RfC, no ArbCom sanctions and so forth, it is simply far premature to discuss community bans. Vassyana 08:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

1B6 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Per this edit which impersonates administrative powers I have imposed an indefinite block on this user. I also propose a community siteban. The block history on this account demonstrates that this editor already received an indef block as a vandal only account that was lifted with a final warning. In the month since that time the edit history has had serious problems. JzG has had more involvement than I and may supplement this. Here are some highlights:

• WP:POINT

Adds an indef blocked template to the talk page of an account that has never been blocked and has no edit history.[28][29] Then adds a welcome template to that talkpage.[30]

Adds a notability template to an article that received a unanimous keep in a deletion discusson.[31]

Changes a policy nutshell to make it less informative.[32] Then makes rude accusations of admin abuse at the editor who reverts it.[33][34][35][36]

During the debate about the WP:SOCK nutshell, user tweaks a doppelganger account.[37][38]

• WP:CIVIL

Removed stupid weasle [sic] words[39]

Removed stupid image[40]

I haven't got time to talk to childish little fools like you.[41]

Shut up you insensitive little brat.[42]

• WP:OWN

I have added a section on the How Hard Can It Be challenges, if you wish to edit these, do so at your will but mleave me a message first.[43]

• Borderline threat: Where would be the best place to punch him?[44]
• More impersonation of administrative powers: Go on, make my day, let me block you.[45]

Durova^Charge! 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block Not sure if non admins' opinions on this are welcomed (I've guessed they are, as this we're "Community" members) but this block seems entirely reasonable - with two "final warnings" already passed, it's arguably overdue. --Dweller 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually nonadmins' opinions are welcome. I'd like to make this a siteban. Durova^Charge! 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, per my earlier comment on WP:AN/I. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse this troll poll, anything from this user which is not outright vandalism seems to be tiresome and vexatious. Nothing worthwhile to offset the disruption caused and my (limited) patience is well and truly exhausted. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, there is no point in allowing disruptive editors to keep editing, even if they do occasionally make good contributions. And he is unquestionably being disruptive. Although I'm not sure why impersonating admin powers seems to be seen as mattering more than what he threatened to do with those powers he doesn't have... -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, impersonation of an administrator is a straightforward reason for indef blocking. Although this individual didn't actually forge a signature the prior indef block with a final warning upon unblocking weighed. I figured this merited both an indef block and a siteban and that particular edit provided the clearest grounds for doing so. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - first thing he did upon come here was to start arguing with several administrators and regular users, make WP:POINT accusations (including by vandalizing my and other people's userpages). I was willing to WP:AGF, but seeing as he's not improved, I say block. He has to know this isn't acceptable on this site. Part Deux 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Highly disruptive user with very little to contribute, and has already received more than his share of warnings to behave, so it's certainly not because he doesn't know better. --Maelwys 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse User is clearly not here to improve the project. There is no sense in putting up with more. --DSRH |talk 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the bulk of this user's edits are pure disruption. IrishGuy ^talk 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse indef and siteban. Anchoress 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse for obvious reasons. Vandalism, trolling, disruption. The lot. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• I will stay neutral but I would welcome you taking into account his discussion with me here (and would welcome any comments if you think my own initial response was conceivably "uncivil"). Halsteadk 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm the admin who made the last block on User:1B6. It was within my first four days as an admin, you should probably know that. I made the block after these two edits in particular and a history including recent vandalism. The account seemed to be going downhill from a low point (see first block [46]). My explanation of the block is here at the unblocking. He promised at the time not to do it again.[47] His antics and incivility are clearly straining. My previous comments stand and I am disappointed by what I've seen since. Due my previous involvement, I am otherwise neutral. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: All of the diffs I present in this ban request occurred after the final warning and the pledge to reform. Durova^Charge! 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Roitr (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected)
  

Comments refactored to remove bold. THIS IS NOT A VOTE. Please do not treat it as such. Viridae^Talk 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This user has a long and interesting history of repeated vandalism, as detailed on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr, however formally he is not banned but just indefinitely blocked. A formal ban would help fight him because there will be no slightest restrictions in reverting any of his edits (this has been a sensitive issue and some legitimate editors were blocked for 3RR in the past). --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The point of this request is an important enough difference between an indefinite block and a ban - i.e., as the policy says, any indefblocked user is always welcome to create new account, reconsider his behaviour and start anew, but banned user is simply not welcome to edit on the Wikipedia anymore, and all his edits (including legitimate ones) are to be reverted.

Now not every vandal out there on WP:LTA has been formally banned (though many can be considered effectively banned, given their history of indefblocked sockpuppets), but this particular account been blocked for more than a year now and yet he just continues with his actions, despite multiple warnings and attempts to reason with. Considering his past behaviour and especially his threats to disrupt the work of other users and the Wikipedia as a whole, I believe this user is well deserving a personal community ban. I can compile a detailed rationale if his actions documented on WP:LTA are not enough to warrant this measure. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference...

--Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The above summary misreads policy.

• Here is the entire text of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks:

A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked.

Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Admins can revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.)

• For comparison, the complete text of WP:BAN#Blocks:

Except for partial bans, the primary account of any banned user is customarily blocked for the duration of the ban.

If the banned user creates sock puppet accounts to evade the ban, these may be blocked. When evasion is a problem, the IP address of a banned user who edits from a static IP address can also be blocked for the duration of the ban. When a banned user evades the ban from a range of addresses, short term IP blocks may be used. Typically, these last 24 hours.

• In addition, WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy specifically covers both situations:

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it.

Hence this nomination's formal basis proceeds from a misreading: although banning policy specifically empowers immediate reversion and blocking of ban-evading sockpuppets and their edits, it does not preclude such action on blocked accounts. Banning policy's purpose is to define banning rather than blocking. Blocking policy specifically allows those responses to block evasion and sockpuppet policy covers both areas. Productive editors are already empowered to do everything this proposal seeks. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for clearing this out. However, I didn't mean to put technical and procedural implications as the primary reason, at least not intentionally. From Wikipedia:Banning_policy:

• The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia... Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct...
• Bans should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia... A ban is a social construct and does not, in itself, physically prevent the user from editing any page.

So the most important question is whether this user has exhausted the community's patience beyond an usual indefinite block to warrant formal revocation of editing privileges. Given his 1.5 year long history, I still feel a nomination for community ban is very appropriate. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I support the request for a ban. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How are there any restrictions on reverting an indef blocked user's edits other than WP:AGF during the interim between a new sock's emergence and a strong whiff of the familiar odor? I see no difference in that respect between a block and a ban. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• What would "we" be fighting him against? Navou ^banter / _contribs 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Answering that may be why Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr was linked above. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have read the page and agree the behavior is appalling. My question regards the reasoning of this proposal. Durova^Charge! 15:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I support a ban, if only to back up the indefinite block. ~Crazytales (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Appalling track record. --Dweller 12:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just for clarity, for whomever closes this, we are endorsing a block. (correct me if I am incorrect) My opinion remains NeutralNavou ^banter / _contribs 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• For clarity, this is not about endorsing a block, it is (as the section header says) about imposing a community ban. Dmitry says Roitr's account is already indefblocked but the person behind the account is not banned, and Dmitry is here requesting a ban on the person. The difference will be that, with a ban, any other account identified as belonging to the same person will be subject to not only blocking but reversion, without 3RR applying. Dmitry says "some legitimate editors were blocked for 3RR in the past", so the ban would protect them where a mere indefblock did not. That's why to have a ban on top of the indefblock. Please correct me if *I* am incorrect. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Unfortunately, this user seems to be damaging to the project. I support a permenant ban. Vassyana 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I'll accept that explanation. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: based on what's just happened today, he's not here to help us.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Today was a horror show of mass vandalism from multiple IPs coming faster than 3 editors could keep up with. He's got a track record a mile long. Didn't realize he wasn't already banned. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, this user's behaviour is disruptive and detrimental to the project. – Riana ^ঋ 14:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban: if you have your own subpage at LTA, and haven't been community banned, then you damn well should be. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Turok 1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks _suspected)

This user has been block indefinately, and has created numorous sockpuppets, some of which were used for severe trolling and personal attacks [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. Though I've never filed a report here, I stronly think this has gone too far. I think this user needs to be banned to protect Wikipedia, it's contributors, and all other people.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 06:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note WP:RFCU#Turok 1 has been filed. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone there, because I thought the sock puppetry is already known.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm agreeing with you. This is crazy. I was just linking to it, that's all. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally this area is for users who have a clear persona on Wikipedia and present an ongoing problem to the community. I don't see this case as fitting this description, am I wrong? (→Netscott) 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Community bans are for those who persist in abusing Wikipedia via sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, etc. in a chronic fashion. Short episodes such as these should be under WP:RBI. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with both Netscott and Physicq. There have been countless sock/vandal episodes similar to this. They dwindle out eventually. If it persists over a longer period of time then more serious measures are in order.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that banning was for severe editing abuse, not mainly chronic. Though, you are right. It was not ongoing enough for to be handled with a ban. I think it would be an appropriete time to remove the request, as concensus has spoken.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it staying here and being archived as normal. Folks are still getting used to this relatively new board... this case will help to illustrate what is to go here. (→Netscott) 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• BenH (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks _suspected)

This guy was repeatedly warned for vandalism and infantile edits (I've fixed at least two of them), and was blocked at least once. He's had an RfC pending on him for almost a year and hasn't bothered to respond--he's been indefinitely blocked since July. Moreover, he's been suspected of using numerous sockpuppets. An administrator mentioned that he'd blocked one of them since BenH was permanently banned, but there's no notation in his block log of this. One of his suspected sockpuppets was active as late as March 20.

This guy obviously has no intentions of being a meaningful contributor, and the block hasn't stopped him. This more than meets the criteria for a community ban. Blueboy96 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Once you start using Sockpuppets to get around an IndefBlock or ArbCom decision , there's really one path that follows. SirFozzie 16:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. But to clarify, the checkuser got declined because it was too old. Already indef blocked; no reason to oppose. Durova^Charge! 22:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note the latest user cited is IP address 67.77.210.202 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), not blocked as of this edit. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by user proposing ban I should also note that he asked to be unblocked, but was turned down by User:JzG for not answering his RfC. Instead, as you'll see, all we got was more sockpuppetry. A community ban would enable us to nip this in the bud, and permanently. Blueboy96 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse -- Everything BenH has contributed has been superfluous, unneeded, and/or false, especially in the History section, where he makes up his onw history, if a station doesn't have one. -- azumanga 22:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing I might be concerned about is that he hasn't been logging in, and every IP he edits from will likely be blocked so we might have a denial of service vandal. Almost every user on his list is an IP as opposed to a logged in user. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's worse than just making trivial or annoying edits, most of what he included seems to be disputed as being either original research or outright fabrication by others knowledgable in the field. We don't need him. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: sockpuppetry to evade blocks for disruption is a pretty clear-cut rationale for a community ban. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Based on his recent bullying and attacks that caused user:RobertG to leave the project ([53] [54] [55]), and because his userpage suggests he finds it acceptable to make nasty remarks at admins, and because he appears to have a history of incivility and personal attacks (e.g. here and here) I would suggest that CalJW (talk • contribs) be placed on personal attack parole. That is, based on WP:BLOCK and similar ArbCom rulings, he may be blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for 24 hours, or as much as a week for repeat offenses. Such blocks should be logged on this board. >Radiant< 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more links: the user appears to have a history of this sort of thing, particularly with regard to admins: see [56] and [57] and [58] and [59] and [60]. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussion of editors actions and community action (parole, etc) regarding this editors actions

Endorse this. CaJW's bile aimed at RobertG over the trivial matter of one CfD closure made in the best of faith was entirely unacceptable and somewhat sickening. We really cannot have this sort of harassment. Not an indefinite personal attack parole, though, because I don't think that's warranted: I say we put an expiry time of six months on this, in which the user will hopfully calm down and stop viewing the harassment of admins as acceptable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would endorse this; it is, after all, merely requiring that which is already expected. If CalJW is reluctant to accept a sanction without ArbCom then we go to ArbCom, but I see no pressing reason to waste their time on something which looks, to my eyes anyway, pretty clear-cut. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Does the editor in question have to accept anything? I believe the community has the right to enforce this with or without consent of the user in question, just as ArbCom can. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would say so, yes. If the community reaches an overwhelming consensus that a sanction should be applied, and the editor refuses to accept it, then we go to ArbCom. They have speedily endorsed some previous community sanctions (all bans, I think) and that should satisfy even the most legalistic. I see community sanctions as RfCs with teeth, where the problem behaviour is beyond gentle admonition. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. The community is far too tolerant of those who create a poisonous atmosphere. Paraphrasing Gresham's Law, the bad editors drive out the good. We need to stop it. Raymond Arritt 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't find CalJW's comments to all that vicious and in fact it was an action by RobertG similar to what seems to have annoyed Cal, that has stopped me from seriously editing in wikipedia and convinced me instead to spend my wikitime doing this sort of thing. Cal did not appear to be rude, but he had some serious things that he felt needed to come out, so he said them. By banning him you are (opinion) actually proving that his allegations of oligarchical behavior is a reality. Carptrash 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing a ban: we are discussing a potential personal attack parole. The odd semi-controversial CfD closure made in good faith is no justification for allegations of a cabal, because there isn't one. All admins have to make tough calls from time to time: if we prevented that happening we'd have no admins. Moreover, it is not what you say: it's the way in which you say it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the difference between a ban and a parole - or at least suggesting that there was one. I will ned to know these and many more things since I am now going to haunt these halls instead of, say, those of John Henry Waddell or Ulric Ellerhusen or the places I usually frequent. But I wish to mention here that there is a growing number of committed (or, formerly committed) wikipedians who feel that the rift between those who edit and those who tell other what and how and where and when to do it is growing. This discussion here,(opinion) grows out of that. Still Oppose. Carptrash 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but I rather feel that characterising non-admins as "those who edit" and admins as "those who tell other what and how and where and when to do it" is not really accurate. Many of our finest admins are excellent content contributors with featured articles to their names: viz User:Makemi, User:Antandrus, User:Kirill Lokshin, and RobertG himself - I could easily go on. Many non-admins do nothing but vandal-revert all day long or do process wonkery. It's not easily clear-cut. You may well be right as to that's the reason why CaJW's personal attacks were made - and those diffs I listed above would certainly support that theory: all the unpleasantness involved is against admins - but those personal attacks were made, and there is a history of them. Hopefully six months of personal attacks parole will sort this problem out. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did not mean to suggest that admins are "those who do not edit". I do not feel that way. 97.2 % (carpmath) of my interactions with admins have been pleasant and productive. Rather, that this particular incident involved members of the Editor and Non-editors and it just happened that one of them was an admin. And in fact I didn't really realize that RobertG was an admin. To me he was (massive projection on my part) someone hunched over a bot or something, chorkling with glee as it devored hours of my work. Oh well. In any case, I've looked at most of the Look here and Look there's posted here and still oppose.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC). Sorry about that. The dog peed on the big potted plant and I was distracted. Carptrash 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to close. Navou ^banter / _contribs 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this needs more input. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just hope we see it get more input. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other discussion regarding nature of solution

Comment this request would establish a new precedent for community action. Previous community decisions have been bans and were covered via WP:BAN. What policy empowers the community to impose this requested sanction? Has this sort of extension of community powers ever been the subject of consensus discussion (if so where)? What is the exact substance of this proposed personal attack parole? I'm not theoretically opposed to this sort of thing, but the request proposes a significant extension of community powers in language that implies this is routine rather than precedent-making. Durova^Charge! 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is not an extension of powers. If the community has the power to ban a user from the encyclopedia as a whole, they by definition also have the power to do less than that, e.g. ban a user from some article, or from making personal attacks (which users should not be doing to begin with). Personal attack paroles have in the past been imposed by the ArbCom. The relevant policy is WP:BLOCK, which, among others, says "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect ... its users ... Examples include ... Persistent personal attacks" and "User accounts with persistent violations [of NPA] may be blocked indefinitely." In effect we're saying "we don't like that you did this and will block you temporarily if you do it again". >Radiant< 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the request in principle. Community bans are a developing area and it has been only one month since ArbCom affirmed the community's ability to topic ban.[61] Perhaps extension of community powers is an overstatement since you're correct in stating that the ability to impose community personal attack parole is implicit in the ability to community ban. Either way, this is an innovative proposal and Wikipedians who participate here should be aware that this thread will probably get cited as precedent. I'll confine my participation to neutral procedural questions. In particular I'm interested in the specifics of this personal attack parole. Would it have a formal schedule of remedies, and if so what? Where would it be logged? Durova^Charge! 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good questions... taking the wording from Arb cases, we'd end up with "standard personal attack parole for <period>. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for 24 hours, or as much as a week for repeat offenses.". Arb cases do not specify logging; if we want logging, either the user's talk page or the CN board would work. Formal schedule is, say, half a year as suggested by Moreschi. Remedies is the block as stated above. >Radiant< 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you work those ideas into formal specifics and expand upon the initial request? It would be easier to get a consensus one way or the other if the proposal is comprehensive. Durova^Charge! 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly the community has the ability to do this. The community even has the ability to pick up wholesale and dump the entire Wikimedia Foundation and continue work somewhere else if they please (right to fork). We don't need ArbCom to handle everything, you know. We're grown-ups. we can handle things ourselves. --Cyde Weys 14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF: I do not mean to imply that the community is immature. This request does break new ground and I want to make sure the oxen are pulling a good plow. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please AGF yourself. Nowhere did I accuse you of bad faith and it's sad to see you accusing me of it. --Cyde Weys 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Damned if I can see any bad faith from anyone :) Certainly, if the community can topic ban, it's logical that we can enforce measures such as personal attack parole. Having said that, as a side issue I do often wish the community handled more stuff itself, rather than dumping responsibility onto the shoulders of authority figures such as Arbcom/Jimbo. But that's fairly irrelevant. Just going out, I think more evidence needs to be presented on the specifics of this later, which I'll do. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Moreschi, and apologies to Cyde if my reply seemed inappropriate. All I mean to say is that this proposal deserves a full and open discussion. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 15:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

>Radiant<, would it be possible to encourage CalJW to write a statement here? I am greatly saddened by RobertG's departure, but I think it would be helpful to hear both sides. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CalJW has been notified. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, to try to keep focus, might I suggest devoting this section on the particulars of the case at hand and starting another (here or on talk) in order to discuss the mechanics/logistics/etc of community sanctioned parole as a general matter? Something like that seems like it would be best in giving both issues the attention and focus that they deserve. Bitnine 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that User:CalJW has quit Wikipedia. Note that User:82.18.125.110 is apparently the same person. --Samuel Wantman 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Ararat arev (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected)
  

This user was blocked multiple times [62] for edit warring and use of sockpuppets to continue the edit wars while blocked, eventually leading to an indefinite block being placed. Subsequently, only more of the same has taken place, armies of socks continuing the same tactics on Armenia to the point that the page has had to be protected twice [63], [64]. (See the page history, effectively every redlink username editing in the last few days is a sock continuing the same edit war). This user obviously has no intent of contributing constructively. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. Non-stop completely nonconstructive sockpuppetry is not acceptable, ever. This user is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Appalling track record, plus making a mockery of the rules by evading a block. Totally unacceptable.Blueboy96 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's time to convert this indef block into a ban. Durova^Charge! 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. He was vandalizing an arbitration case via IP less than 24 hours ago. Picaroon 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• LegoAxiom1007 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks)
  

User is a very subtle vandal, so much so that WP:AIV rejected the report [65] and instead suggested sending it to ANI. I prefer this forum for this person. He's been "experimenting" with Twinkle, doing things like spending hours reporting already blocked users to WP:AIV, reverting edits randomly (although to be fair he's gotten a little more on point more recently), and submitting invalid page protection requests. User has one block for misusing Twinkle. User re-violated it on getting off the block. Most of the user's warnings regard these invalid reports. I'll post specific diffs tomorrow when I have more time. Nardman1 01:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's about using twinkle, this is about having a monobook.css subpage, we can stop him from using it by blanking and then protecting it for a while. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've already put it up for deletion. Nardman1 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, but if it's just about that, no ban. Looking at the talk page this is a newcomer learning the ropes. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I doubt that. His very first edit was to his monobook.js[66]. That's not a very newbie move. And now he's using WP:ARV[67]. And he's applied to use vandalproof[68]. Not only is he not a newbie, he's a very sophisticated user, probably a sock of an older editor. If only I knew who. Nardman1 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• User notified. Maybe if he sees this he'll take refraining the tool to heart. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you are going to ban me or not? Because I'm very actionable and very innocent. But, what, so I got blocked only 1 time. It's still a minor problem, is it? IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And he doesn't even sign his real name. He is a very experienced editor. He's gaming us. Nardman1 01:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just referain from using the twinkle tool unless you know what you're doing. Your experiments worked. If you want to make good use of twinkle, go to Special:Recentchanges and look for vandal edits (page blanking, inserting comments in non-talk pages, etc). But reverting good edits and reporting already-blocked users is abuse. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's another example of his sophistication [69]. This IS NOT A NEWBIE EDITOR. Nardman1 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I think I forgot to add a period at the end of a sentence in {{Unsigned8}}. Thank you for spotting that error mistake, Nardman1. I think I can be your friend to you right now. Or, I think you can help with me. IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can we just ban from any sort of semi-automated tool? If so, that is definitely best. -Amarkov moo! 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, you guys. This is a message for everyone who started this session. I just want you to know that I sometimes got woken up early or late form bed. I think I got really sleepy and grumpy lately. However, you might not want you try to be very mean to me. I am a bit sleepy lately. And I may not respond very excellently. And I think I may put a WikiLove template to your userpages. Thank you, good night, and have fun posting. IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to believe this may be a newbie user. But he needs to seriously slow down his editing and avoid page moves and the like until he learns what is going on. I've added some messages to his talk page to help guide him in the right direction. Nardman1 04:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good idea, some of his edits are misguided but glad you're AGF. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The proposer of this action has filed RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LegoAxiom1007. Thanks, Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Further comment Checkuser request rejected. – Riana ^talk 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm taking a long wikivacation. This case has shown just how much I've begun to stress about vandal-fighting. If this user is a vandal it'll be known in time. So long, and thanks for all the fish. Nardman1 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know about banning, but something is very, very fishy here. I first caught wind of this one with a huge pile of dodgy RFP requests, for templates he'd just created, or userboxes, or things like that. I AGF like no tomorrow, but I only knew about the existence of my monobook after about a month in, only began using it after 2 months, and never knew about the existence AIV or RFPP till about August of last year. Almost definitely a sock of someone, and probably just subtly testing us to see just how far we can be pushed until someone drops the banhammer on him. Don't think his actions are, well, disruptive enough to merit a ban yet, but I would advise that we keep our eyes open for other users with similar edits. – Riana ^talk 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I found RFPP within 15 minutes of my first edit, and AIV within an hour. Someone who had experience as an anon might be able to do it considerably faster. The monobook stuff is the only thing I find fishy, but I find it hard to believe that someone can mimic a new user so perfectly. -Amarkov moo! 16:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Damn, maybe I'm just daft like that. – Riana ^talk 16:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I found WP:LOP over a month before my first edit, so it's certainly possible for a new user to know the rules. --ais523 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • LOL - I think I'm a heavily experienced user by now, and I never knew of the WP:LOP page until this minute. (It would have been helpful for me to have found it some time ago. :) ) Newyorkbrad 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to close. Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Close which way? Do we have a resolution here? Newyorkbrad 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, it appears no consensus, and consensus will be unlikely. Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move to close, but as "ban user from monobook.js for 3 months". I admit that sounds more like an arbcom ruling, if necessary I'll refile there. Nardman1 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another administrator has just left a very final-sounding warning on his talkpage. I think we can leave things there for now, with this account headed for a long-term block if the user doesn't improve his editing very soon. I've also suggested reconsideration of the decline on the checkuser request, though of course there is no guarantee that will be granted. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Two more examples of horrendous edits today, but before the final warning issued. Warning a user for "moving" a page with twinkle when in fact the user just created a redirect [70] and asking a user to change their user name, USING THE TEMPLATE DESIGNED FOR THE PAGE FOR RENAMING [71] and acting like an administrator, ordering the user to report back to his page. Nardman1 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• And here [72]. Nardman1 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just added a final warning and some instructions to the user of my own. I've had about enough of this. Newyorkbrad 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't even mentioned the ridiculous templates He's created. See [73] and the two discussions linked from there. Nardman1 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to get off topic again, just want to link to some discussion I generated about his behavior today here[74]. He's violated a warning from multiple admins. Nardman1 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• We need to refocus this discussion or close it. What type of ban is proposed, and for how long? Navou ^banter / _contribs 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Action and Timeline

• • I'll take the initiative. I would propose a ban from any semi-automated editing tool, defined so as to exclude simple tabs such as used in {{deltab}}, for a period of a month. I think that's plenty of time; the point is to give him more experience before using them so they aren't misused. This isn't proposed as a punishment. -Amarkov moo! 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Move to modify the proposal to add one minor thing: Prevent user from using a copyrighted name Isuzu Axiom as his signature. Nardman1 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This action may better be done at processes at WP:U. Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's not really relevant here anyway. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support this proposal as nominator (actually I'd support a lot more but I'll take what I can get). Nardman1 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• As a tangientally related comment, if this ban passes, and he continues to make bad edits after it expires, I'd support a permanent ban, as that would completely exhaust any ability to assume good faith. -Amarkov moo! 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update1: I've Speedily Kept the MFD, as MFD is not the venue for controling user activities. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update2: User has removed their local .js settings [75]. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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