Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

Lovelight

Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone from being mildly disruptive to engaging in edit warring (4 3RR blocks in two months) and now egregious insults."Well, fuck you, you little piece of shit" His contributions are those of a Single purpose account, working almost exclusively on articles related to trying to add oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation to articles related to the events of September 11, 2001. I believe the community has had enough of this kind of behavior and an indefinite ban or similar sanction is mandatory. An Rfc has been filed on Lovelight here, but I think this is a waste of time.--MONGO 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I believe a community ban is warranted. His contribution is limited to repeated WP:POINT violations, 3RR violations as well as just general disruption in addition to the issues cited above. --Tbeatty 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I also believe it is warranted. He takes up far more time from editors and admins than his contributions warrant. Unfortunately, based on his behavior and what he has implied in his talk postings, I fear he will come come back as a vandal of similar quality to Cplot. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I have to agree as well. I tried to reason with this person, and (s)he just will not listen. I think it's inevitably headed for an ArbCom ban at this point, so we may as well save the trouble. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban, has crossed the line. SirFozzie 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Statement from Lovelight, posted here by request[1]

  "Please note that noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution."

• I think this is a good case for an indefinite ban. It appears to me that the fellow is only here to fight. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another statement from Lovelight[2]: (--StuffOfInterest 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

  Well Tony, you are wrong, have you visited related talk page, have you checked related history, are you aware of the issue(s) here or did you just took a look at my "representative" talk space? Please, if you are to endorse this, then at least find some good will and time to go through the history which led to this point. Thanks. Lovelight 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lovelight asked to have his previous two statements replaced with the following[3]: (--StuffOfInterest 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

  Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. Please check related history I'm afraid my talk space is not "representative", at least, if you don't take a closer look. I'd appreciate, if you would find some time and good will to check the facts. Thanks. Lovelight 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• MongoLovelight's observation about the complexity and ambiguity of this case may be important: "Lovelight has gone from being only mildly disruptive, to edit warring and down right offensive." I would argue for continuing the RfC in order to better understand this process. I have some experience in this vein and can imagine how someone with Lovelight's views has been received on arrival. Seraphimblade could provide examples of his attempts to reason with Lovelight, and other opportunities to go from mildly disruptive to mildly constructive could be examined. It does seem to me that Lovelight is no longer capable of taking even his own struggle here seriously. I'm just not at all sure that's his fault alone.--Thomas Basboll 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what oftentimes happens when POV pushers meet continued resistance against their efforts. They can either work with the consensus, become an edit warrior, or file frivilous Rfc's and arbcom cases to try and get their way...impuning the integrity of those that have worked hard to keep Wikipedia a respectable and reliable referece base.--MONGO 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part: the way POV pushers are treated these days often turns them into edit warriors at an early age, if you will, instead of just going away. Banning them without an RfC may well turn them into vandals. This same treatment, however, also causes people who are not POV pushers to either leave or file RfC's with the hope of improving the rhetorical climate. It is possible to work hard doing the wrong thing, even with good intentions.--Thomas Basboll 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to work with Lovelight are on User talk:Lovelight, if you'd like to look at them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I support an indefinite ban. Crum375 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Since we have seen no expression of guilt or fault whatsoever from Lovelight, I am forced to support a community ban. (I started the RfC moments before he was blocked for 3RR. Again.) --Golbez 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• With the qualification that Lovelight is entitled to attempt some defence if possible, I support the indefinite ban. This is simply not a "complex or ambiguous" case - the evidence clearly demonstrates that he (she) is not merely disagreeing in good faith, but is intentionally disrupting Wikipedia with no constructive purpose. He promotes edits that he himself knows to be incorrect or misleading (at times even providing sources that contradict his own assertions), holds the contrary contributions of other editors to a completely different standard than his own, and wilfully violates WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Peter Grey 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would observe that there are two questions here:

• 1. has this fellow been blocked correctly?
     • If so then could whoever keeps broadcasting this fellow's pleas for an RFC please stop? It'd gone beyond Requests for comment if we're discussing a fellow who has already been correctly blocked for one week for egregious edit warring, came out of that and got himself correctly blocked for another two weeks.
  2. Do we call it a day with this editor?
     • If the answer to the first question is "yes", I would suggest that it's going to take a very, very big counter-argument to make this fellow appear worth expending even more effort on.

So we should pay a lot of attention to the answer to question 1. For upon that question hinges the future of this fellow. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his block log and talk page, the answer to 1) is, 'Yes, certainly.' Lovelight's defense for persistent edit warring has always been that he is telling The Truth about What Really Happened on 9/11, and so should not be limited by the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bye bye Lovelight. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Re:Tom Harrison: Indeed, that's exactly what I found when I blocked him a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to comment on the whether or not to community-ban him; however, his attitude suggests strongly that he has no interest in functioning as a member of our community. Heimstern Läufer 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can we permablock him already? --Golbez 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He is currently under a 2 week block. It appears there is consensus to community ban Lovelight but there is no rush as he can't do anything disruptive with the 2 week block. I don't anticipate any more comments or exonerations but keeping it open does no harm. --Tbeatty 06:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, all of his current activities are limited to his own talk page. Unfortunately, he apears to be using his talk page in an attempt to debate others. At this point he should be worried about continuing to enjoy edit privledges but instead he is still rehashing the same issues as usual. It is probably time to pull the trigger and wait for the inevitable appeal to ArbCom. I won't do it being that I've had past involvement. --StuffOfInterest 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. He s now using his talk page for personal attacks. Please ban him ASAP and protect is talk page. --Tbeatty 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Result

I have indefinitely blocked Lovelight until if/when there can by an Arbitration opinion rendered, so interested parties file a case post-haste. The user has expressed that s/he will accept any verdict that ArbCom may come up with, and I support this decision even though the case is heavily one-sided against the user. So, I have not closed this as a community ban but as preventative until this can be passed up the food chain. If the ArbCom refuses the case, a community ban will probably be warranted. Teke 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Followup: Well, Lovelight has purportedly given up and thrown in the towel. The use is still indef blocked, so I'd say this is pretty much wrapped up for this account name. Unless anyone else has any chime ins, I'd say the case is closed. Teke 03:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. John Carter 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his block log, he is currently in the middle of his second 1-day block for 3RR. Addhoc 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and simply counted the number of times he had notices of blocks on his user page. I didn't think to check the block record. My apologies. John Carter 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading his talk page, I'm not impressed.. "Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. is just one quote that makes me think that he's become an edit warrior on this, and will not improve. I'd support a community topic ban to the three pages mentioned above. SirFozzie 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat alarmed to see Bus stop's name in this conversation, since I first encountered him voting for the same side as me in an AfD debate, so this immediately marked him out as a person of good sense. Then I went and looked at his contribution history in this Dylan matter, and it was quite scary. Also I checked the submitter (above), John Carter and he looks to have a very good record on Wikipedia. So there you have my two 'ad hominem' arguments, and they point in opposite directions. I'm going to leave a Talk message for Bus stop, and see if he will come down momentarily from his pillar of rectitude (with which I agree, but 3RR is pretty serious, so he ought to pay attention). EdJohnston 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Warlordjohncarter account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added (after Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that User:Bus stop is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with User:Bus stop. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.

I am concerned by User:Warlordjohncarter's statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented User:Bus stop's block history. User:Bus stop has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see User:Bus stop's request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do not require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. User:Warlordjohncarter has taken User:Bus stop's statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know User:Bus stop to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious Michael Richards article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down. Cleo123 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are free to be "concerned" as you like. However, I note that there are four blue boxed on Bus stop's talk page. It did not occur to me that they were not all for individual blocks, as I myself have no direct knowledge of the protocols in place. And, for what it's worth, I'm not entirely sure how saying the New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica are not reliable sources can be portrayed positively. I did present the argument against his position, as it did not occur to me that I had to present both sides of an argument when requesting the possible review of behavior to consider sanction. If so, it is somewhat amusing to me that the police officer (or prosecutor, whichever title you prefer) who reports such incidents has to function as defense attorney as well. John Carter 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleo, besides non-denominational Christian communities and individuals (which lack any visible structure and are heterogeneous in their beliefs), one such denomination which does not practice baptism is the Salvation Army. The Baptism page also notes that "a few Christian groups assert that water-based baptism has been supplanted by the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism was unnecessarily carried over from the early Jewish Christian practice."

In regards to the listing on this page, I can say a few things. I've gone far out of my way to list and summarize each of the sources used. In fact, Bus stop and I were at one point in agreement: the original reference was slightly ambiguous. So, I sought out 8 more sources, which were all apparently insufficient- in his view (feel free to come to your own conclusions here). I've added yet another source, a lengthy article from a Jewish newsletter, which is actually quite fair and even sometimes apologetic about the nature of his religious beliefs (this has also been summarized, and quotes have been noted at the above link). According to Bus stop, none of these sources are sufficient. Bus stop has said that he is acting in a neutral manner in his edits, and others seem to agree that he is a reliable and helpful editor, but I'm unsure if the same can be said in this instance, considering certain things he has said. I don't mean to villainize him, but at the same time, I'm truly surprised that he persists with his argument, and I'm puzzled as to why he really hasn't made an attempt to provide sources which support his viewpoint.--C.Logan 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, your own sources argue User:Bus stop's point as much as they do your own. When you quote Dylan as saying things like: "Well, religion is repressive to a certain degree. Religion is another form of bondage which man invents to to get himself to God." It seems pretty implausible that he formally converted to some denomination of Christinity. One does not convert to a non-denominational community - they informally join one. (and I'm not saying he didn't for a time.) I wouldn't expect anyone to be "baptized" into the Salvation Army as it is not a religion. Use of the word conversion is applicable to organized religions and specifically implies formally, and publically, abandoning a former faith. I'm inclined to agree with User:Bus stop that your sources are shaky for statements that have such sweeping implications. The sources you have provided in the link above indicate that his conversion is the subject of longterm and widespread dispute, yet you all behave as if User:Bus stop is utterly alone in his "irrational" view. I am not sure that the burden of proof is on User:Bus stop here. He is not asserting anything other than the status quo.Cleo123 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleo, I'm unsure how familiar you are with the scope of Christian belief, so bear with me. It's common to hear many non-ritualistic Christians say that "Christianity is not a religion. (It's a relationship with Christ/God)". This sort of idea is common among most non-denominational Christians, but also extends to Christians of all denominations. It's essentially a saying which elevates the belief in Christ above standard religions. You can even see it as a slogan of sorts- I've heard it from many street-side proselytizers. When I used this quote in the summary, it seemed clear to me that this is what Dylan is expressing. Many Christians do not see Christianity as merely "a religion".

Additionally, the Salvation Army is an organization, but it is also a separate denomination in and of itself. From Christian denomination: "The Salvation Army is often, albeit incorrectly, understood to be a social relief organization. It is, in fact, a denomination which does extensive social relief work."

Dylan was listed with a source. The original source was insufficient, so I provided several more. The sources lean more towards conversion with terms like "Dylan's conversion". I've always been fine with adding a "(conversion disputed)" note next to his name on the list, but as the sources are generally clear that he did convert, despite doubts from many, I feel it's up to Bus stop to provide sources for his argument. Is there really a problem with this? I mean, one of the sources for Dylan even says he was actually baptised- whether you find this reliable or not is another story. The people match up, as several sources and a documentary relate Dylan with the Vineyard Church and Kenn Gulliksen. It seems that the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades" supports this version of events as well, or so this review/summary states. --C.Logan 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that two article RFCs have been opened up, as listed in the main RFC list for biographies. One of them is at Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity, and the other is at Talk:Bob_Dylan#Request_for_Comment. There is also a whole bunch of discussion of this under other headings at Talk:Bob Dylan. Can User:Warlordjohncarter comment as to whether there is a Talk page consensus yet at either of these pages? If he believes so, it might be appropriate for John to write a summary section on at least one of those pages, stating what he believes is the consensus, and asking for further comment. Note that WP's procedure for dealing with disruptive editors involves going through six steps, in which 'editor ignores consensus' is step #5. Before the editor can ignore it, there has to be a generally-agreed consensus for him to ignore. If you read that list of steps, you'll see the present noticeboard listed as one of the options for step #6. (Mere 3RR violations are one thing, but a formal verdict of disruptive editing is another). I don't think it will be quick or easy to discern the consensus on either of those pages. EdJohnston 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

At the Talk:Bob_Dylan#Request_for_Comment editors provide a citation connecting Dylan to the Assembly of God, a fundamentalist, pentecostal, evangelical denomination. According to Wikipedia, formal baptism by water is a required ritual in the Assembly of God denomination. There should be verifiable documentation of this religious ritual to back up claims of conversion. User:Bus stop is not off base in requesting it. Cleo123 04:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

All the sources I've found, and this documentary, associate Dylan with the Vineyard Fellowship Church; from what I can see, they don't require water baptism... but this source seems to say Bob was actually baptized one of the assistant pastors at this church. It seems that the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades" supports this version of events as well, or so this review/summary states. Notice how I copied and pasted the last sentence from the above paragraph, because I'm lazy. --C.Logan 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see these sources as sufficiently credible. There is a very transparent adgenda for the pastor's statements - which do not strike me as entirely believable. Other sources are affiliating Dylan with yet another denomination. The issue is plagued with a history of controversy. Wikipedia must heir on the side of caution when it comes to biographies of living people. Regardless, this is an inappropriate forum for extended discussion on the issue. I have remarked on the appropriate RFC page. Cleo123 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the book by John Bauldie, "Wanted Man: In Search of Bob Dylan", also supports his study within Vineyard, and his conversion (pgs. 141-142, or pgs. 128-134, which contain excepts from an article by Clinton Heylin). I'll have check out the book to get a direct excerpt from the text. Additionally, googling Bob Dylan and Vineyard yields 103,000 results (many of these results could be referring to a 'vineyard'... adding 'church' into the search yields 41,900); searching Bob Dylan and Assemblies of God yields only 2090 (and many of these are AoG sites quoting Dylan, it seems). Don't think that was meant to be scientific, it's just worth noting. I'll take a look at the sources you've mentioned. --C.Logan 05:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty, on my own, of reprinting the following current comment from User:Bus stop's talk page. Being blocked, he cannot comment here. It should be noted that despite his block, he is now reasonably discussing the editorial issues with others on his own talk page.Cleo123 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thanks, Cleo. My primary objection is that Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity. I do not know if the alleged conversion is valid. But neither does anyone else. The impression one gets when one sees a name on such a list in an encyclopedia is of veracity. Truth. A list is an either/or type of thing. You are either on the list. Or you are off the list. That is what a list is. It is black and white. I have seen no one come up with a shred of evidence that any transition from Jewish to Christian took place. I've heard the lyrics on Slow Train Coming cited as "proof" of conversion. I've heard a dictionary definition brought forward as similar proof. I've heard Dylan's "sermonettes" between songs cited as constituting conversion. This is what people do not come to Wikipedia for. In fact, all of that is original research. As soon as Wikipedia goes out on a limb and speculates about something that it is not sure of, all of it's principles go out the window. Neutral point of view is immediately gone when you speculate about things that you simply have no way of knowing. A list implies truth. An article can include shades of grey. A list can not. In the article on Bob Dylan there is much more leeway to deal with the "Christian" period in Dylan's professional career, and maybe even in his life. But without a subject meeting a fairly high standard of verifiability for conversion, inclusion on a list is unwarranted. There are really lots of reasons to believe no valid conversion took place. One of which is that there was no Christian life lived. Is there any indication Christianity had any bearing on his life after the supposed conversion? But I am admitting I don't know. To me it is clear that the editors arguing for the validity of conversion don't know either. What I hear in the guise of arguments is mere conjecture. That argues for removal from the list. Bus stop 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"

For the sake of complete representation in the discussion, I'll move my response to the above text here:

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. As we are citing secondary sources which claim that he converted, this is not Original Research. Secondary sources are almost universally preferred on Wikipedia, as the usage of primary sources often leads to OR.

Also, it's interesting that one of you arguments against an actual conversion as that there is no real change in lifestyle, in the long term anyway. Let's go through the list then, and assess the lives of each person. We should remove each person who's lifestyle doesn't seem to reflect their change in religion. Oh wait, that's absurd. This is List of converts to Christianity, not List of converts to Christianity who actively practice their newfound religion.

It is indisputable that at least some of these people (if not many) included in this list don't actually live lives which reflect their religious change. Some may have only converted for marriage reasons, or for political reasons (as is supposed with Carlos Menem). That's not the point of this list. If someone has at one time professed belief in Christ as their savior, and/or has gone through a conversion ceremony, they are considered 'converts to Christianity and will be listed here, regardless of whether they converted out of the religion a week later, and regardless if they are still practicing. The same applies to all other religious pages listing converts.

I hate to be involved in this dispute. It's quite lame, but I must insist on my viewpoint until you can convince me otherwise. Show me sources, and hope that I don't reject their reliability as you have for the sources we've presented. Unfortunately, though, even if you do provide sources for insincerity of conversion, he'll likely remain on the list as a disputed conversion. After all, we're only supposed to express what the sources themselves say- not make judgments about them. If we have sources that say he did convert, and you actually bring sources that say that it was just an entertainer's act, that simply means we'll have to compromise. --C.Logan 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, I copied the comment, not so much for it's content - but to demonstrate User:Bus stop's rational tone. This forum is dedicated to discussing a request that User:Bus stop be blocked from editing the articles. His comments above were directed, specifically, to me and you responded. Perhaps, your own tone will give others some insight as to the level of passion that exists on each side of the fence in this situation. To my mind there appears to be a bit of a "gang mentality" aimed at quashing a vocal dissenting minority. As more editors become aware of the debate, User:Bus stop's view appears to be picking up support in the RFC discussion. Blocking him from editing the articles will not end the debate, as there is no consensus. Cleo123 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think sanctions are probably a bit premature right now, especially since there is evidently some dispute still concerning the warrantedness of Bus stop's edits. Remember, he's onlt been blocked twice so far. It's true, his comments aren't exactly promising, but let's give some time to cool down; maybe with time he'll cease edit warring; if not, we can try heading for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer 05:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel he should really be blocked either. As far as I know, he's not a vandal. I obviously disagree with him, and I feel that he may misunderstand the point of the List of converts to Christianity; I also feel that he may misunderstand the idea of 'conversion' itself. My stance is partly based on the fact that we do have several sources, on the internet, in books and publications, and in documentaries, that seem to attest to the fact that he converted- maybe not officially, even though at least one of the books claims so- at least nominally, and at least for a short time. It's hard to read the Jewsweek source without sensing that he is clearly considered a Christian in the article (specifically, a Jewish Christian). My stance is also partly based on the fact that I've never gone through a formal conversion ceremony, and yet I claim Christian faith; Dylan seems to say things which validate Christian beliefs much more than I do... for this reason, I don't feel that official conversion ceremonies are explicitly necessary, even if they are very common (This is more of a personal reason, as it should be clear to see; I'm simply explaining my looseness with the whole "conversion ceremony" business).

We are encouraged to use secondary sources here. Obviously, primary sources can be ambiguous- as the quote you mentioned above was seen by you one way, and by myself in another. I'm proclaiming what is reported in the sources which have been found. If a source says "conversion to Christianity", then the source has contributed something to warrant him to be included in the list. I have yet to see any sources which explicitly claim Bus stops point of view, but I'm definitely open to them. On the List of converts to Christianity talk page, I've tried to propose a compromise. As it says there, we have several sources which explicitly claim conversion- internet sources, at least 2 book sources, and a documentary. I think Dylan should be on the list, with a disclaimer that his conversion is disputed. Is this not fair? If a source can be found, then I hope that will be able to resolve things.--C.Logan 06:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity#Request_for_comment is churning away collecting a lot of opinions and reflective discussion. Respectfully, I suggest that no more comments be added to this thread until that article RFC reaches an agreed consensus. In particular, arguments about sourcing don't belong here, but in an article RFC. EdJohnston 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The following comment concerning User:Bus stop was recently posted to theTalk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity#Request_for_comment page :

Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue. Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this. If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked. We do not have time for this. -Scott P. 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that at present there are an equal number of editors on each side of the argument, yet the "pro-Christain" side continue to target User:Bus stop. There is a gang mentality on the page and a troubling lack of civilty that is not coming from User:Bus stop. He appears to be offering a rational argument. Cleo123 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to think we're targeting Bus stop. I don't believe that anyone from the "Pro-Christian" side condones Scott's statement above.

We currently have 10 internet sites, 2 (or more, I'm unsure of Mick Gold's contribution) published books which not only mention conversion, but provide details about Dylan's baptism and involvement in church. Additionally, we have the New York Times article, which mentions his "widely-publicized conversion", and and Encyclopedia Britannica entry (although this shouldn't be used as a source). All these sources state in clear terms that "he converted", several relay details of his conversion and the people involved, with corroborating details. This is why is becoming understandably frustrating that he continues to claim there is "insufficient evidence for conversion".

Interestingly, I've attempted to compromise with Bus stop quite a long time ago by including Bob Dylan on the list with a note that it is "disputed by some as to whether he actually converted" (in more or less words). However, he refuses to accept this, and continues to insist on complete removal. How can this be considered reasonable. We have compiled at least 12 sources which state 'conversion'. Several of these verify this with further details. Where is the strong argument against the reality of this conversion. The fact is that Bus stop has never even presented one.

We are making changes based on what the sources state clearly, and yet Bus stop has accused myself and others from making unwarranted suppositions from the text. --C.Logan 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are proving my point. There is no concensus. Many editors disagree with your "team's" view, yet, you continue to single out User:Bus stop. I understand that he can be a bit verbose and sometimes his logic my seem a bit circuitous, but having worked with this editor extensively in the past, I know him to be well meaning. He can be very long-winded and responding to his comments can be a real chore. However, that's what Wikipedia is all about - working with a diverse group of people to reach a concensus. I have no doubt that he isn't enjoying the current debate any more than you are. I believe him when he says his primary focus is WP:LIVING concerns. It's disturbing to see an editor like User:Scott P. openly propose a conspiracy of sorts to get an established editor blocked, just because "we don't have time for this". I'm glad you do not condone his remarks. User:Bus stop is not an unreasonable person. If you all stop "ganging up" on him and setting up scenarios where he is forced to "defend" himself - you may get better results. As a group, you seem so angry with him that you may not be "hearing" what he's saying any more. From what I've read, it looks like he's backed off of and conceded to discussion of the "conversion" in the Bob Dylan article. It seems that the list is his primary focus. At least that's how I read it. Cleo123 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree you are right that he has focused his attention on the list. It seems that his primary concern there is that there is no evidence for his conversion in that there are no records of his baptism by that group. Unfortunately, the group with which he was involved, the Association of Vineyard Churches, is explicitly stated on the page above as not making it a practice of keeping such records. On that basis, it seems to me to be at best irrational to demand documentation when it is explicitly stated that such records are not necessarily kept. I personally cannot see that this argument is one that we can reasonably let stand. If we do, then by definition we will be unable to accept any information on birthdates as reported in contemporary newspapers, for instance, if the birth certificate itself is also not specifically extant. And several birth certificates and such have disappeared over the years in fires and what not. I am of course relatively new here, and I may be unaware of other policies to the contrary, but think that that question is the nub of the current issue. If it is a question that deserves consideration, would I be correct in assuming that the Wikipedia:Village pump would be the appropriate place to raise it? John Carter 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be noted that the User:Bus stop on his talk page and the most recent heading of the Talk:Bob Dylan page has clearly and explicitly not only failed to assume good faith, but has seemingly categorically denied the possibility of, any good faith on the part of any editor who disagrees with him in this discussion. He has also, once again, made blanket statements without any sources or evidence cited, and is continuing on his one-man crusade to make wikipedia conform to his own POV. On this basis, I believe the above editor has clearly demonstrated that he is not competent to conduct himself according to the standards of wikipedia regarding this subject, and should be prevented from indulging in any other personal attacks and denigration of character in regards to all other editors who may disagree with him in this subject. I now believe sanctions are demonstrably called for. John Carter 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay

In the edit at the bottom, I do not like being told to: stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be an irrelevant incident. But I feel he is on a mission to be abusive and provoke me and then use his superior knowledge of how Wikipedia works to report me for an infraction. I am trying to keep my cool. But I am not unaware of what I believe are his intentions to provoke me. I am not asking for any sanction to be taken against him. Clearly what he said, above, is minor. But I want to register this problem somewhere, with someone. Just in preparation for a continuation of this. It is found here. Below is the entirety of his post:

Considering every statement you have made on this page or elsewhere is based on your subjective opinion, emotional interpretation of events and an apparent personal agenda regarding Jews and Christianity, you are extremely poorly placed to use words such as "evidence" or phrases such as "wikipedia's purpose". We build articles here based on references. There are many pointing to Dylan's conversion including the Encyclopedia Britanica. Until you can indicate contradictory "evidence", i.e. printed sources, stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My User name is: Bus stop 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would simply point out that the evidence pointed out above, and several other pieces of evidence, have been supplied, which were sufficient at the time to have almost all printed sources found stating what the above editor has repeatedly said is non-verifiable. I too would contend that his insistence on asserting what is clearly a POV which has no substantiation, and actually runs contrary to, several printed sources which went without documented dispute from the subject (again, the above editor has refused to provide any documentation whatever of his own position), and a subsequent book of the subject's own words as delivered in public from stage could reasonably be interpreted by many people as "a waste of time." Perhaps the language is a bit harsh, but adamantly continuing to say that we have to abide by a standard of evidence which the majority of the larger, more prosperous news media in the country did not abide by at the time the incidents in question occurred, and that they have (apparently; again, no contrary evidence has been put forward) not been criticized for their own crossing their own, generally stricter, guidelines for such content can be seen by many people, and has been seen by many people, as being probably at least a bit excessive. Particularly when the person raising the post above has clearly and explicitly stated that his own point of view on the subject is so pronounced that his objectivity in these matters can be at least questioned. John Carter 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.Logan 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The above report, which was opened by User:Bus stop, does not appear to be a well-formed request for a community sanction. Any needed discussion should take place elsewhere. I suggest that this thread be closed. EdJohnston 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.Logan 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• EdJohnston -- Fine -- close the thread. I wasn't sure where to post it. I'm sorry if I disturbed anybody. But I wanted it to be noted. Bus stop 20:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is added by JJay, here, not for a constructive purpose, but to silence discussion:

Current revision (00:54, 1 May 2007) (edit) (undo) JJay (Talk | contribs) (add off-topic warning- it would be helpful if talk page guidelines were followed here- i.e. This is not a platform for personal views)

Line 1: Line 1:

+

{{archive box| {{archive box|

• Archive 1: April 1, 2006 - Apr. 4, 2007 *Archive 1: April 1, 2006 - Apr. 4, 2007

Please indicate to me how placing a box indicating official policy, that a talk page is not for personal views, as a reminder to all parties involved is somehow an "objective" example of "harassment". John Carter 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Miaers

User:Miaers is engaged in a long term edit war that has disrupted pages relating to University of Wisconsin. They have gamed the system to disrupt wikipedia. They have abused WP:AN and WP:AN/3RR. They have already been blocked 3 times in March 2007 for disruption (the latest ban was for Continued violation of 3RR, now on University of Wisconsin System). They haven't learned from these blocks [4]. They have launched personal attacks against the admin User:Akhilleus [5] and have misrepresented comments by User:Orangemike as personal attacks.

The report page is here. Requesting site topic ban, gaming the system from RfCs to WP:AN is totally unacceptable. Disruptive behaiour is quite serious and is escalating--Cailil ^talk 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosign and agree. I haven't been involved in the majority of the debate, but the degree to which this user has been shown to be willing to waste admin's time is shocking. Continually disruptive and unhelpful. JuJube 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A slight clarification: To be fair, my block in March was in error as I misread diffs, and I reversed it as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I could be wrong but didn't User:Crum375 block Miaers 3 times this March?--Cailil ^talk 02:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct, I wasn't disputing the numbers given. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User registered in September 2006. Until March 2007 he didn't had any block, then suddenly something appeared at an article and he engaged in edit-wars, being blocked 3 times in less than a month. Maybe he is not the only one guilty of this edit-war, there is an other part involved. Blocks for edit-wars were deserved, but a ban seem excesive to me.--MariusM 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If the data in User:Cailil/Miaers_disruptive_behaviour represents a fair summary, then this is indeed a serious case. Miaers's editing and aggressive style of argument seem to have caused a big waste of time for other editors. I trust that input will be sought from several of the admins who have dealt with User:Miaers and that Miaers will have a chance to respond. EdJohnston 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. The community simply can't tolerate a user who creates such a poisonous atmosphere. Blueboy96 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Support per blueboy--TREYWiki 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the header on this page again: this is not a vote. "+1 ~~~~" style comments without contributing to the discussion are unnecessary since we don't count numbers to determine consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason to think that there's any hope for a constructive turnaround. And plenty of compelling reasons in Cailil's evidence page to go ahead and ban. The pattern here exemplifies an intent to waste everyone else's time and simply draw attention to one's self. Frankly, the complaint today about John Reaves was absurd. And while I am not at this time an egg, I used to be one, so I can speak with some authority on the matter. ··coelacan 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Miaers is currently blocked for 3RR, and so cannot participate in this discussion. S/he should probably be given a chance to speak in self-defense. I also think we might want to explore the possibility of a topical ban; Miaers has some constructive edits, and might still be a valuable editor if we can keep the problem area off-limits. So perhaps we can just ban Miaers from articles that have to do with the University of Wisconsin. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, Miaers needs the opportunity to speak here or to have their defence posted here. Personally I think their abuse of AN is extraordinary bad faith and warrants more than a topic ban. If their behaviour was limited to the edit war alone I wouldn't have made this report. That said you do have more expeience of their behviour Akhilleus--Cailil ^talk 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...I was just about to add a new entry for Miaers here, when I noticed this one! I have been involved in many of his disputes since January 2007, and I support a topic ban. Please note that he has been suspected of using anon edits during previous bans, and I see no reason that he would stop doing so if banned again. It is very hard to assume good faith in his case. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Lordmontu just fixed a couple of pointy page moves by Miaers, who moved University of Wisconsin Law School to University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School; Lordmontu reverted the move, and Miaers moved it back. A similar thing happened on University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Random and probably pointless note: Miaers is a female, she said so in her frivolous WP:ANI complaint where she whined about John Reaves "calling" her an "egg". JuJube 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Miaesrs has made constructive edits outside their "war-zone" I would change my suggestion to topic ban with probation. They do deserve another chance, their disruption of WP:AN was all related to the Univesity of Wisconsin edit-war--Cailil ^talk 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. User was not the only one who engaged in edit wars on that topic. She received blocks for that, is enough, I don't see any need for further action on this moment. There are worse users in Wikipedia then Miaers whch were not banned.--MariusM 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify for MariusM - the report isn't about the edit war alone. As stated in the report it is the waste of time they caused by gaming the system that is the primary issue. BTW I'm sure you realize that this is not a vote--Cailil ^talk 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Community ban of Ygr1 (talk · contribs)

Ygr1 (talk · contribs) has been tendentiouslt editing the Claudette Colbert article and rather subtly inserting their own point of view while removing anything that does not conform with that point of view, even if it is reliably sourced. Normally I would just say this is worth a block, but the editor has repeatedly created new accounts to get around blocks or edited from a dynamic IP, necessitating the article to be locked from editing. a ban would allow for immediate reverts on the article per WP:DENY and I think that is exactly what is needed in this situation; this individual isn't improving the article and is simply "poisoning the well" so to speak for other editors who are trying to improve it.
Some of Ygr1's other accounts include:

• Nrh15 (talk · contribs)
• Z73 (talk · contribs)
• Wptfe (talk · contribs)
• Wbrz (talk · contribs)
• IPs starting with 218 & 219 who edited Claudette Colbert
  

There may be more; Marcco09 (talk · contribs) for example has an edit history fairly consistent with Ygr1. In the end, this editor is doing more harm than good to the articles he or she is editing.--Isotope23 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. I agree that this user is doing more harm than good, and with all of the comments made by Isotope23. I feel that the community has been more than patient with Ygr1, who has shown a complete disregard for our policies and guidelines, especially in relation to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OWN. We're still experiencing the same POV pushing that was taking place two months ago with an earlier account. We've made no progress at all, and although the users have been invited to take part in discussion, they have failed to respond. They have also failed to discuss points raised on their talk pages. I think if they had demonstrated any willingness to negotiate or discuss their opinions we might have a chance of resolving this without taking the extreme step of banning, but the main obstacle seems to be their consistently blinkered attitude and unwillingness to engage in any meaningful communication. I see banning as a last resort, but the logical next step in this case, as everything else has failed. Rossrs 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All I needed to see was his contribs--nothing but "Claudette Colbert was feces." Ban. Blueboy96 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out the current line of argument this individual is using on the Claudette Colbert talkpage, essentially arguing that editors from AU should not be editing the article because Colbert's movies are not shown there (apparently Ygr1 has not heard of this new-fangled "cable TV" they have down there, including Turner Classic Movies). This sort of argument suggesting that nobody should be questioning Ygr1's POV pretty much sums up why this editor doesn't get it and should at the very least be banned from this article.--Isotope23 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For completeness it should be noted that Isotope23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is proposing this ban, was the administrator involved in many of the page protections for the Claudette Colbert article and some related blocks, and that gives him the background for the list of user names he offers in this nomination.

The extremely incivil edit summaries are very easy to see in Special:Contributions/Wptfe. User:Ygr1's comments on Talk:Claudette Colbert seem peculiar and uncooperative. Even the limited evidence offered here should be enough to justify an indefinite ban of this user from the Claudette Colbert article, though not from the Talk page. After three months he should be allowed to make his case here on this noticeboard to have his full editing rights restored. It is possible that his behavior is bad enough to deserve blocks on other grounds, but whatever enforcement that entails could happen in parallel to this editing limitation, which would allow reverts per WP:DENY on the Claudette Colbert article. EdJohnston 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the unconstructive edits and uncivil summaries, I support a full community ban. Addhoc 08:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous IP, 219.104.31.80 (talk · contribs) is now copying and pasting chunks of text from the Claudette Colbert article into Bette Davis and All About Eve, seemingly without reading either the articles, or the text being added, which is being inserted without even rewording it so that it makes sense. Considering that it's the same information he's been disputing for the Colbert article, I can't imagine it's not the work of the same editor. Also reverting edits I have made to other articles despite my explaining my reasons for my edits on the talk pages. (Talk:Carole Lombard and Talk:It Happened One Night). This is the same behaviour that happened a couple of months ago when he was blocked from editing Claudette Colbert and started tenditiously editing Vivien Leigh. As soon as one avenue is shut down, he just finds other articles to mess with. The individual edits are trivial but the overall effect is damaging. Rossrs 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus IP 219.104.3.155 (talk · contribs) has added irrelevant quotes about Colbert to Doris Day, Irene Dunne, Hedda Hopper, Veronica Lake and Paulette Goddard. No attempt to place into context, just more copy and pasting from Colbert's article. I don't these are intentionally disruptive though and I have not reverted the edits to Goddard or Lake because it kind of fits there, albeit awkwardly. I've reverted the others. Rossrs 22:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that puts matters in a new light (a topic ban would not be enough). Don't administrators have the authority to take action when an editor misbehaves this badly? Maybe the nominator, User:Isotope23, can comment on whether he thinks this request for a topic ban is still necessary. It might be better to just do what's needed and then ask for review at WP:AN, providing a list of accounts that were blocked or articles that were protected. EdJohnston 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors can be blocked for this kind of thing, but I listed this here for a ban discussion because given the nature of the IP this individual is contributing from, blocks are not going to be a very effective solution here. It's either semi-protect every article he/she starts editing in such a way, ban so the editor's contributions can be removed per WP:DENY, or simply live with the fact that the editor is going to edit articles however they see fit, sockpuppet, and generally be querulous about any criticism or questioning of their edits. To me at least, a ban is the simplest and most effective solution to this problem that has the least amount of impact on any other editors here. Originally I thought a topic ban on Cladette Colbert would be sufficient, but now I'm leaning more towards a total Wikipedia ban as it appears this individual has taken an interest an a wider range of actor and actress articles.--Isotope23 12:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some other user accounts that look like they may be from this person are Svsvtkag (talk · contribs), Fjykbgv (talk · contribs), JadaDeville (talk · contribs), and M.A.Dicker (talk · contribs). Most of the edits from these users seem to be towards Claudette Colbert film articles. In addition, there is a history of Japanese ips editing around the same time as these users. By the way, since it wasn't mentioned already, he has also made interesting edits to the Charles Boyer article. --PhantomS 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, this editor seems rather nasty and the evidence suggests that a complete community ban would help out the administrators working on this case. Since a full ban is appealable either to Arbcom or to us, if it turns out to be mistaken, does anyone object to issuing a full community ban on Ygr1 (talk · contribs)? EdJohnston 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Shocking news, and community ban proposal.

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. Our rogue administrator, Robdurbar, is apparently a sockpuppet of Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, who is known for similar actions (deleting the main page, blocking administrators, and other very disruptive things) in two rampages on Wiktionary. I propose that this person be banned for his disruptive actions. Others have hinted at starting this banning proposal based on the checkuser results, but I thought I would get it going a little early. I also wanna say, this is a bizarre way of trying to create havoc... Making good edits for a long time, becoming an administrator, then coming back and going on a 20-minute rampage. Very strange... Grandmasterka 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't there are few other indiscretions, for example blocking Jimbo? Overall, I'm not sure a discussion is required. Addhoc 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robdurbar for the original RFA. --Kim Bruning 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Three opposers: A user who opposed every RfA, a 1FA oppose, and a user who was later banned themselves. Grandmasterka 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is among the most abusive use of sockpuppets I have ever seen, and if this is the same person which went on a vandal spree on Wiktionary, I don't think we can continue to let him edit. The RFA illustrates how the user was able to deceive the community. The damage is simply too great. Support ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt a full community notice is needed. The person has proven that he/she can not be trusted on Wikipedia. Abuse of sockpuppets, a slightly maniacal vandal spree, blocking of respected Wikipedians... Ban supported. --Kzrulzuall 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An other question: He became an admin in last August. What caused him to wait this long and do it now?

My opinion of what happened: He uses a public computer in the same place that Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous is. One day he forgot to log off, and Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous took over the account. Since Robdurbar was leaving, Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous could get away with this without anyone else realizing it. In this case, the situation would be:

1. The user left Wikipedia, and then appeared all of a sudden when Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous thought it was safe for him to do this at the public computer.
2. Since Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous and Robdurbar use the same public computer, the IP address may not reveal anything about such an incident.
3. Even if I'm right, the account should be blocked, since it's been compromised by a dangerous vandal and the user seems to have no intention of returning.

Od Mishehu 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That would explain why Robdurbar waited so log to do this, which is a mystery to me too. Only one problem: Why would Robdurbar be logged in on a public computer a month after his last edit? Grandmasterka 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some things wrong with that theory, Mishehu. How unlikely is it that Robdurbar and Wonderfool were, coincidentally, in the same city, and sharing the same public computer. The odds of a previously desyssoped rogue admin, and him meeting like that is probably one in a billion.... Keep in mind that about 0.00000002% of the global population are Wikipedian admins. --Kzrulzuall 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he was logged in for that long. If you find a computer with a user logged in, you can change the e-mail address even without the password, and confirm it probably at the same sitting. Then at any later point you can, on login, press the e-mail a new password. After that, you have the other account for abuse any time you want. If you're on a public computer, you probably do want to wait a while, so that the other user can't trace you anymore.

Although a tiny population of the world is, in fact, Wikipedia admins, it's also true that most of the users with enough access to the web to be Wikipedia or Wictionary admins is not 100%. If Wonderfool lives in the same city as Rodburdar, then a chance meeting in the public library isn't out of the question - and probably a high percentage of Wikipedian admins are from the US, where public libraries with internet access are common. Od Mishehu 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Robdurbar already is effectively community-banned, I can't conceive that anyone would possibly unblock him, especially given this. But I certainly support any such ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He's banned. --Tony Sidaway 08:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, and thank Grandmasterka for bringing this to the attention of the noticeboard. Unanswerable Question: were the good contributions just a sham, or does the guy flip between light and dark? Answerable Question: Were there any warning signs we missed? Ben Aveling 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the MO of the problematic behavior at the time does look the same, the Wictionary admins didn't have a long break before the trouble. This brings back my theory presented above that the account was compromised, so we wouldn't find any warning signs. Od Mishehu 09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absent some very convincing evidence, the chance of an account being physically compromised by a different, malicious editor is very low indeed. Slightly more likely is that robdurbar had an obvious password and the account was remotely compromised. In the latter event, it isn't acceptable behavior for an administrator to leave a weak password on his account.

The matter is moot, in any case. Robdurbar was banned before ever this discussion began. The consensus of the community is strongly against unblocks in such cases. --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All these users appear to have been pretty uncontroversial prior to adminship, and during adminship, and seem to go out with a bang. It would be quite difficult to identify sockpuppets - "Hey, keep an eye on that guy who keeps his head down and doesn't kick up a fuss, he's just waiting to explode!" Also the crosswiki vandalism is disturbing. Someone should alert the more prominent Wikis about the possibility of this occurring again (although, as I say, it would be hard to pin down who would do this, as there seem to be no warning signs). Oh - and support ban. – Riana _ऋ 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if this thing does happen again, I agree that it is nearly impossible, as stated, to detect a user such as this, before gaining adminship... But the good side is that we will know what to do to counteract it. A bigger problem will be if a steward goes on a rampage.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We could conceivably pay attention to the areas Robdurbar contributed to and look for similarities in new editors. I'm willing to do a little investigation. We still have to assume this was all caused by one person without any account hacking due to the positive checkuser results. (If Od Mishehu's hypothesis was correct, the hacker would live in the same town near the same computer... Pretty long odds.) Is there a mental condition that could produce this odd behavior? Grandmasterka 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing what his intents were, any amateur diagnostics of mental conditions would be pointless. If he'd intended from the beginning to do this, and spent all that time and effort to become an admin just so he could wreak havoc, that would probably indicate perhaps some type of compulsion. On the other hand, if he just snaps under stress, well, some people snap under stress, and there are quite a few possible reasons for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is strong that Robdurbar didn't have his account hijacked. Dmcdevit has just made this edit on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (WT:RFAR) saying:

Note that CheckUser already determined that he did not have his account stolen, as, among other things, he still edits from the same university that he claimed to have been attending in his original user page (now deleted).

--Tony Sidaway 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't that make it more likely if you follow the 'theory' outlay at the top of the section? somebody in the college library jumping on after him and changing the email? I admit, long shot, but more likely then 'random cities one day in a cybercafe' -M^ask? 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They share both the university IPs and the home Tiscali ISP ranges. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I first mentioned a community ban proposal on the CheckUser request is that I needed to know which target to aim at. The threshold for a code G request (does not fit any other reason for using CheckUser) on CheckUser is probably much higher than the threshold for a code F request (we think that the account is a sock of a community banned user). If it is Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, then the community ban's scope will be wider than if we just targeted Robdurbar. I was sleeping when Grandmasterka created this community ban proposal. As for how I feel, I wholeheartedly endorse the ban because Wikipedia will suffer a perfect storm of PR nightmares if a member of a big newspaper, news magazine, or television network noticed what was going on. Jay Leno, David Letterman, and other late night jokesters would be making jokes about how it was becoming hard to tell the administrators from the vandals on Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot to mention that there is no current community ban on Wonderfool (the previous one was rescinded), nor any ArbCom ban on any of the accounts, so we need this discussion for formality's sake and CheckUser's sake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Discussion seems unnecessary. He went on a destruction spree as an admin, and checkuser revealed abusive sockpuppetry. Nobody in their right mind would unblock the main account, and new accounts can be blocked as "editing by a banned user". If you feel the need for a community ban, Tony Sidaway just gave the declaration and I'll second it: He's banned. --kingboyk 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When I filed a pro forma arbitration case to confirm Robdurbar's desysopping (a Steward had performed an emergency desysop but involuntary desysopping on En-Wiki can only be officially done by ArbCom), the arbitrators said "fine, desysopping confirmed" but I got some very strange (metaphorical) looks along the lines of "why are you bothering with this silly formality?" I suppose the same attitude would obtain here. If necessary, support ban. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Robdurbar won't be entered onto List of banned users unless this step is taken, right? If that list is to have any value, and since this is a highly bannable case, I don't see why we don't do it. I gather than this is *not yet* a ban request for User:Wonderfool. I trust that one of the proponents has verified that enough data has been collected to justify a permanent ban. If any hesitation is needed, it's because everyone seems to have a different view of what is going on. EdJohnston 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The only necessity for a community ban is community support, not useless formalities. When it is blindingly obvious (read: deletes the main page repeatedly and goes on a blocking spree, after doing it on Wiktionary, after doing it on Wiktionary, after being banned by the ArbCom once before for creating nihilartikels) there is no legal proceeding necessary. Please read Tony Sidaway's insightful comment above. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not permanent even if they're on that list. They can appeal. They could come back in a few years time and say "sorry guys, I had problems but I've treated". Whatever. The point is that nobody but nobody can reasonably object to a ban at this point in time, and if it takes adding it to that list for it to be "official" (sigh) consider it done. --kingboyk 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats stopping him from being added without this? Were not a beauracracy, and you are free to ignore and formalities of process. Don't go wonky. He was banned, we dont need any more discussion really. Add him. -M^ask? 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that we know the sockmaster, this is a ban request for Wonderfool. Robdurbar is considered one of his socks. Jesse Viviano 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it slightly silly that we're considering the fact that someone from Wonderfool's same home ISP and same university, with the same interests in pop music and English national football team-related articles, with French also as his secondary language, who complains that his IP was blocked from Wiktionary, and so on, happened to have his account compromised in some way, and it happened to have been taken over by Wonderfool himself. "Why did he wait so long" comments are missing the point that he's done this twice before, and has in each case been a diligent admin for months. I don't see the point in trying to psychoanalyze him. Now, he caused a fewminutes of chaos, but let's move on. No one (who doesn't wan to get immediately checkusered upon suspicion of being another Wonderfool) is going to consider unblocking him. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way you look at it, this looks bad. At best, you've got a guy who's clearly got a serious mental problem. At worst, you've got an admin who had no business being an admin. I also noticed he didn't give any reasons for these mass blocks. In either case, this can't be tolerated. Ban--and if someone hasn't contacted his school, get on the horn. Blueboy96 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish that I could say the same about a discussion not being necessary, but I noticed that the CheckUser clerks are extreme sticklers for formality. Some CheckUser requests on User:Bobabobabo got either derailed or seriously hindered because there was no community ban discussion. That is why I wanted to propose the community ban myself. However, Grandmasterka beat me to it while I was asleep. Jesse Viviano 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's silly, and easily fixed: [6]. Now can we cut all this silly procedure? Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred the text "List here with proof beyond all reasonable doubt that this user is banned by the community or by Jimbo Wales." This way, some simple vandalism block will not trigger code F, but Robdurbar's admin log, block log, and his user rights log where he lost his sysop bit would have been admissible for code F. Also, this will allow ban discussions and canonize the use of code F that was used for Jimbo Wales bans like the one on Primetime. Jesse Viviano 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban recorded at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#R. Please feel free to copyedit/fine tune/list the sockpuppets, whatever, not that any of this bureacracy is really necessary of course... --kingboyk 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#W, because we were discussing a ban for Wonderfool, of which Robdurbar is a sock. Jesse Viviano 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To a naive observer, it might seem that this thread has reached a conclusion. Does anyone have more to say? Would there be a consensus that I can apply the templates to 'close' this thread? EdJohnston 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul's previous interaction with Wonderfool

Wonderfool was previously caught creating hoax articles. He bragged about how his university had a single IP shared across the entire campus, so there's no way we would dare block it, and that he planned to continue doing it. Well, long story short, I did block the university, with a message for the university tech people to email me. 12 hours later, I got an email from their sysadmin asking what's going on, I explained the problem to them, and they were *VERY* angry with him. He later apologized, and asked to be unblocked, which (feeling generous) I did.

Given the latest events, I'm tempted to dig up my old contacts with his university and let them know what he's been doing now. Raul654 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I said I would never log on again acting as Robdurbar, but I would like to make it clear that I am not Wonderfool, or related to him in any way. The fact that he went/goes to the same university as myself (as it would appear) is coincidence, but that is all it is. Clearly there is no way that I can prove this, other than to note that I e-mailed dmcdevit yesterday noting this and so he does have my e-mail address; he and Raul (who I presume has the details of Wonderfool) could possibly contact each other and cross check to see that we have different ones; OK that doesn't prove anything, but then two users using ip addys open to ~15 000 people doesn't prove anything either.

  When I e-mailed dc it was more a minor pride thing (I don't want to be noted as a sock of some other guy!) but I really felt I had to speak out now. 129.234.4.76 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, if this is really Robdurbar, while you're here, would you mind explaining exactly what the heck was going through your head that morning? Newyorkbrad 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd rather not, it seemed much more funny with all the wild rumours going about. Truth be told, I was bored revising and thought 'that'll be a 10 minute laugh'. Nothing more, nothing less. Frankly, I'm surprised no one's done it before - after all, it stands to reason that anyone who gets bored enough to edit Wikipedia enough to become an admin must get bored easily. I was intrigued as to how quickly the community would react, what would happen if there was no main page (I was a bit disapointed it just went to the normal 'this page does not exist' thing), etc.

      Actually, the weird thing is that Wonderfool has edited a lot fairly similar articles to me - on football, cycling, places etc. Still, afraid it's that dull - no illnesses, no high-jackers, no 'wikisuicide', no agenda, no disgruntlement and no sockpuppets. --Drinkheavy 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • And oh shit, I've just done that using my new account. Suppose that'll get blocked now. D'oh! Drinkheavy 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Universities

I think that people might have leapt to conclusions on shaky evidence, here. Dmcdevit states above that Robdurbar used the "same home ISP and same university" as Wonderfool. Having cross-checked the two, I disagree (whilst, I, too, noted the shared languages and interests). There is strong evidence that Wonderfool edited from 131.251.0.7 (talk · contribs), an IP address assigned to Cardiff University. And as any administrator can check (although I'm not going to provide detail), Robdurbar's deleted user page mentions an entirely different university (in a different country, even). Similarly, 129.234.4.76 (talk · contribs), claiming to be Robdurbar above, is an IP address assigned to Durham University. I strongly recommend, Raul654, that you double-check the university before assuming that this is Wonderfool. Uncle G 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm by no means certain, but didn't WF claim he left Cardiff some time last year? I can't find or remember where he said that [probably on wikt, I'd guess, since *I've* seen it], but if anyone else remembers, it may be worth checking it out. \Mike(z) 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

requested site ban for User:Anacapa

I detailed a report of long-term disruption by the then dormant user:Anacapa two weeks ago. They are the user who attacked project gender studies [7][8] manipulated criticism sections in women's studies[9] [10] and have bullied other editors on a rewrite of misandry[11][12]. Anacapa uses the alias "(drop in editor)" to sign-off while using anon IPs and has used this identity to Troll gender studies related articles.

On April 30th Anacapa's user account was reactivated and they are now engaged in an edit war on Shunning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [13] [14].

The previous report on Anacapa did not receive enough support for a sanction. This may have been due to Anacapa's dormancy. I do apologize for having to make a second report but Anacapa has returned and is wasting editors' time and creating a poisonous atmosphere in the articles they are involved with.

The updated report page is here (perma link), detailing the connection between Anacapa's POVpushing and disruptive behaviour. I urge users to review the report (apologies for its length) to understand the depth and scope of Anacapa's disruption since September 2006.

I'm requesting a site ban for Anacapa and their IPs. They have bullied and disrupted across a number of articles for months, switching from their account to multiple IPs.--Cailil ^talk 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose. Banning should not be used to resolve content disputes, except if the dispute has become more than a content dispute, generally after all else as failed. However, I do not see evidence of other dispute resolution methods having been attempted, or of incivility that would make this more than a content dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Content dispute. Edit war after account reactivation not enough documented with only two diffs. Switching from their account to multiple IPs not proved.--MariusM 12:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would point out this is not a content dispute. This is long term complex disruption. I do understand this page is not for content disputes, I have only provided 2 diffs for Shunning here because I have at least 6 on the report page. The evidence of account switching is there too. Some of this ground is covered in the previouis discussion. Pesonally I consider remarks like "What childish crap from both edgarde and poole." [15] to be extremely uncivil, more evidence of incivility is once again in the report. I would also just add for clarity I am not involved in the Shunning content dispute--Cailil ^talk 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No previous blocks for Anapaca and you want him banned? Take a rest. If he engage in edit-wars, try a 3RR report.--MariusM 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen worse. I recommend private mediation. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the negative reaction this time around. The only reason Anacapa wasn't topic/site banned last time is due to lack of urgency due to the fact that the account had been dormant. Now that it's active again, needs to be shutdown quickly. I do support a community topic ban from related articles. SirFozzie 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting private mediation is a negative reaction? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yours was just the one right before I hit reply, sorry. The comment by Marius was primarily what I was responding to. SirFozzie 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm glad we cleared that up.  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anacapa has been notified of this report and been invited to comment here. As has User:Jbolden1517--Cailil ^talk 18:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I guess the report here has not been laid out obviously if people are getting the impression that this is a content dispute. "Drop in editor" trolled WP:GS for months with off-topic badgering, and the project page had to be semi-protected to keep them from disrupting it. There are many diffs in the evidence page; I like this one for its condensed trollery: "totalitarian thought control", "man-hate", "fascist gender-feminists", "ugly totalitarian tactics". These are not the words of a person willing to work with others to build a collaborative encyclopedia. This is only incitement. I do not read WT:GS so I have not been an ongoing witness to this; my patience is exhausted by these diffs alone. ··coelacan 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really Armed Blowfish, what Coelacan is quoting is flamebaiting. Its also POVPUSH. I hope you don't mind if I ask, what part of the report/evidence page is deficient?--Cailil ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • The policy essay you link POVpush to encourages fair representation of all majority and significant minority viewpoints, and was written in order to help editors with opposing viewpoints reach a consensus. By asking for a block for "point of view pushing", you are asking us to block an editor over a content dispute. The quotes you refer to as "flamebaiting" look to me like they are opinions about article content, not personal attacks against individual editors. Certainly, you could call those opinions morally offensive, but it is still basically a content dispute. What is lacking is evidence that this has escalated far beyond a content dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC), 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Armedblowfish I made an incorrect link - shouldhave been WP:POVPUSH (all caps). And I respectfully disagree, as I think do Coelacan and Sir Fozzie, and the others who supported the last report - that's flamebaiting. And no I'm asking for a ban because of complex disruption or complex vandalism - which ever wording you prefer. "What is lacking is evidence that this has escalated far beyond a content dispute" This is about edits, over months, to a number of articles - some I am not involved with some I am involved with. Sources have been misrepresented as stated in the report. The WikiProject Gender Studies was vandalized. SecondSight's rewrite of misandry was stymied by Trolling. This is not a content dispute this is disruptive behaviour. If you disagree that's fine that opposition is recorded and noted. PS I didn't know you were an admin--Cailil ^talk 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this reaches the level of an indefinite ban yet, I don't see any previous blocks. I would certainly caution Anacapa, though, that blocks and bans are not too far down the road he's walking along. I would much advise he slows down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• I prefer "complex disruption" over "complex vandalism". Vandalism is reserved for a conscious effort to hurt encyclopaedia articles, not just an incorrect idea of what helps encyclopaedia articles, e.g. a skewed idea of what neutrality is. Disruption can have the same effect without that kind of negative intent.
• In case it makes the idea more palatable, private mediation would give the mediator a chance to rehash arguments to make them less offensive. (P.S. I didn't say I was an admin.)
• Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• I respectfully disagree with the view that this proposal is about a content dispute. Cailil contacted me several times during the preparatory phase and modeled it after my report on the Joan of Arc vandal. Sneaky vandals often attempt to dodge scrutiny by trying to mask a disruptive campain by trying to give it the superficial facade of an edit dispute. Although I did not recommend that Cailil begin a new ban thread at this time, I do think she has identified a genuine vandal and I support the siteban proposal. Durova^Charge! 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me dropping in unannounced, but I had to chuckle at the irony here... Durova, according to Cailil's user page, she's a he :-) --YFB ¿ 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• How do you propose we tell the difference between sneaky vandals and those with minority opinions? If it is indeed vandalism, I am sure mediation would fail, although it could fail anyway. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, vandalism is in bad faith, for starters, and merely expressing a minority opinion is not. Of course, there are certainly ways of expressing a minority opinion that are vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 08:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Armed Blowfish is asking a good question what is 'minority opinion and what is vandalism?' The line was crossed in this case when sources were misrepresented and when policies (WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS at the time) were quoted ad nauseum to Anacapa were ignored or mocked by them (ie their characterization of consensus as 'bad group think'); when they disregarded WP:AGF by calling other editors fascists when they asked for sources. I'm concerned that Anacapa knows Wikipedia's rules and knows how to attack pages and avoid detection. They first had an edit war on Feminism in February 2006. At that time they were asked for sources. People are still asking them to source material 15 months later. Either this is a blatant disregard for policy or it is bad faith POVpush. The multipost, the repeated attacks on WT:GS & WP:GS (throwing NPOV templates on the project page for instance), all point towards breachs of WP:AGF rather than a newbie NPOV mistake.

There would not be a complex issue if Anacapa had used their own account to make all of their edits, but they used multiple IPs so that the edits (and any warnings associated with them) could not be attributed to one user - which would have resulted in obvious need for a block. The question has to be asked why didn't Anacapa create a legal second account or just use their own account for these edits? I believe they know exactly how disruptive their edits have been & made a calculated choice to use anon IPs because clearly they hadn't forgotten about ther account.

The reason I made this submission at this time was because I wanted Anacapa's input here, I felt it proper they answer this report if they can. I hope they do. I would also just like to apologise to Armedblowfish in case I was agressive in last nights posts, no matter how serious this case is its not worth falling out with a good editor. I would also take on board Seraphimblade's point if it is considered a topic ban is more appropriate I will alter my request to that. I would urge ediors that this is a serious and complex case, as Durova has pointed out. IMHO Anacapa has been careful to mask their behaviour - hence the length of my report. I would also like to mention SirFozzie's point, the previous report wasn't seen as urgent becuase Anacapa was dormant - they are active now and their behaviour is just as bad as ever. I'm sorry for the length of this post but my opening request may not have been as clear as it could be.--Cailil ^talk 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A further note. Taking on board Seraphimblade's points, an alternatively if we can agree that Anacapa is the user behind the IPs in the report and the edits by them, I would propose warning Anacapa (and making them aware that their IPs are included in that warning) about their behaviour (past & present) per WP:DE, WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:POVPUSH & WP:TEND/WP:SOAP. If that could be agreed I will withdraw my site ban request--Cailil ^talk 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Was any checkuser or other evidence linking Anacapa with the IPs? In my first comment I pointed that this was not proved. Anyhow, the idea of mediation, suggested by Armed Blowfish, seems reasonable. As a general rule, before a ban, other steps in dispute resolution should be tried, and also some blocks of limited period.--MariusM 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your post MariusM. I do understand usual proceedure but this case is unusual. As regards Anacapa's link to (drop in editor), did you look at the report section detailing the 3 IPs used by Anacapa & drop in editor. If needs be I could list all the pages used by Anacapa and used identically by a number of the IPs. I have also shown in the report where Anacapa and (drop in editor) use the same phrases to describe feminism. Also as stated in the report no checkuser has been requested--Cailil ^talk 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support any/all remedies except banning (mediation, arbcom, topic ban, term block). I have observed Anacapa's ownership and POV issues on the incest article, and I think it's regrettable that matters weren't proceeded with during the time prior to his sabbatical from WP, because if he had been sanctioned or if sanctions had been agreed-upon, I would support a ban. As it is, because of the lack of mediation/escalation of intervention/sanctions (despite the evidence, which I feel is persuasive), I think a community ban is inappropriate at this time. Let this be an addition to the body of evidence that it pays to proceed with formal complaints etc even when a contentious editor seems to have left. Anchoress 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

Request assistance, advisement, and possible blocking of user Pdelongchamp from editing videoblogging article.

Charges are long term "delete trolling" (aka. "blanking vandalism"), "retributive editing" and threatening other users with blocking.

1) User deletes every contribution at least once.

Over the last year to two years user has attempted to have article deleted outright and upon failure has deleted every single one of thousands upon thousands of edits to the article at least once and more often then not multiple times despite attempts to appease him with citations and edits. This despite only one or two original contributions himself.

Delete's are almost always automatic, occurring within hour or days of contribution allowing no time or room for response, contribution or improvement by other contributors. User's deletes hence dominate article, disrupting activity on said wikipedia article and prohibiting other willing users from collaborating.

User cites frivolous reasons unworthy of automatic and outright deletion like "original research" and "needs citations" on these deletes despite repeated attempts to work with him by members of the community over the long term and repeated citations of wikipedia's editing policy, particularly the section "perfection is not required" and information contained therein on proper deletion procedure.

Please consider this emphasis. User has deleted EVERY contribution at least once if not multiple times. This is not an exaggeration. Article has been withered down by user to a stub of less than 500 words multiple times in the last two years and all contributions (no matter how obvious the value may seem or how obvious the good intentions of the contributor) have to be submitted multiple times and/or by multiple contributors and often debated before said user will admit them to the article, if said user 'allows' them at all, and often only to delete them months later.

Most recently the user deleted over 90% of the article and is currently involved in an edit war with multiple members of the community who have attempted to work with him to re-establish the article.

2) Retributive editing

User has edited other articles or attempted to have them deleted as a form of retribution.

In less than 10 edits and a relative number of minutes the user went from reverting a contribution to the videoblogging article to going through that users past contributions deleted edits and attempted to have 3 different articles deleted. Actually succeeding on one count.

This was admittedly my edit and my contributions, but they were others articles of which I had only made minor contributions and having nothing to do with the videoblogging article. It's as plain a case of retribution as I can find and shows alarming spitefulness and willingness to jeopardize a great amount by others and on other topics that are in no way connected to the videoblgging article.

(note re: "retributive editing" - I could find no other language for it so you'll have to pardon the terminology. Have been unable to find any other information on it, if you know it by another name or have any documentation on subject please respond.)

3) User has threatened users with blocking.

User has repeatedly threatened me with blocking in editing disputes despite being advised disputes are not a block-able offense.

Summation

Despite what can be considered nothing less than tremendous patience over the past two years because of the above and other actions I believe the community no longer assumes this user is editing in good faith. I believe I can speak on behalf of the community on this matter but am prepared to back it up with dozens if not hundreds of signatures of community members by whatever method you deem necessary. I also believe wether blocking be in order, or another form of action that the community would like a chance to send this user a message with their consensus on the matter to restore faith in the wikipedia editing process.

I believe the user in question wishes the article deleted or at the least he is trolling the community in an attempt for either attention or simply to frustrate and waste the time / energy of the community. He has succeeded in the last two years in driving off many well intentioned long term editors, and in bringing the evolution of the article to a complete standstill.

User is basically holding an entire community of would be contributors hostage with a delete button.

I believe there is more than enough evidence (2 years worth) and community consensus, I can virtually ensure 100's of signatures if there is a procedure for requesting a block.

Will be happy to cite in wikipedia history well documented proof of all above points at your request.

Please advise on how to proceed.

Thank you, -Michael Meiser --mmeiser 07:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find dispute resolution more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be verifiable and reliably sourced. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you open a discussion regarding an editor here, you should let that editor know that they are being discussed. I've notified the editor in question. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade for your prompt reply. I was just about to leave a comment to notify him. Regarding the content dispute process. I don't believe it's a content dispute though I'll try anything that may help. We've already tried at least one other form of dispute resolution and I'm definitely willing to try other things, but this has been a chronic issue lasting for longer than I can remember. (I think it's been almost two years now.) I have lost my patience with him once or twice personally, admitedly its very hard not get frustrated when this goes on for so long, but there are two dozen others who are ready to tar and feather him. I'll just be happy if this can progress toward some resolution that ends up seeing the vidoeblogging article evolve again. It's not right that noone has gotten to contribute to the article over the last year or so because he simply automatically deletes every contrib. I haven't yet totaled the number of deletes nor the number of contributors... it's next on my plate. But I'm guessing he approaches 40%+ of all edits since this began and has deleted several thousand edits by several hundred editors. It's not a matter of being selective either. He deletes everything if not immediately then sooner or later.--mmeiser 08:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs of the disputed behavior, and of other editors who have criticized it? Something to actually look at would be very helpful here, remember pretty much no one here is as familiar with the issue as you are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cannot simply provide "some diffs" because the abuse has been chronic and long term... I would have to submit the entire contribs history of the videoblogging article. Have expended a lot of energy on this issue and is being hotly debated on the videoblogging group. (Over 100 emails in the last 24-48 hours.) Am going to let it cool of for about 48 hours. Am preparing empirical analysis of edit history. Totale edits by all users vs. Pdelongchamp's total edits vs. total number of reversions by Pdelongchamps... this I think will be the best approach, as this is not about particular edits, but a chronic, long term abuse of the reversion and deletes tool. If you can think of any other way I can illustrate that the user in fact deletes every contribution on the article wether it is submitted once or multiple times with increased sourcing without simply pointing to the contribs history please let me know. It's a tough nut to crack but I suspect the community will also come through with their testimonials, particular grievences, votes and consensus on the matter. Have submitted user for banning on issue, bat am also actively looking for alternatives, advisement on courses of action.--mmeiser 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this request to ban user:Pdelongchamp. For almost a year now he has continually deleted just about everything that the videoblogging community has tried to add to this article. Here's one of his versions from August 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&oldid=68939765 and another from April 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&oldid=124431636 During this time many people have spent countless hours working on this article only to have everything (and more) deleted from it by this user. Michael Verdi

Pdelongchamp's Contributions

My edits and deletions are done with encyclopedic reasons. Here is a list of the edits I have made to which Mmeiser is referring. I think it's pretty ironic that i'm the one citing my controversial examples however I beleive these edits will give you a better picture of the dispute ocurring between myself and Mmeiser.

• July 16, 2007: Mmeiser creates a section or original research called Underpinnings.
• July 17, 2006: I try to encourage Mmeiser in the talk page to add sources hoping the section isn't original research.
• July 26, 2007: I eventually removed "Underpinnings" claiming it is original research
  • Edit Summary (→Underpinnings - sorry, this is one big piece of original research with no sources. Post on your own site, let it gain widespread acceptance. Once it's published by a reliable source, quote from it)
• August 6, 2006: Mmeiser reinstates the original research offering no reason or edit summary.
• August 8, 2006: I remove the section again.
  • (→Historical context - No sign of notable sources. Only source provided is an article with no mention of vlogging. Only possible conclusion: Original Research)
• August 12, 2006: The vlog article is nominated for deletion in an AfD bundle including a dozen other Types of blogs by Serpent's Choice because it is "unverifiable", "neologistic", contains "admitted dictionary definitions", "a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use", and "original research."
  • August 17, 2006Mmeiser's response is to get around the AfD by removing the word blog from the article.
  • August 17, 2006: My response was to add sources to the article
• August 22, 2006: Mmeiser disagrees with the source used and removes it without finding a better source.
  • His edit summary: (Magazines are NOT sources of definitions! Pdelongchamp with all do politeness, you do realize you're out of control, and if you don't stop it I shall be forced to call you out on it.)
• August 22, 2006: In the same batch of edits, Mmeiser reinstated the OR section Underpinnings providing no edit summary.
• August 25, 2006:I reverted his unsourced changes and reinstate the sourced definition.

An edit war was ocurring recently. Mmeiser has been reinstating the OR that was cited during the deletion nomination along with an indiscriminate collection of links. When deleted, a discussion was started on the talk page but instead of a discussion, I got a long ranting personal attack from Mmeiser. (diff)

This is a small example of what I've been dealing with in the last year. I am much more lenient with other editors often finding sources to back up what may have started off as OR. However, Mmeiser has shown an unwillingness to source his contributions and with him I don't bother with messages anymore.

Just to show that I also contribute to wikipedia, here are some examples:

• I created the references section and sourced the definition:
  • 17 August 2006, Edit Summary: (corrected and sourced the definition, cleaned up and corrected the name section. videoblog is not a portemanteau of video and log.)
• Asked Steve Garfield to source his Timeline event then helped him properly reference it in the article
  • 31 August 2006, Edit Summary: (wikified the reference to steve, woohoo, sources!)
• I searched and found a better source for the definition
  • 7 September 2006, Edit Summary: (rv def back to stevegarfield's edit - not sure why it was replaced, the other source didn't relate to the text)
• I researched the use of the term vlog and initiated the request to have the article be renamed to Video blog
  • 21 February 2007, Edit Summary by GTBacchus: (moved Vlog to Video blog: per move request; see talk page for discussion)
• After Mmeiser requested commenting by an Admin, I was the one who implemented the suggestions.
  • April 24, 2007
  • I added an brief explanation of the term Vlog with sources.
• I added a sourced timeline event
  • April 30, 2007
• I added multiple sources to the timeline
  • May 1, 2007
• I added another source to timeline
  • May 1, 2007

Pdelongchamp 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to the alegation that I threatened Mmeiser with a block, I did at one point try to discourage him from reverting unsourced work by utilizing a template message (Addition of unsourced material without proper citations) with varying levels of severity. I added a new level everytime a disruptive edit was made. I didn't have the energy to discuss every revert so I tried template messages. In retrospect, it was a bad idea. Pdelongchamp 13:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Pdelongchamp 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Perusing the diffs from Pdelongchamp, and noting that mmeiser did not provide any diffs, I fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced material is not welcome on Wikipedia. EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like "this person won't let me put original research in the article and this is unfair". -Amarkov moo! 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let alone anything that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable material or original research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for anyone that upholds that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or isn't User:MichaelVerdi very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an 11 hour old account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird that User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's suggestion. I hope they're aware of WP:MEAT. Apologies if I'm wrongheaded here--Cailil ^talk 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LionheartX

User:LionheartX, a ban-evading sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX User:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tH User:Guardian_Tiger User:Apocalyptic_Destroyer and User:ApocalypticDestroyer's was previously community banned (or indef. blocked)[16] per this thread on AN/I for being an abusive, disruptive sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template Here's what arbitrator and admin User:Dmcdevit had to say about one of the socks. [[17]] After multiple attempts to wikilawyer and as well as abuse of the unblock template on User talk:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tH User talk:Guardian_Tiger, his talkpages were protected by admins, [18] [19] [20] which resulted in more sockpuppetry and evasion. Admin User:Nlu was lenient and agreed to give LionheartX another chance despite all of these violations, disruption, and sockpuppetry (ban-evasion). [21] But also made it clear that LionheartX is on a very short leash and that other admins are not bound by his decision. User:BenAveling, the main advocate who campaigned for Lion's unblock also made it clear that Lion is on a very short leash [22] After more disruptions followed, admin User:Durova indef. blocked the sock account User:LionheartX per [23] [24] The block was overturned one week under cloudy and controversial circumstances. Nevertheless, Lion was advised to stay out of trouble [25]. I have always been a victim of Lion (and his previously socks) tendency to stalk, spam, and harass. Several harassment campaign has been launched by LionheartX to drive me out of wikipedia. The newest one started couple of weeks ago even though he was advised to stay away from me and to stop harssing me. [26] This didn't stop him to orchestrate an anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign by proxy. (spamming usertalkpages to campaign to ban me)[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. Spamming in my arbCom case with User:Ideogram [[38]] (there are way too many diffs so just glance through his contributions and you'll see it) and stalk my contributions and POV pushing . [[39]] [[40]] [[41]] [[42]], disrupt Wikipedia:Changing username [[43]] [[44]] [[45]], wikilawyering, and spamming/canvassing [[46]] [[47]] [[48]]. These are the very reasons why he got banned. I strongly urge the community to community ban this user. This isn't about me (even though I am his favorite target), it's about exhausting the community's patience and abusive/disruptive/ban-evasion in general. We should enforce the ban and resolve this issue once and for all. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This community ban request is clearly vindictive and is highly inappropriate. Certified.Gangsta is filing this community ban request in response to evidence submitted during his ArbCom case. Certified.Gangsta is currently facing strong ArbCom sanctions and is not in any position to attack other editors. Certified.Gangsta is clearly misrepresenting the situation. My account was never banned. See the dates on the WP:ANI threads, the most relevant and recent WP:ANI thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. My account was clearly unblocked with the support of many other administrators[49][50]. Certified.Gangsta has no evidence for his allegations of policy violations from my account, but is making unjustified accusations. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram for Certified.Gangsta's ArbCom case, which is still not over, and see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Workshop for diffs of his site violations. The only person violating policy here is Certified.Gangsta, who has extensively made personal attacks, aggresively edit warred, and has a long history of policy violations. Certified.Gangsta has extensively canvassed in an attempt to have my account blocked. Certified.Gangsta is filing this in an attempt to gain leverage in a large number of China-Taiwan content disputes, and this request should definitely be dismissed as such.

Note: Certified.Gangsta previously edited under the following names:

• Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Certified.Gangsta was previously known as Bonafide.hustla and Freestyle.king before he changed his username twice. See Certified.Gangsta's long block log [51] [52] [53]. Please note thatCertified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted that he abused sockpuppets and created the attack account, N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).See [54] [55]. The specific diffs are present here in Certified.Gangsta's Arbitration case, which is still not over. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_LionheartX. Strong sanctions should definitely be carried out against Certified.Gangsta; he has clearly exhausted the community's patience. Thanks. LionheartX 09:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As per the top of this page, "community ban requests should be a last resort". No attempt at dispute resolution has been made by Certified.Gangsta. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ben Aveling, and suggest that Certified.Gangsta should try a user conduct RFC or mediation. It's not easy to judge the validity of a lengthy case made here by someone like Certified.gangsta who has a record at Arbcom. Certified.gangsta himself has been the subject of a user conduct RFC and a discussion at this noticeboard in March, which ended with the transfer of his case to Arbcom. LionheartX's block log shows that Durova undid his sockpuppet block in March as a mistake. Background on the reasons for his unblocking is at [56]. If LionheartX did misbehave on the Arbcom pages, Arbcom will surely be able to deal with that. It is clear that there have been edit wars between Certified.Gangsta and LionheartX in the past. If there is any problem with LionheartX's editing that deserves to be brought here, someone else should bring it. EdJohnston 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mudaliar and User:Venki123 are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is posted by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal community ban on User:Licorne

Licorne (talk · contribs · block log) was banned for one year by ArbCom for personal attacks, POV-pushing and unwillingness to cooperate. Two days after the decision came down, admin Fastfission blocked him indefinitely for anti-Semitic personal attacks.

Seeing that I want to eventually be an admin, I've looked at the case, and my feeling is that for legal reasons we ought to formally convert this into a community ban. He evaded the original ArbCom block at least four times by using anonymous IPs--that by itself merits a community ban.

To clarify--while no admin in his right mind would unblock someone who made the kind of anti-Semitic attacks he made, I shudder at the thought of this guy having a window to bring legal action. We need to close it.Blueboy96 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Licorne has already been entered on List of banned users. Please go and look at his entry there. Does anyone object to having this noticeboard ratify his inclusion there? Does anyone feel that we should request that more evidence be supplied here before doing that? Can anyone familiar with the case offer a brief summary of the evidence? Thanks, EdJohnston 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why we need to ratify this. While the fact that he evaded the original ArbCom ruling at least four times is by itself grounds for a community ban, my feeling is that we need to endorse Fastfission's unilateral ban for legal reasons, Though personally, it was completely warranted from my cursory look at his talk page. Here's the last version before User:Joke137 protected it.Blueboy96 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Licorne was a POV-pusher of the worst kind on Albert Einstein and related articles. He turned out to be an antisemitic asshole (word chosen after careful deliberation and in lack of something stronger in my active vocabulary) of the worst kind. See this if you have a strong stomach, or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne for more details. Several editors threatened to leave Wikipedia for good if he was allowed to go on. --Stephan Schulz 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Juan Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been fully protected for over two weeks due to a "persistent edit war" involving Commodore Sloat and Armon. Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon/Outside comments contains an extensive argument between these two users, with no apparent end in sight. Additionally, both Commodore Sloat and Armon appear to have an extensive history of edit warring, having both been blocked many times for 3RR violations. Rather than locking the entire community out of Juan Cole until (or if) the users responsible for the edit warring can negotiate a solution, I suggest that the article be reduced to semi-protection, and that Commodore Sloat and Armon be placed on community revert probation for a period of three months. They would be limited to one reversion per page per week, except when reverting under the circumstances described in Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions. Such a remedy would effectively prevent Commodore Sloat and Armon from participating in edit wars for the next three months, and would allow them the opportunity to develop proficiency in more harmonious editing techniques. John254 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight

Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone from being mildly disruptive to engaging in edit warring (4 3RR blocks in two months) and now egregious insults."Well, fuck you, you little piece of shit" His contributions are those of a Single purpose account, working almost exclusively on articles related to trying to add oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation to articles related to the events of September 11, 2001. I believe the community has had enough of this kind of behavior and an indefinite ban or similar sanction is mandatory. An Rfc has been filed on Lovelight here, but I think this is a waste of time.--MONGO 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I believe a community ban is warranted. His contribution is limited to repeated WP:POINT violations, 3RR violations as well as just general disruption in addition to the issues cited above. --Tbeatty 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I also believe it is warranted. He takes up far more time from editors and admins than his contributions warrant. Unfortunately, based on his behavior and what he has implied in his talk postings, I fear he will come come back as a vandal of similar quality to Cplot. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I have to agree as well. I tried to reason with this person, and (s)he just will not listen. I think it's inevitably headed for an ArbCom ban at this point, so we may as well save the trouble. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban, has crossed the line. SirFozzie 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Statement from Lovelight, posted here by request[57]

  "Please note that noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution."

• I think this is a good case for an indefinite ban. It appears to me that the fellow is only here to fight. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another statement from Lovelight[58]: (--StuffOfInterest 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

  Well Tony, you are wrong, have you visited related talk page, have you checked related history, are you aware of the issue(s) here or did you just took a look at my "representative" talk space? Please, if you are to endorse this, then at least find some good will and time to go through the history which led to this point. Thanks. Lovelight 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lovelight asked to have his previous two statements replaced with the following[59]: (--StuffOfInterest 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

  Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. Please check related history I'm afraid my talk space is not "representative", at least, if you don't take a closer look. I'd appreciate, if you would find some time and good will to check the facts. Thanks. Lovelight 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• MongoLovelight's observation about the complexity and ambiguity of this case may be important: "Lovelight has gone from being only mildly disruptive, to edit warring and down right offensive." I would argue for continuing the RfC in order to better understand this process. I have some experience in this vein and can imagine how someone with Lovelight's views has been received on arrival. Seraphimblade could provide examples of his attempts to reason with Lovelight, and other opportunities to go from mildly disruptive to mildly constructive could be examined. It does seem to me that Lovelight is no longer capable of taking even his own struggle here seriously. I'm just not at all sure that's his fault alone.--Thomas Basboll 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what oftentimes happens when POV pushers meet continued resistance against their efforts. They can either work with the consensus, become an edit warrior, or file frivilous Rfc's and arbcom cases to try and get their way...impuning the integrity of those that have worked hard to keep Wikipedia a respectable and reliable referece base.--MONGO 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part: the way POV pushers are treated these days often turns them into edit warriors at an early age, if you will, instead of just going away. Banning them without an RfC may well turn them into vandals. This same treatment, however, also causes people who are not POV pushers to either leave or file RfC's with the hope of improving the rhetorical climate. It is possible to work hard doing the wrong thing, even with good intentions.--Thomas Basboll 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to work with Lovelight are on User talk:Lovelight, if you'd like to look at them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I support an indefinite ban. Crum375 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Since we have seen no expression of guilt or fault whatsoever from Lovelight, I am forced to support a community ban. (I started the RfC moments before he was blocked for 3RR. Again.) --Golbez 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• With the qualification that Lovelight is entitled to attempt some defence if possible, I support the indefinite ban. This is simply not a "complex or ambiguous" case - the evidence clearly demonstrates that he (she) is not merely disagreeing in good faith, but is intentionally disrupting Wikipedia with no constructive purpose. He promotes edits that he himself knows to be incorrect or misleading (at times even providing sources that contradict his own assertions), holds the contrary contributions of other editors to a completely different standard than his own, and wilfully violates WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Peter Grey 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would observe that there are two questions here:

• 1. has this fellow been blocked correctly?
     • If so then could whoever keeps broadcasting this fellow's pleas for an RFC please stop? It'd gone beyond Requests for comment if we're discussing a fellow who has already been correctly blocked for one week for egregious edit warring, came out of that and got himself correctly blocked for another two weeks.
  2. Do we call it a day with this editor?
     • If the answer to the first question is "yes", I would suggest that it's going to take a very, very big counter-argument to make this fellow appear worth expending even more effort on.

So we should pay a lot of attention to the answer to question 1. For upon that question hinges the future of this fellow. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his block log and talk page, the answer to 1) is, 'Yes, certainly.' Lovelight's defense for persistent edit warring has always been that he is telling The Truth about What Really Happened on 9/11, and so should not be limited by the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bye bye Lovelight. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Re:Tom Harrison: Indeed, that's exactly what I found when I blocked him a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to comment on the whether or not to community-ban him; however, his attitude suggests strongly that he has no interest in functioning as a member of our community. Heimstern Läufer 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can we permablock him already? --Golbez 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He is currently under a 2 week block. It appears there is consensus to community ban Lovelight but there is no rush as he can't do anything disruptive with the 2 week block. I don't anticipate any more comments or exonerations but keeping it open does no harm. --Tbeatty 06:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, all of his current activities are limited to his own talk page. Unfortunately, he apears to be using his talk page in an attempt to debate others. At this point he should be worried about continuing to enjoy edit privledges but instead he is still rehashing the same issues as usual. It is probably time to pull the trigger and wait for the inevitable appeal to ArbCom. I won't do it being that I've had past involvement. --StuffOfInterest 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. He s now using his talk page for personal attacks. Please ban him ASAP and protect is talk page. --Tbeatty 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Result

I have indefinitely blocked Lovelight until if/when there can by an Arbitration opinion rendered, so interested parties file a case post-haste. The user has expressed that s/he will accept any verdict that ArbCom may come up with, and I support this decision even though the case is heavily one-sided against the user. So, I have not closed this as a community ban but as preventative until this can be passed up the food chain. If the ArbCom refuses the case, a community ban will probably be warranted. Teke 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Followup: Well, Lovelight has purportedly given up and thrown in the towel. The use is still indef blocked, so I'd say this is pretty much wrapped up for this account name. Unless anyone else has any chime ins, I'd say the case is closed. Teke 03:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. John Carter 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his block log, he is currently in the middle of his second 1-day block for 3RR. Addhoc 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and simply counted the number of times he had notices of blocks on his user page. I didn't think to check the block record. My apologies. John Carter 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading his talk page, I'm not impressed.. "Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. is just one quote that makes me think that he's become an edit warrior on this, and will not improve. I'd support a community topic ban to the three pages mentioned above. SirFozzie 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat alarmed to see Bus stop's name in this conversation, since I first encountered him voting for the same side as me in an AfD debate, so this immediately marked him out as a person of good sense. Then I went and looked at his contribution history in this Dylan matter, and it was quite scary. Also I checked the submitter (above), John Carter and he looks to have a very good record on Wikipedia. So there you have my two 'ad hominem' arguments, and they point in opposite directions. I'm going to leave a Talk message for Bus stop, and see if he will come down momentarily from his pillar of rectitude (with which I agree, but 3RR is pretty serious, so he ought to pay attention). EdJohnston 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Warlordjohncarter account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added (after Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that User:Bus stop is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with User:Bus stop. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.

I am concerned by User:Warlordjohncarter's statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented User:Bus stop's block history. User:Bus stop has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see User:Bus stop's request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do not require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. User:Warlordjohncarter has taken User:Bus stop's statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know User:Bus stop to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious Michael Richards article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down. Cleo123 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are free to be "concerned" as you like. However, I note that there are four blue boxed on Bus stop's talk page. It did not occur to me that they were not all for individual blocks, as I myself have no direct knowledge of the protocols in place. And, for what it's worth, I'm not entirely sure how saying the New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica are not reliable sources can be portrayed positively. I did present the argument against his position, as it did not occur to me that I had to present both sides of an argument when requesting the possible review of behavior to consider sanction. If so, it is somewhat amusing to me that the police officer (or prosecutor, whichever title you prefer) who reports such incidents has to function as defense attorney as well. John Carter 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleo, besides non-denominational Christian communities and individuals (which lack any visible structure and are heterogeneous in their beliefs), one such denomination which does not practice baptism is the Salvation Army. The Baptism page also notes that "a few Christian groups assert that water-based baptism has been supplanted by the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism was unnecessarily carried over from the early Jewish Christian practice."

In regards to the listing on this page, I can say a few things. I've gone far out of my way to list and summarize each of the sources used. In fact, Bus stop and I were at one point in agreement: the original reference was slightly ambiguous. So, I sought out 8 more sources, which were all apparently insufficient- in his view (feel free to come to your own conclusions here). I've added yet another source, a lengthy article from a Jewish newsletter, which is actually quite fair and even sometimes apologetic about the nature of his religious beliefs (this has also been summarized, and quotes have been noted at the above link). According to Bus stop, none of these sources are sufficient. Bus stop has said that he is acting in a neutral manner in his edits, and others seem to agree that he is a reliable and helpful editor, but I'm unsure if the same can be said in this instance, considering certain things he has said. I don't mean to villainize him, but at the same time, I'm truly surprised that he persists with his argument, and I'm puzzled as to why he really hasn't made an attempt to provide sources which support his viewpoint.--C.Logan 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, your own sources argue User:Bus stop's point as much as they do your own. When you quote Dylan as saying things like: "Well, religion is repressive to a certain degree. Religion is another form of bondage which man invents to to get himself to God." It seems pretty implausible that he formally converted to some denomination of Christinity. One does not convert to a non-denominational community - they informally join one. (and I'm not saying he didn't for a time.) I wouldn't expect anyone to be "baptized" into the Salvation Army as it is not a religion. Use of the word conversion is applicable to organized religions and specifically implies formally, and publically, abandoning a former faith. I'm inclined to agree with User:Bus stop that your sources are shaky for statements that have such sweeping implications. The sources you have provided in the link above indicate that his conversion is the subject of longterm and widespread dispute, yet you all behave as if User:Bus stop is utterly alone in his "irrational" view. I am not sure that the burden of proof is on User:Bus stop here. He is not asserting anything other than the status quo.Cleo123 04:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleo, I'm unsure how familiar you are with the scope of Christian belief, so bear with me. It's common to hear many non-ritualistic Christians say that "Christianity is not a religion. (It's a relationship with Christ/God)". This sort of idea is common among most non-denominational Christians, but also extends to Christians of all denominations. It's essentially a saying which elevates the belief in Christ above standard religions. You can even see it as a slogan of sorts- I've heard it from many street-side proselytizers. When I used this quote in the summary, it seemed clear to me that this is what Dylan is expressing. Many Christians do not see Christianity as merely "a religion".

Additionally, the Salvation Army is an organization, but it is also a separate denomination in and of itself. From Christian denomination: "The Salvation Army is often, albeit incorrectly, understood to be a social relief organization. It is, in fact, a denomination which does extensive social relief work."

Dylan was listed with a source. The original source was insufficient, so I provided several more. The sources lean more towards conversion with terms like "Dylan's conversion". I've always been fine with adding a "(conversion disputed)" note next to his name on the list, but as the sources are generally clear that he did convert, despite doubts from many, I feel it's up to Bus stop to provide sources for his argument. Is there really a problem with this? I mean, one of the sources for Dylan even says he was actually baptised- whether you find this reliable or not is another story. The people match up, as several sources and a documentary relate Dylan with the Vineyard Church and Kenn Gulliksen. It seems that the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades" supports this version of events as well, or so this review/summary states. --C.Logan 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that two article RFCs have been opened up, as listed in the main RFC list for biographies. One of them is at Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity, and the other is at Talk:Bob_Dylan#Request_for_Comment. There is also a whole bunch of discussion of this under other headings at Talk:Bob Dylan. Can User:Warlordjohncarter comment as to whether there is a Talk page consensus yet at either of these pages? If he believes so, it might be appropriate for John to write a summary section on at least one of those pages, stating what he believes is the consensus, and asking for further comment. Note that WP's procedure for dealing with disruptive editors involves going through six steps, in which 'editor ignores consensus' is step #5. Before the editor can ignore it, there has to be a generally-agreed consensus for him to ignore. If you read that list of steps, you'll see the present noticeboard listed as one of the options for step #6. (Mere 3RR violations are one thing, but a formal verdict of disruptive editing is another). I don't think it will be quick or easy to discern the consensus on either of those pages. EdJohnston 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

At the Talk:Bob_Dylan#Request_for_Comment editors provide a citation connecting Dylan to the Assembly of God, a fundamentalist, pentecostal, evangelical denomination. According to Wikipedia, formal baptism by water is a required ritual in the Assembly of God denomination. There should be verifiable documentation of this religious ritual to back up claims of conversion. User:Bus stop is not off base in requesting it. Cleo123 04:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

All the sources I've found, and this documentary, associate Dylan with the Vineyard Fellowship Church; from what I can see, they don't require water baptism... but this source seems to say Bob was actually baptized one of the assistant pastors at this church. It seems that the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades" supports this version of events as well, or so this review/summary states. Notice how I copied and pasted the last sentence from the above paragraph, because I'm lazy. --C.Logan 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see these sources as sufficiently credible. There is a very transparent adgenda for the pastor's statements - which do not strike me as entirely believable. Other sources are affiliating Dylan with yet another denomination. The issue is plagued with a history of controversy. Wikipedia must heir on the side of caution when it comes to biographies of living people. Regardless, this is an inappropriate forum for extended discussion on the issue. I have remarked on the appropriate RFC page. Cleo123 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the book by John Bauldie, "Wanted Man: In Search of Bob Dylan", also supports his study within Vineyard, and his conversion (pgs. 141-142, or pgs. 128-134, which contain excepts from an article by Clinton Heylin). I'll have check out the book to get a direct excerpt from the text. Additionally, googling Bob Dylan and Vineyard yields 103,000 results (many of these results could be referring to a 'vineyard'... adding 'church' into the search yields 41,900); searching Bob Dylan and Assemblies of God yields only 2090 (and many of these are AoG sites quoting Dylan, it seems). Don't think that was meant to be scientific, it's just worth noting. I'll take a look at the sources you've mentioned. --C.Logan 05:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty, on my own, of reprinting the following current comment from User:Bus stop's talk page. Being blocked, he cannot comment here. It should be noted that despite his block, he is now reasonably discussing the editorial issues with others on his own talk page.Cleo123 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thanks, Cleo. My primary objection is that Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity. I do not know if the alleged conversion is valid. But neither does anyone else. The impression one gets when one sees a name on such a list in an encyclopedia is of veracity. Truth. A list is an either/or type of thing. You are either on the list. Or you are off the list. That is what a list is. It is black and white. I have seen no one come up with a shred of evidence that any transition from Jewish to Christian took place. I've heard the lyrics on Slow Train Coming cited as "proof" of conversion. I've heard a dictionary definition brought forward as similar proof. I've heard Dylan's "sermonettes" between songs cited as constituting conversion. This is what people do not come to Wikipedia for. In fact, all of that is original research. As soon as Wikipedia goes out on a limb and speculates about something that it is not sure of, all of it's principles go out the window. Neutral point of view is immediately gone when you speculate about things that you simply have no way of knowing. A list implies truth. An article can include shades of grey. A list can not. In the article on Bob Dylan there is much more leeway to deal with the "Christian" period in Dylan's professional career, and maybe even in his life. But without a subject meeting a fairly high standard of verifiability for conversion, inclusion on a list is unwarranted. There are really lots of reasons to believe no valid conversion took place. One of which is that there was no Christian life lived. Is there any indication Christianity had any bearing on his life after the supposed conversion? But I am admitting I don't know. To me it is clear that the editors arguing for the validity of conversion don't know either. What I hear in the guise of arguments is mere conjecture. That argues for removal from the list. Bus stop 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"

For the sake of complete representation in the discussion, I'll move my response to the above text here:

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. As we are citing secondary sources which claim that he converted, this is not Original Research. Secondary sources are almost universally preferred on Wikipedia, as the usage of primary sources often leads to OR.

Also, it's interesting that one of you arguments against an actual conversion as that there is no real change in lifestyle, in the long term anyway. Let's go through the list then, and assess the lives of each person. We should remove each person who's lifestyle doesn't seem to reflect their change in religion. Oh wait, that's absurd. This is List of converts to Christianity, not List of converts to Christianity who actively practice their newfound religion.

It is indisputable that at least some of these people (if not many) included in this list don't actually live lives which reflect their religious change. Some may have only converted for marriage reasons, or for political reasons (as is supposed with Carlos Menem). That's not the point of this list. If someone has at one time professed belief in Christ as their savior, and/or has gone through a conversion ceremony, they are considered 'converts to Christianity and will be listed here, regardless of whether they converted out of the religion a week later, and regardless if they are still practicing. The same applies to all other religious pages listing converts.

I hate to be involved in this dispute. It's quite lame, but I must insist on my viewpoint until you can convince me otherwise. Show me sources, and hope that I don't reject their reliability as you have for the sources we've presented. Unfortunately, though, even if you do provide sources for insincerity of conversion, he'll likely remain on the list as a disputed conversion. After all, we're only supposed to express what the sources themselves say- not make judgments about them. If we have sources that say he did convert, and you actually bring sources that say that it was just an entertainer's act, that simply means we'll have to compromise. --C.Logan 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, I copied the comment, not so much for it's content - but to demonstrate User:Bus stop's rational tone. This forum is dedicated to discussing a request that User:Bus stop be blocked from editing the articles. His comments above were directed, specifically, to me and you responded. Perhaps, your own tone will give others some insight as to the level of passion that exists on each side of the fence in this situation. To my mind there appears to be a bit of a "gang mentality" aimed at quashing a vocal dissenting minority. As more editors become aware of the debate, User:Bus stop's view appears to be picking up support in the RFC discussion. Blocking him from editing the articles will not end the debate, as there is no consensus. Cleo123 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think sanctions are probably a bit premature right now, especially since there is evidently some dispute still concerning the warrantedness of Bus stop's edits. Remember, he's onlt been blocked twice so far. It's true, his comments aren't exactly promising, but let's give some time to cool down; maybe with time he'll cease edit warring; if not, we can try heading for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer 05:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel he should really be blocked either. As far as I know, he's not a vandal. I obviously disagree with him, and I feel that he may misunderstand the point of the List of converts to Christianity; I also feel that he may misunderstand the idea of 'conversion' itself. My stance is partly based on the fact that we do have several sources, on the internet, in books and publications, and in documentaries, that seem to attest to the fact that he converted- maybe not officially, even though at least one of the books claims so- at least nominally, and at least for a short time. It's hard to read the Jewsweek source without sensing that he is clearly considered a Christian in the article (specifically, a Jewish Christian). My stance is also partly based on the fact that I've never gone through a formal conversion ceremony, and yet I claim Christian faith; Dylan seems to say things which validate Christian beliefs much more than I do... for this reason, I don't feel that official conversion ceremonies are explicitly necessary, even if they are very common (This is more of a personal reason, as it should be clear to see; I'm simply explaining my looseness with the whole "conversion ceremony" business).

We are encouraged to use secondary sources here. Obviously, primary sources can be ambiguous- as the quote you mentioned above was seen by you one way, and by myself in another. I'm proclaiming what is reported in the sources which have been found. If a source says "conversion to Christianity", then the source has contributed something to warrant him to be included in the list. I have yet to see any sources which explicitly claim Bus stops point of view, but I'm definitely open to them. On the List of converts to Christianity talk page, I've tried to propose a compromise. As it says there, we have several sources which explicitly claim conversion- internet sources, at least 2 book sources, and a documentary. I think Dylan should be on the list, with a disclaimer that his conversion is disputed. Is this not fair? If a source can be found, then I hope that will be able to resolve things.--C.Logan 06:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity#Request_for_comment is churning away collecting a lot of opinions and reflective discussion. Respectfully, I suggest that no more comments be added to this thread until that article RFC reaches an agreed consensus. In particular, arguments about sourcing don't belong here, but in an article RFC. EdJohnston 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The following comment concerning User:Bus stop was recently posted to theTalk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity#Request_for_comment page :

Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue. Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this. If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked. We do not have time for this. -Scott P. 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that at present there are an equal number of editors on each side of the argument, yet the "pro-Christain" side continue to target User:Bus stop. There is a gang mentality on the page and a troubling lack of civilty that is not coming from User:Bus stop. He appears to be offering a rational argument. Cleo123 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to think we're targeting Bus stop. I don't believe that anyone from the "Pro-Christian" side condones Scott's statement above.

We currently have 10 internet sites, 2 (or more, I'm unsure of Mick Gold's contribution) published books which not only mention conversion, but provide details about Dylan's baptism and involvement in church. Additionally, we have the New York Times article, which mentions his "widely-publicized conversion", and and Encyclopedia Britannica entry (although this shouldn't be used as a source). All these sources state in clear terms that "he converted", several relay details of his conversion and the people involved, with corroborating details. This is why is becoming understandably frustrating that he continues to claim there is "insufficient evidence for conversion".

Interestingly, I've attempted to compromise with Bus stop quite a long time ago by including Bob Dylan on the list with a note that it is "disputed by some as to whether he actually converted" (in more or less words). However, he refuses to accept this, and continues to insist on complete removal. How can this be considered reasonable. We have compiled at least 12 sources which state 'conversion'. Several of these verify this with further details. Where is the strong argument against the reality of this conversion. The fact is that Bus stop has never even presented one.

We are making changes based on what the sources state clearly, and yet Bus stop has accused myself and others from making unwarranted suppositions from the text. --C.Logan 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are proving my point. There is no concensus. Many editors disagree with your "team's" view, yet, you continue to single out User:Bus stop. I understand that he can be a bit verbose and sometimes his logic my seem a bit circuitous, but having worked with this editor extensively in the past, I know him to be well meaning. He can be very long-winded and responding to his comments can be a real chore. However, that's what Wikipedia is all about - working with a diverse group of people to reach a concensus. I have no doubt that he isn't enjoying the current debate any more than you are. I believe him when he says his primary focus is WP:LIVING concerns. It's disturbing to see an editor like User:Scott P. openly propose a conspiracy of sorts to get an established editor blocked, just because "we don't have time for this". I'm glad you do not condone his remarks. User:Bus stop is not an unreasonable person. If you all stop "ganging up" on him and setting up scenarios where he is forced to "defend" himself - you may get better results. As a group, you seem so angry with him that you may not be "hearing" what he's saying any more. From what I've read, it looks like he's backed off of and conceded to discussion of the "conversion" in the Bob Dylan article. It seems that the list is his primary focus. At least that's how I read it. Cleo123 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree you are right that he has focused his attention on the list. It seems that his primary concern there is that there is no evidence for his conversion in that there are no records of his baptism by that group. Unfortunately, the group with which he was involved, the Association of Vineyard Churches, is explicitly stated on the page above as not making it a practice of keeping such records. On that basis, it seems to me to be at best irrational to demand documentation when it is explicitly stated that such records are not necessarily kept. I personally cannot see that this argument is one that we can reasonably let stand. If we do, then by definition we will be unable to accept any information on birthdates as reported in contemporary newspapers, for instance, if the birth certificate itself is also not specifically extant. And several birth certificates and such have disappeared over the years in fires and what not. I am of course relatively new here, and I may be unaware of other policies to the contrary, but think that that question is the nub of the current issue. If it is a question that deserves consideration, would I be correct in assuming that the Wikipedia:Village pump would be the appropriate place to raise it? John Carter 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be noted that the User:Bus stop on his talk page and the most recent heading of the Talk:Bob Dylan page has clearly and explicitly not only failed to assume good faith, but has seemingly categorically denied the possibility of, any good faith on the part of any editor who disagrees with him in this discussion. He has also, once again, made blanket statements without any sources or evidence cited, and is continuing on his one-man crusade to make wikipedia conform to his own POV. On this basis, I believe the above editor has clearly demonstrated that he is not competent to conduct himself according to the standards of wikipedia regarding this subject, and should be prevented from indulging in any other personal attacks and denigration of character in regards to all other editors who may disagree with him in this subject. I now believe sanctions are demonstrably called for. John Carter 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay

In the edit at the bottom, I do not like being told to: stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be an irrelevant incident. But I feel he is on a mission to be abusive and provoke me and then use his superior knowledge of how Wikipedia works to report me for an infraction. I am trying to keep my cool. But I am not unaware of what I believe are his intentions to provoke me. I am not asking for any sanction to be taken against him. Clearly what he said, above, is minor. But I want to register this problem somewhere, with someone. Just in preparation for a continuation of this. It is found here. Below is the entirety of his post:

Considering every statement you have made on this page or elsewhere is based on your subjective opinion, emotional interpretation of events and an apparent personal agenda regarding Jews and Christianity, you are extremely poorly placed to use words such as "evidence" or phrases such as "wikipedia's purpose". We build articles here based on references. There are many pointing to Dylan's conversion including the Encyclopedia Britanica. Until you can indicate contradictory "evidence", i.e. printed sources, stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My User name is: Bus stop 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would simply point out that the evidence pointed out above, and several other pieces of evidence, have been supplied, which were sufficient at the time to have almost all printed sources found stating what the above editor has repeatedly said is non-verifiable. I too would contend that his insistence on asserting what is clearly a POV which has no substantiation, and actually runs contrary to, several printed sources which went without documented dispute from the subject (again, the above editor has refused to provide any documentation whatever of his own position), and a subsequent book of the subject's own words as delivered in public from stage could reasonably be interpreted by many people as "a waste of time." Perhaps the language is a bit harsh, but adamantly continuing to say that we have to abide by a standard of evidence which the majority of the larger, more prosperous news media in the country did not abide by at the time the incidents in question occurred, and that they have (apparently; again, no contrary evidence has been put forward) not been criticized for their own crossing their own, generally stricter, guidelines for such content can be seen by many people, and has been seen by many people, as being probably at least a bit excessive. Particularly when the person raising the post above has clearly and explicitly stated that his own point of view on the subject is so pronounced that his objectivity in these matters can be at least questioned. John Carter 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.Logan 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The above report, which was opened by User:Bus stop, does not appear to be a well-formed request for a community sanction. Any needed discussion should take place elsewhere. I suggest that this thread be closed. EdJohnston 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.Logan 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• EdJohnston -- Fine -- close the thread. I wasn't sure where to post it. I'm sorry if I disturbed anybody. But I wanted it to be noted. Bus stop 20:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is added by JJay, here, not for a constructive purpose, but to silence discussion:

Current revision (00:54, 1 May 2007) (edit) (undo) JJay (Talk | contribs) (add off-topic warning- it would be helpful if talk page guidelines were followed here- i.e. This is not a platform for personal views)

Line 1: Line 1:

+

{{archive box| {{archive box|

• Archive 1: April 1, 2006 - Apr. 4, 2007 *Archive 1: April 1, 2006 - Apr. 4, 2007

Please indicate to me how placing a box indicating official policy, that a talk page is not for personal views, as a reminder to all parties involved is somehow an "objective" example of "harassment". John Carter 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Miaers

User:Miaers is engaged in a long term edit war that has disrupted pages relating to University of Wisconsin. They have gamed the system to disrupt wikipedia. They have abused WP:AN and WP:AN/3RR. They have already been blocked 3 times in March 2007 for disruption (the latest ban was for Continued violation of 3RR, now on University of Wisconsin System). They haven't learned from these blocks [60]. They have launched personal attacks against the admin User:Akhilleus [61] and have misrepresented comments by User:Orangemike as personal attacks.

The report page is here. Requesting site topic ban, gaming the system from RfCs to WP:AN is totally unacceptable. Disruptive behaiour is quite serious and is escalating--Cailil ^talk 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosign and agree. I haven't been involved in the majority of the debate, but the degree to which this user has been shown to be willing to waste admin's time is shocking. Continually disruptive and unhelpful. JuJube 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A slight clarification: To be fair, my block in March was in error as I misread diffs, and I reversed it as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I could be wrong but didn't User:Crum375 block Miaers 3 times this March?--Cailil ^talk 02:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct, I wasn't disputing the numbers given. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User registered in September 2006. Until March 2007 he didn't had any block, then suddenly something appeared at an article and he engaged in edit-wars, being blocked 3 times in less than a month. Maybe he is not the only one guilty of this edit-war, there is an other part involved. Blocks for edit-wars were deserved, but a ban seem excesive to me.--MariusM 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If the data in User:Cailil/Miaers_disruptive_behaviour represents a fair summary, then this is indeed a serious case. Miaers's editing and aggressive style of argument seem to have caused a big waste of time for other editors. I trust that input will be sought from several of the admins who have dealt with User:Miaers and that Miaers will have a chance to respond. EdJohnston 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. The community simply can't tolerate a user who creates such a poisonous atmosphere. Blueboy96 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Support per blueboy--TREYWiki 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the header on this page again: this is not a vote. "+1 ~~~~" style comments without contributing to the discussion are unnecessary since we don't count numbers to determine consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason to think that there's any hope for a constructive turnaround. And plenty of compelling reasons in Cailil's evidence page to go ahead and ban. The pattern here exemplifies an intent to waste everyone else's time and simply draw attention to one's self. Frankly, the complaint today about John Reaves was absurd. And while I am not at this time an egg, I used to be one, so I can speak with some authority on the matter. ··coelacan 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Miaers is currently blocked for 3RR, and so cannot participate in this discussion. S/he should probably be given a chance to speak in self-defense. I also think we might want to explore the possibility of a topical ban; Miaers has some constructive edits, and might still be a valuable editor if we can keep the problem area off-limits. So perhaps we can just ban Miaers from articles that have to do with the University of Wisconsin. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, Miaers needs the opportunity to speak here or to have their defence posted here. Personally I think their abuse of AN is extraordinary bad faith and warrants more than a topic ban. If their behaviour was limited to the edit war alone I wouldn't have made this report. That said you do have more expeience of their behviour Akhilleus--Cailil ^talk 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...I was just about to add a new entry for Miaers here, when I noticed this one! I have been involved in many of his disputes since January 2007, and I support a topic ban. Please note that he has been suspected of using anon edits during previous bans, and I see no reason that he would stop doing so if banned again. It is very hard to assume good faith in his case. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Lordmontu just fixed a couple of pointy page moves by Miaers, who moved University of Wisconsin Law School to University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School; Lordmontu reverted the move, and Miaers moved it back. A similar thing happened on University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Random and probably pointless note: Miaers is a female, she said so in her frivolous WP:ANI complaint where she whined about John Reaves "calling" her an "egg". JuJube 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Miaesrs has made constructive edits outside their "war-zone" I would change my suggestion to topic ban with probation. They do deserve another chance, their disruption of WP:AN was all related to the Univesity of Wisconsin edit-war--Cailil ^talk 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. User was not the only one who engaged in edit wars on that topic. She received blocks for that, is enough, I don't see any need for further action on this moment. There are worse users in Wikipedia then Miaers whch were not banned.--MariusM 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify for MariusM - the report isn't about the edit war alone. As stated in the report it is the waste of time they caused by gaming the system that is the primary issue. BTW I'm sure you realize that this is not a vote--Cailil ^talk 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Community ban of Ygr1 (talk · contribs)

Ygr1 (talk · contribs) has been tendentiouslt editing the Claudette Colbert article and rather subtly inserting their own point of view while removing anything that does not conform with that point of view, even if it is reliably sourced. Normally I would just say this is worth a block, but the editor has repeatedly created new accounts to get around blocks or edited from a dynamic IP, necessitating the article to be locked from editing. a ban would allow for immediate reverts on the article per WP:DENY and I think that is exactly what is needed in this situation; this individual isn't improving the article and is simply "poisoning the well" so to speak for other editors who are trying to improve it.
Some of Ygr1's other accounts include:

• Nrh15 (talk · contribs)
• Z73 (talk · contribs)
• Wptfe (talk · contribs)
• Wbrz (talk · contribs)
• IPs starting with 218 & 219 who edited Claudette Colbert
  

There may be more; Marcco09 (talk · contribs) for example has an edit history fairly consistent with Ygr1. In the end, this editor is doing more harm than good to the articles he or she is editing.--Isotope23 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. I agree that this user is doing more harm than good, and with all of the comments made by Isotope23. I feel that the community has been more than patient with Ygr1, who has shown a complete disregard for our policies and guidelines, especially in relation to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OWN. We're still experiencing the same POV pushing that was taking place two months ago with an earlier account. We've made no progress at all, and although the users have been invited to take part in discussion, they have failed to respond. They have also failed to discuss points raised on their talk pages. I think if they had demonstrated any willingness to negotiate or discuss their opinions we might have a chance of resolving this without taking the extreme step of banning, but the main obstacle seems to be their consistently blinkered attitude and unwillingness to engage in any meaningful communication. I see banning as a last resort, but the logical next step in this case, as everything else has failed. Rossrs 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All I needed to see was his contribs--nothing but "Claudette Colbert was feces." Ban. Blueboy96 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out the current line of argument this individual is using on the Claudette Colbert talkpage, essentially arguing that editors from AU should not be editing the article because Colbert's movies are not shown there (apparently Ygr1 has not heard of this new-fangled "cable TV" they have down there, including Turner Classic Movies). This sort of argument suggesting that nobody should be questioning Ygr1's POV pretty much sums up why this editor doesn't get it and should at the very least be banned from this article.--Isotope23 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For completeness it should be noted that Isotope23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is proposing this ban, was the administrator involved in many of the page protections for the Claudette Colbert article and some related blocks, and that gives him the background for the list of user names he offers in this nomination.

The extremely incivil edit summaries are very easy to see in Special:Contributions/Wptfe. User:Ygr1's comments on Talk:Claudette Colbert seem peculiar and uncooperative. Even the limited evidence offered here should be enough to justify an indefinite ban of this user from the Claudette Colbert article, though not from the Talk page. After three months he should be allowed to make his case here on this noticeboard to have his full editing rights restored. It is possible that his behavior is bad enough to deserve blocks on other grounds, but whatever enforcement that entails could happen in parallel to this editing limitation, which would allow reverts per WP:DENY on the Claudette Colbert article. EdJohnston 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the unconstructive edits and uncivil summaries, I support a full community ban. Addhoc 08:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous IP, 219.104.31.80 (talk · contribs) is now copying and pasting chunks of text from the Claudette Colbert article into Bette Davis and All About Eve, seemingly without reading either the articles, or the text being added, which is being inserted without even rewording it so that it makes sense. Considering that it's the same information he's been disputing for the Colbert article, I can't imagine it's not the work of the same editor. Also reverting edits I have made to other articles despite my explaining my reasons for my edits on the talk pages. (Talk:Carole Lombard and Talk:It Happened One Night). This is the same behaviour that happened a couple of months ago when he was blocked from editing Claudette Colbert and started tenditiously editing Vivien Leigh. As soon as one avenue is shut down, he just finds other articles to mess with. The individual edits are trivial but the overall effect is damaging. Rossrs 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus IP 219.104.3.155 (talk · contribs) has added irrelevant quotes about Colbert to Doris Day, Irene Dunne, Hedda Hopper, Veronica Lake and Paulette Goddard. No attempt to place into context, just more copy and pasting from Colbert's article. I don't these are intentionally disruptive though and I have not reverted the edits to Goddard or Lake because it kind of fits there, albeit awkwardly. I've reverted the others. Rossrs 22:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that puts matters in a new light (a topic ban would not be enough). Don't administrators have the authority to take action when an editor misbehaves this badly? Maybe the nominator, User:Isotope23, can comment on whether he thinks this request for a topic ban is still necessary. It might be better to just do what's needed and then ask for review at WP:AN, providing a list of accounts that were blocked or articles that were protected. EdJohnston 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors can be blocked for this kind of thing, but I listed this here for a ban discussion because given the nature of the IP this individual is contributing from, blocks are not going to be a very effective solution here. It's either semi-protect every article he/she starts editing in such a way, ban so the editor's contributions can be removed per WP:DENY, or simply live with the fact that the editor is going to edit articles however they see fit, sockpuppet, and generally be querulous about any criticism or questioning of their edits. To me at least, a ban is the simplest and most effective solution to this problem that has the least amount of impact on any other editors here. Originally I thought a topic ban on Cladette Colbert would be sufficient, but now I'm leaning more towards a total Wikipedia ban as it appears this individual has taken an interest an a wider range of actor and actress articles.--Isotope23 12:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some other user accounts that look like they may be from this person are Svsvtkag (talk · contribs), Fjykbgv (talk · contribs), JadaDeville (talk · contribs), and M.A.Dicker (talk · contribs). Most of the edits from these users seem to be towards Claudette Colbert film articles. In addition, there is a history of Japanese ips editing around the same time as these users. By the way, since it wasn't mentioned already, he has also made interesting edits to the Charles Boyer article. --PhantomS 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, this editor seems rather nasty and the evidence suggests that a complete community ban would help out the administrators working on this case. Since a full ban is appealable either to Arbcom or to us, if it turns out to be mistaken, does anyone object to issuing a full community ban on Ygr1 (talk · contribs)? EdJohnston 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Shocking news, and community ban proposal.

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. Our rogue administrator, Robdurbar, is apparently a sockpuppet of Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, who is known for similar actions (deleting the main page, blocking administrators, and other very disruptive things) in two rampages on Wiktionary. I propose that this person be banned for his disruptive actions. Others have hinted at starting this banning proposal based on the checkuser results, but I thought I would get it going a little early. I also wanna say, this is a bizarre way of trying to create havoc... Making good edits for a long time, becoming an administrator, then coming back and going on a 20-minute rampage. Very strange... Grandmasterka 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't there are few other indiscretions, for example blocking Jimbo? Overall, I'm not sure a discussion is required. Addhoc 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robdurbar for the original RFA. --Kim Bruning 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Three opposers: A user who opposed every RfA, a 1FA oppose, and a user who was later banned themselves. Grandmasterka 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is among the most abusive use of sockpuppets I have ever seen, and if this is the same person which went on a vandal spree on Wiktionary, I don't think we can continue to let him edit. The RFA illustrates how the user was able to deceive the community. The damage is simply too great. Support ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt a full community notice is needed. The person has proven that he/she can not be trusted on Wikipedia. Abuse of sockpuppets, a slightly maniacal vandal spree, blocking of respected Wikipedians... Ban supported. --Kzrulzuall 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An other question: He became an admin in last August. What caused him to wait this long and do it now?

My opinion of what happened: He uses a public computer in the same place that Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous is. One day he forgot to log off, and Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous took over the account. Since Robdurbar was leaving, Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous could get away with this without anyone else realizing it. In this case, the situation would be:

1. The user left Wikipedia, and then appeared all of a sudden when Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous thought it was safe for him to do this at the public computer.
2. Since Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous and Robdurbar use the same public computer, the IP address may not reveal anything about such an incident.
3. Even if I'm right, the account should be blocked, since it's been compromised by a dangerous vandal and the user seems to have no intention of returning.

Od Mishehu 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That would explain why Robdurbar waited so log to do this, which is a mystery to me too. Only one problem: Why would Robdurbar be logged in on a public computer a month after his last edit? Grandmasterka 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some things wrong with that theory, Mishehu. How unlikely is it that Robdurbar and Wonderfool were, coincidentally, in the same city, and sharing the same public computer. The odds of a previously desyssoped rogue admin, and him meeting like that is probably one in a billion.... Keep in mind that about 0.00000002% of the global population are Wikipedian admins. --Kzrulzuall 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he was logged in for that long. If you find a computer with a user logged in, you can change the e-mail address even without the password, and confirm it probably at the same sitting. Then at any later point you can, on login, press the e-mail a new password. After that, you have the other account for abuse any time you want. If you're on a public computer, you probably do want to wait a while, so that the other user can't trace you anymore.

Although a tiny population of the world is, in fact, Wikipedia admins, it's also true that most of the users with enough access to the web to be Wikipedia or Wictionary admins is not 100%. If Wonderfool lives in the same city as Rodburdar, then a chance meeting in the public library isn't out of the question - and probably a high percentage of Wikipedian admins are from the US, where public libraries with internet access are common. Od Mishehu 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Robdurbar already is effectively community-banned, I can't conceive that anyone would possibly unblock him, especially given this. But I certainly support any such ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He's banned. --Tony Sidaway 08:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, and thank Grandmasterka for bringing this to the attention of the noticeboard. Unanswerable Question: were the good contributions just a sham, or does the guy flip between light and dark? Answerable Question: Were there any warning signs we missed? Ben Aveling 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the MO of the problematic behavior at the time does look the same, the Wictionary admins didn't have a long break before the trouble. This brings back my theory presented above that the account was compromised, so we wouldn't find any warning signs. Od Mishehu 09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absent some very convincing evidence, the chance of an account being physically compromised by a different, malicious editor is very low indeed. Slightly more likely is that robdurbar had an obvious password and the account was remotely compromised. In the latter event, it isn't acceptable behavior for an administrator to leave a weak password on his account.

The matter is moot, in any case. Robdurbar was banned before ever this discussion began. The consensus of the community is strongly against unblocks in such cases. --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All these users appear to have been pretty uncontroversial prior to adminship, and during adminship, and seem to go out with a bang. It would be quite difficult to identify sockpuppets - "Hey, keep an eye on that guy who keeps his head down and doesn't kick up a fuss, he's just waiting to explode!" Also the crosswiki vandalism is disturbing. Someone should alert the more prominent Wikis about the possibility of this occurring again (although, as I say, it would be hard to pin down who would do this, as there seem to be no warning signs). Oh - and support ban. – Riana _ऋ 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if this thing does happen again, I agree that it is nearly impossible, as stated, to detect a user such as this, before gaining adminship... But the good side is that we will know what to do to counteract it. A bigger problem will be if a steward goes on a rampage.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We could conceivably pay attention to the areas Robdurbar contributed to and look for similarities in new editors. I'm willing to do a little investigation. We still have to assume this was all caused by one person without any account hacking due to the positive checkuser results. (If Od Mishehu's hypothesis was correct, the hacker would live in the same town near the same computer... Pretty long odds.) Is there a mental condition that could produce this odd behavior? Grandmasterka 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing what his intents were, any amateur diagnostics of mental conditions would be pointless. If he'd intended from the beginning to do this, and spent all that time and effort to become an admin just so he could wreak havoc, that would probably indicate perhaps some type of compulsion. On the other hand, if he just snaps under stress, well, some people snap under stress, and there are quite a few possible reasons for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is strong that Robdurbar didn't have his account hijacked. Dmcdevit has just made this edit on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (WT:RFAR) saying:

Note that CheckUser already determined that he did not have his account stolen, as, among other things, he still edits from the same university that he claimed to have been attending in his original user page (now deleted).

--Tony Sidaway 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't that make it more likely if you follow the 'theory' outlay at the top of the section? somebody in the college library jumping on after him and changing the email? I admit, long shot, but more likely then 'random cities one day in a cybercafe' -M^ask? 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They share both the university IPs and the home Tiscali ISP ranges. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I first mentioned a community ban proposal on the CheckUser request is that I needed to know which target to aim at. The threshold for a code G request (does not fit any other reason for using CheckUser) on CheckUser is probably much higher than the threshold for a code F request (we think that the account is a sock of a community banned user). If it is Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, then the community ban's scope will be wider than if we just targeted Robdurbar. I was sleeping when Grandmasterka created this community ban proposal. As for how I feel, I wholeheartedly endorse the ban because Wikipedia will suffer a perfect storm of PR nightmares if a member of a big newspaper, news magazine, or television network noticed what was going on. Jay Leno, David Letterman, and other late night jokesters would be making jokes about how it was becoming hard to tell the administrators from the vandals on Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot to mention that there is no current community ban on Wonderfool (the previous one was rescinded), nor any ArbCom ban on any of the accounts, so we need this discussion for formality's sake and CheckUser's sake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Discussion seems unnecessary. He went on a destruction spree as an admin, and checkuser revealed abusive sockpuppetry. Nobody in their right mind would unblock the main account, and new accounts can be blocked as "editing by a banned user". If you feel the need for a community ban, Tony Sidaway just gave the declaration and I'll second it: He's banned. --kingboyk 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When I filed a pro forma arbitration case to confirm Robdurbar's desysopping (a Steward had performed an emergency desysop but involuntary desysopping on En-Wiki can only be officially done by ArbCom), the arbitrators said "fine, desysopping confirmed" but I got some very strange (metaphorical) looks along the lines of "why are you bothering with this silly formality?" I suppose the same attitude would obtain here. If necessary, support ban. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Robdurbar won't be entered onto List of banned users unless this step is taken, right? If that list is to have any value, and since this is a highly bannable case, I don't see why we don't do it. I gather than this is *not yet* a ban request for User:Wonderfool. I trust that one of the proponents has verified that enough data has been collected to justify a permanent ban. If any hesitation is needed, it's because everyone seems to have a different view of what is going on. EdJohnston 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The only necessity for a community ban is community support, not useless formalities. When it is blindingly obvious (read: deletes the main page repeatedly and goes on a blocking spree, after doing it on Wiktionary, after doing it on Wiktionary, after being banned by the ArbCom once before for creating nihilartikels) there is no legal proceeding necessary. Please read Tony Sidaway's insightful comment above. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not permanent even if they're on that list. They can appeal. They could come back in a few years time and say "sorry guys, I had problems but I've treated". Whatever. The point is that nobody but nobody can reasonably object to a ban at this point in time, and if it takes adding it to that list for it to be "official" (sigh) consider it done. --kingboyk 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats stopping him from being added without this? Were not a beauracracy, and you are free to ignore and formalities of process. Don't go wonky. He was banned, we dont need any more discussion really. Add him. -M^ask? 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that we know the sockmaster, this is a ban request for Wonderfool. Robdurbar is considered one of his socks. Jesse Viviano 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it slightly silly that we're considering the fact that someone from Wonderfool's same home ISP and same university, with the same interests in pop music and English national football team-related articles, with French also as his secondary language, who complains that his IP was blocked from Wiktionary, and so on, happened to have his account compromised in some way, and it happened to have been taken over by Wonderfool himself. "Why did he wait so long" comments are missing the point that he's done this twice before, and has in each case been a diligent admin for months. I don't see the point in trying to psychoanalyze him. Now, he caused a fewminutes of chaos, but let's move on. No one (who doesn't wan to get immediately checkusered upon suspicion of being another Wonderfool) is going to consider unblocking him. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way you look at it, this looks bad. At best, you've got a guy who's clearly got a serious mental problem. At worst, you've got an admin who had no business being an admin. I also noticed he didn't give any reasons for these mass blocks. In either case, this can't be tolerated. Ban--and if someone hasn't contacted his school, get on the horn. Blueboy96 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish that I could say the same about a discussion not being necessary, but I noticed that the CheckUser clerks are extreme sticklers for formality. Some CheckUser requests on User:Bobabobabo got either derailed or seriously hindered because there was no community ban discussion. That is why I wanted to propose the community ban myself. However, Grandmasterka beat me to it while I was asleep. Jesse Viviano 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's silly, and easily fixed: [62]. Now can we cut all this silly procedure? Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred the text "List here with proof beyond all reasonable doubt that this user is banned by the community or by Jimbo Wales." This way, some simple vandalism block will not trigger code F, but Robdurbar's admin log, block log, and his user rights log where he lost his sysop bit would have been admissible for code F. Also, this will allow ban discussions and canonize the use of code F that was used for Jimbo Wales bans like the one on Primetime. Jesse Viviano 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban recorded at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#R. Please feel free to copyedit/fine tune/list the sockpuppets, whatever, not that any of this bureacracy is really necessary of course... --kingboyk 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#W, because we were discussing a ban for Wonderfool, of which Robdurbar is a sock. Jesse Viviano 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To a naive observer, it might seem that this thread has reached a conclusion. Does anyone have more to say? Would there be a consensus that I can apply the templates to 'close' this thread? EdJohnston 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul's previous interaction with Wonderfool

Wonderfool was previously caught creating hoax articles. He bragged about how his university had a single IP shared across the entire campus, so there's no way we would dare block it, and that he planned to continue doing it. Well, long story short, I did block the university, with a message for the university tech people to email me. 12 hours later, I got an email from their sysadmin asking what's going on, I explained the problem to them, and they were *VERY* angry with him. He later apologized, and asked to be unblocked, which (feeling generous) I did.

Given the latest events, I'm tempted to dig up my old contacts with his university and let them know what he's been doing now. Raul654 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I said I would never log on again acting as Robdurbar, but I would like to make it clear that I am not Wonderfool, or related to him in any way. The fact that he went/goes to the same university as myself (as it would appear) is coincidence, but that is all it is. Clearly there is no way that I can prove this, other than to note that I e-mailed dmcdevit yesterday noting this and so he does have my e-mail address; he and Raul (who I presume has the details of Wonderfool) could possibly contact each other and cross check to see that we have different ones; OK that doesn't prove anything, but then two users using ip addys open to ~15 000 people doesn't prove anything either.

  When I e-mailed dc it was more a minor pride thing (I don't want to be noted as a sock of some other guy!) but I really felt I had to speak out now. 129.234.4.76 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, if this is really Robdurbar, while you're here, would you mind explaining exactly what the heck was going through your head that morning? Newyorkbrad 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd rather not, it seemed much more funny with all the wild rumours going about. Truth be told, I was bored revising and thought 'that'll be a 10 minute laugh'. Nothing more, nothing less. Frankly, I'm surprised no one's done it before - after all, it stands to reason that anyone who gets bored enough to edit Wikipedia enough to become an admin must get bored easily. I was intrigued as to how quickly the community would react, what would happen if there was no main page (I was a bit disapointed it just went to the normal 'this page does not exist' thing), etc.

      Actually, the weird thing is that Wonderfool has edited a lot fairly similar articles to me - on football, cycling, places etc. Still, afraid it's that dull - no illnesses, no high-jackers, no 'wikisuicide', no agenda, no disgruntlement and no sockpuppets. --Drinkheavy 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • And oh shit, I've just done that using my new account. Suppose that'll get blocked now. D'oh! Drinkheavy 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Universities

I think that people might have leapt to conclusions on shaky evidence, here. Dmcdevit states above that Robdurbar used the "same home ISP and same university" as Wonderfool. Having cross-checked the two, I disagree (whilst, I, too, noted the shared languages and interests). There is strong evidence that Wonderfool edited from 131.251.0.7 (talk · contribs), an IP address assigned to Cardiff University. And as any administrator can check (although I'm not going to provide detail), Robdurbar's deleted user page mentions an entirely different university (in a different country, even). Similarly, 129.234.4.76 (talk · contribs), claiming to be Robdurbar above, is an IP address assigned to Durham University. I strongly recommend, Raul654, that you double-check the university before assuming that this is Wonderfool. Uncle G 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm by no means certain, but didn't WF claim he left Cardiff some time last year? I can't find or remember where he said that [probably on wikt, I'd guess, since *I've* seen it], but if anyone else remembers, it may be worth checking it out. \Mike(z) 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

requested site ban for User:Anacapa

I detailed a report of long-term disruption by the then dormant user:Anacapa two weeks ago. They are the user who attacked project gender studies [63][64] manipulated criticism sections in women's studies[65] [66] and have bullied other editors on a rewrite of misandry[67][68]. Anacapa uses the alias "(drop in editor)" to sign-off while using anon IPs and has used this identity to Troll gender studies related articles.

On April 30th Anacapa's user account was reactivated and they are now engaged in an edit war on Shunning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [69] [70].

The previous report on Anacapa did not receive enough support for a sanction. This may have been due to Anacapa's dormancy. I do apologize for having to make a second report but Anacapa has returned and is wasting editors' time and creating a poisonous atmosphere in the articles they are involved with.

The updated report page is here (perma link), detailing the connection between Anacapa's POVpushing and disruptive behaviour. I urge users to review the report (apologies for its length) to understand the depth and scope of Anacapa's disruption since September 2006.

I'm requesting a site ban for Anacapa and their IPs. They have bullied and disrupted across a number of articles for months, switching from their account to multiple IPs.--Cailil ^talk 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose. Banning should not be used to resolve content disputes, except if the dispute has become more than a content dispute, generally after all else as failed. However, I do not see evidence of other dispute resolution methods having been attempted, or of incivility that would make this more than a content dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Content dispute. Edit war after account reactivation not enough documented with only two diffs. Switching from their account to multiple IPs not proved.--MariusM 12:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would point out this is not a content dispute. This is long term complex disruption. I do understand this page is not for content disputes, I have only provided 2 diffs for Shunning here because I have at least 6 on the report page. The evidence of account switching is there too. Some of this ground is covered in the previouis discussion. Pesonally I consider remarks like "What childish crap from both edgarde and poole." [71] to be extremely uncivil, more evidence of incivility is once again in the report. I would also just add for clarity I am not involved in the Shunning content dispute--Cailil ^talk 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No previous blocks for Anapaca and you want him banned? Take a rest. If he engage in edit-wars, try a 3RR report.--MariusM 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen worse. I recommend private mediation. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the negative reaction this time around. The only reason Anacapa wasn't topic/site banned last time is due to lack of urgency due to the fact that the account had been dormant. Now that it's active again, needs to be shutdown quickly. I do support a community topic ban from related articles. SirFozzie 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting private mediation is a negative reaction? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yours was just the one right before I hit reply, sorry. The comment by Marius was primarily what I was responding to. SirFozzie 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm glad we cleared that up.  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anacapa has been notified of this report and been invited to comment here. As has User:Jbolden1517--Cailil ^talk 18:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I guess the report here has not been laid out obviously if people are getting the impression that this is a content dispute. "Drop in editor" trolled WP:GS for months with off-topic badgering, and the project page had to be semi-protected to keep them from disrupting it. There are many diffs in the evidence page; I like this one for its condensed trollery: "totalitarian thought control", "man-hate", "fascist gender-feminists", "ugly totalitarian tactics". These are not the words of a person willing to work with others to build a collaborative encyclopedia. This is only incitement. I do not read WT:GS so I have not been an ongoing witness to this; my patience is exhausted by these diffs alone. ··coelacan 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really Armed Blowfish, what Coelacan is quoting is flamebaiting. Its also POVPUSH. I hope you don't mind if I ask, what part of the report/evidence page is deficient?--Cailil ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • The policy essay you link POVpush to encourages fair representation of all majority and significant minority viewpoints, and was written in order to help editors with opposing viewpoints reach a consensus. By asking for a block for "point of view pushing", you are asking us to block an editor over a content dispute. The quotes you refer to as "flamebaiting" look to me like they are opinions about article content, not personal attacks against individual editors. Certainly, you could call those opinions morally offensive, but it is still basically a content dispute. What is lacking is evidence that this has escalated far beyond a content dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC), 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Armedblowfish I made an incorrect link - shouldhave been WP:POVPUSH (all caps). And I respectfully disagree, as I think do Coelacan and Sir Fozzie, and the others who supported the last report - that's flamebaiting. And no I'm asking for a ban because of complex disruption or complex vandalism - which ever wording you prefer. "What is lacking is evidence that this has escalated far beyond a content dispute" This is about edits, over months, to a number of articles - some I am not involved with some I am involved with. Sources have been misrepresented as stated in the report. The WikiProject Gender Studies was vandalized. SecondSight's rewrite of misandry was stymied by Trolling. This is not a content dispute this is disruptive behaviour. If you disagree that's fine that opposition is recorded and noted. PS I didn't know you were an admin--Cailil ^talk 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this reaches the level of an indefinite ban yet, I don't see any previous blocks. I would certainly caution Anacapa, though, that blocks and bans are not too far down the road he's walking along. I would much advise he slows down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• I prefer "complex disruption" over "complex vandalism". Vandalism is reserved for a conscious effort to hurt encyclopaedia articles, not just an incorrect idea of what helps encyclopaedia articles, e.g. a skewed idea of what neutrality is. Disruption can have the same effect without that kind of negative intent.
• In case it makes the idea more palatable, private mediation would give the mediator a chance to rehash arguments to make them less offensive. (P.S. I didn't say I was an admin.)
• Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• I respectfully disagree with the view that this proposal is about a content dispute. Cailil contacted me several times during the preparatory phase and modeled it after my report on the Joan of Arc vandal. Sneaky vandals often attempt to dodge scrutiny by trying to mask a disruptive campain by trying to give it the superficial facade of an edit dispute. Although I did not recommend that Cailil begin a new ban thread at this time, I do think she has identified a genuine vandal and I support the siteban proposal. Durova^Charge! 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me dropping in unannounced, but I had to chuckle at the irony here... Durova, according to Cailil's user page, she's a he :-) --YFB ¿ 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• How do you propose we tell the difference between sneaky vandals and those with minority opinions? If it is indeed vandalism, I am sure mediation would fail, although it could fail anyway. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, vandalism is in bad faith, for starters, and merely expressing a minority opinion is not. Of course, there are certainly ways of expressing a minority opinion that are vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 08:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Armed Blowfish is asking a good question what is 'minority opinion and what is vandalism?' The line was crossed in this case when sources were misrepresented and when policies (WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS at the time) were quoted ad nauseum to Anacapa were ignored or mocked by them (ie their characterization of consensus as 'bad group think'); when they disregarded WP:AGF by calling other editors fascists when they asked for sources. I'm concerned that Anacapa knows Wikipedia's rules and knows how to attack pages and avoid detection. They first had an edit war on Feminism in February 2006. At that time they were asked for sources. People are still asking them to source material 15 months later. Either this is a blatant disregard for policy or it is bad faith POVpush. The multipost, the repeated attacks on WT:GS & WP:GS (throwing NPOV templates on the project page for instance), all point towards breachs of WP:AGF rather than a newbie NPOV mistake.

There would not be a complex issue if Anacapa had used their own account to make all of their edits, but they used multiple IPs so that the edits (and any warnings associated with them) could not be attributed to one user - which would have resulted in obvious need for a block. The question has to be asked why didn't Anacapa create a legal second account or just use their own account for these edits? I believe they know exactly how disruptive their edits have been & made a calculated choice to use anon IPs because clearly they hadn't forgotten about ther account.

The reason I made this submission at this time was because I wanted Anacapa's input here, I felt it proper they answer this report if they can. I hope they do. I would also just like to apologise to Armedblowfish in case I was agressive in last nights posts, no matter how serious this case is its not worth falling out with a good editor. I would also take on board Seraphimblade's point if it is considered a topic ban is more appropriate I will alter my request to that. I would urge ediors that this is a serious and complex case, as Durova has pointed out. IMHO Anacapa has been careful to mask their behaviour - hence the length of my report. I would also like to mention SirFozzie's point, the previous report wasn't seen as urgent becuase Anacapa was dormant - they are active now and their behaviour is just as bad as ever. I'm sorry for the length of this post but my opening request may not have been as clear as it could be.--Cailil ^talk 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A further note. Taking on board Seraphimblade's points, an alternatively if we can agree that Anacapa is the user behind the IPs in the report and the edits by them, I would propose warning Anacapa (and making them aware that their IPs are included in that warning) about their behaviour (past & present) per WP:DE, WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:POVPUSH & WP:TEND/WP:SOAP. If that could be agreed I will withdraw my site ban request--Cailil ^talk 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Was any checkuser or other evidence linking Anacapa with the IPs? In my first comment I pointed that this was not proved. Anyhow, the idea of mediation, suggested by Armed Blowfish, seems reasonable. As a general rule, before a ban, other steps in dispute resolution should be tried, and also some blocks of limited period.--MariusM 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your post MariusM. I do understand usual proceedure but this case is unusual. As regards Anacapa's link to (drop in editor), did you look at the report section detailing the 3 IPs used by Anacapa & drop in editor. If needs be I could list all the pages used by Anacapa and used identically by a number of the IPs. I have also shown in the report where Anacapa and (drop in editor) use the same phrases to describe feminism. Also as stated in the report no checkuser has been requested--Cailil ^talk 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support any/all remedies except banning (mediation, arbcom, topic ban, term block). I have observed Anacapa's ownership and POV issues on the incest article, and I think it's regrettable that matters weren't proceeded with during the time prior to his sabbatical from WP, because if he had been sanctioned or if sanctions had been agreed-upon, I would support a ban. As it is, because of the lack of mediation/escalation of intervention/sanctions (despite the evidence, which I feel is persuasive), I think a community ban is inappropriate at this time. Let this be an addition to the body of evidence that it pays to proceed with formal complaints etc even when a contentious editor seems to have left. Anchoress 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

Request assistance, advisement, and possible blocking of user Pdelongchamp from editing videoblogging article.

Charges are long term "delete trolling" (aka. "blanking vandalism"), "retributive editing" and threatening other users with blocking.

1) User deletes every contribution at least once.

Over the last year to two years user has attempted to have article deleted outright and upon failure has deleted every single one of thousands upon thousands of edits to the article at least once and more often then not multiple times despite attempts to appease him with citations and edits. This despite only one or two original contributions himself.

Delete's are almost always automatic, occurring within hour or days of contribution allowing no time or room for response, contribution or improvement by other contributors. User's deletes hence dominate article, disrupting activity on said wikipedia article and prohibiting other willing users from collaborating.

User cites frivolous reasons unworthy of automatic and outright deletion like "original research" and "needs citations" on these deletes despite repeated attempts to work with him by members of the community over the long term and repeated citations of wikipedia's editing policy, particularly the section "perfection is not required" and information contained therein on proper deletion procedure.

Please consider this emphasis. User has deleted EVERY contribution at least once if not multiple times. This is not an exaggeration. Article has been withered down by user to a stub of less than 500 words multiple times in the last two years and all contributions (no matter how obvious the value may seem or how obvious the good intentions of the contributor) have to be submitted multiple times and/or by multiple contributors and often debated before said user will admit them to the article, if said user 'allows' them at all, and often only to delete them months later.

Most recently the user deleted over 90% of the article and is currently involved in an edit war with multiple members of the community who have attempted to work with him to re-establish the article.

2) Retributive editing

User has edited other articles or attempted to have them deleted as a form of retribution.

In less than 10 edits and a relative number of minutes the user went from reverting a contribution to the videoblogging article to going through that users past contributions deleted edits and attempted to have 3 different articles deleted. Actually succeeding on one count.

This was admittedly my edit and my contributions, but they were others articles of which I had only made minor contributions and having nothing to do with the videoblogging article. It's as plain a case of retribution as I can find and shows alarming spitefulness and willingness to jeopardize a great amount by others and on other topics that are in no way connected to the videoblgging article.

(note re: "retributive editing" - I could find no other language for it so you'll have to pardon the terminology. Have been unable to find any other information on it, if you know it by another name or have any documentation on subject please respond.)

3) User has threatened users with blocking.

User has repeatedly threatened me with blocking in editing disputes despite being advised disputes are not a block-able offense.

Summation

Despite what can be considered nothing less than tremendous patience over the past two years because of the above and other actions I believe the community no longer assumes this user is editing in good faith. I believe I can speak on behalf of the community on this matter but am prepared to back it up with dozens if not hundreds of signatures of community members by whatever method you deem necessary. I also believe wether blocking be in order, or another form of action that the community would like a chance to send this user a message with their consensus on the matter to restore faith in the wikipedia editing process.

I believe the user in question wishes the article deleted or at the least he is trolling the community in an attempt for either attention or simply to frustrate and waste the time / energy of the community. He has succeeded in the last two years in driving off many well intentioned long term editors, and in bringing the evolution of the article to a complete standstill.

User is basically holding an entire community of would be contributors hostage with a delete button.

I believe there is more than enough evidence (2 years worth) and community consensus, I can virtually ensure 100's of signatures if there is a procedure for requesting a block.

Will be happy to cite in wikipedia history well documented proof of all above points at your request.

Please advise on how to proceed.

Thank you, -Michael Meiser --mmeiser 07:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find dispute resolution more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be verifiable and reliably sourced. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you open a discussion regarding an editor here, you should let that editor know that they are being discussed. I've notified the editor in question. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade for your prompt reply. I was just about to leave a comment to notify him. Regarding the content dispute process. I don't believe it's a content dispute though I'll try anything that may help. We've already tried at least one other form of dispute resolution and I'm definitely willing to try other things, but this has been a chronic issue lasting for longer than I can remember. (I think it's been almost two years now.) I have lost my patience with him once or twice personally, admitedly its very hard not get frustrated when this goes on for so long, but there are two dozen others who are ready to tar and feather him. I'll just be happy if this can progress toward some resolution that ends up seeing the vidoeblogging article evolve again. It's not right that noone has gotten to contribute to the article over the last year or so because he simply automatically deletes every contrib. I haven't yet totaled the number of deletes nor the number of contributors... it's next on my plate. But I'm guessing he approaches 40%+ of all edits since this began and has deleted several thousand edits by several hundred editors. It's not a matter of being selective either. He deletes everything if not immediately then sooner or later.--mmeiser 08:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs of the disputed behavior, and of other editors who have criticized it? Something to actually look at would be very helpful here, remember pretty much no one here is as familiar with the issue as you are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cannot simply provide "some diffs" because the abuse has been chronic and long term... I would have to submit the entire contribs history of the videoblogging article. Have expended a lot of energy on this issue and is being hotly debated on the videoblogging group. (Over 100 emails in the last 24-48 hours.) Am going to let it cool of for about 48 hours. Am preparing empirical analysis of edit history. Totale edits by all users vs. Pdelongchamp's total edits vs. total number of reversions by Pdelongchamps... this I think will be the best approach, as this is not about particular edits, but a chronic, long term abuse of the reversion and deletes tool. If you can think of any other way I can illustrate that the user in fact deletes every contribution on the article wether it is submitted once or multiple times with increased sourcing without simply pointing to the contribs history please let me know. It's a tough nut to crack but I suspect the community will also come through with their testimonials, particular grievences, votes and consensus on the matter. Have submitted user for banning on issue, bat am also actively looking for alternatives, advisement on courses of action.--mmeiser 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this request to ban user:Pdelongchamp. For almost a year now he has continually deleted just about everything that the videoblogging community has tried to add to this article. Here's one of his versions from August 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&oldid=68939765 and another from April 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&oldid=124431636 During this time many people have spent countless hours working on this article only to have everything (and more) deleted from it by this user. Michael Verdi

Pdelongchamp's Contributions

My edits and deletions are done with encyclopedic reasons. Here is a list of the edits I have made to which Mmeiser is referring. I think it's pretty ironic that i'm the one citing my controversial examples however I beleive these edits will give you a better picture of the dispute ocurring between myself and Mmeiser.

• July 16, 2007: Mmeiser creates a section or original research called Underpinnings.
• July 17, 2006: I try to encourage Mmeiser in the talk page to add sources hoping the section isn't original research.
• July 26, 2007: I eventually removed "Underpinnings" claiming it is original research
  • Edit Summary (→Underpinnings - sorry, this is one big piece of original research with no sources. Post on your own site, let it gain widespread acceptance. Once it's published by a reliable source, quote from it)
• August 6, 2006: Mmeiser reinstates the original research offering no reason or edit summary.
• August 8, 2006: I remove the section again.
  • (→Historical context - No sign of notable sources. Only source provided is an article with no mention of vlogging. Only possible conclusion: Original Research)
• August 12, 2006: The vlog article is nominated for deletion in an AfD bundle including a dozen other Types of blogs by Serpent's Choice because it is "unverifiable", "neologistic", contains "admitted dictionary definitions", "a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use", and "original research."
  • August 17, 2006Mmeiser's response is to get around the AfD by removing the word blog from the article.
  • August 17, 2006: My response was to add sources to the article
• August 22, 2006: Mmeiser disagrees with the source used and removes it without finding a better source.
  • His edit summary: (Magazines are NOT sources of definitions! Pdelongchamp with all do politeness, you do realize you're out of control, and if you don't stop it I shall be forced to call you out on it.)
• August 22, 2006: In the same batch of edits, Mmeiser reinstated the OR section Underpinnings providing no edit summary.
• August 25, 2006:I reverted his unsourced changes and reinstate the sourced definition.

An edit war was ocurring recently. Mmeiser has been reinstating the OR that was cited during the deletion nomination along with an indiscriminate collection of links. When deleted, a discussion was started on the talk page but instead of a discussion, I got a long ranting personal attack from Mmeiser. (diff)

This is a small example of what I've been dealing with in the last year. I am much more lenient with other editors often finding sources to back up what may have started off as OR. However, Mmeiser has shown an unwillingness to source his contributions and with him I don't bother with messages anymore.

Just to show that I also contribute to wikipedia, here are some examples:

• I created the references section and sourced the definition:
  • 17 August 2006, Edit Summary: (corrected and sourced the definition, cleaned up and corrected the name section. videoblog is not a portemanteau of video and log.)
• Asked Steve Garfield to source his Timeline event then helped him properly reference it in the article
  • 31 August 2006, Edit Summary: (wikified the reference to steve, woohoo, sources!)
• I searched and found a better source for the definition
  • 7 September 2006, Edit Summary: (rv def back to stevegarfield's edit - not sure why it was replaced, the other source didn't relate to the text)
• I researched the use of the term vlog and initiated the request to have the article be renamed to Video blog
  • 21 February 2007, Edit Summary by GTBacchus: (moved Vlog to Video blog: per move request; see talk page for discussion)
• After Mmeiser requested commenting by an Admin, I was the one who implemented the suggestions.
  • April 24, 2007
  • I added an brief explanation of the term Vlog with sources.
• I added a sourced timeline event
  • April 30, 2007
• I added multiple sources to the timeline
  • May 1, 2007
• I added another source to timeline
  • May 1, 2007

Pdelongchamp 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to the alegation that I threatened Mmeiser with a block, I did at one point try to discourage him from reverting unsourced work by utilizing a template message (Addition of unsourced material without proper citations) with varying levels of severity. I added a new level everytime a disruptive edit was made. I didn't have the energy to discuss every revert so I tried template messages. In retrospect, it was a bad idea. Pdelongchamp 13:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Pdelongchamp 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Perusing the diffs from Pdelongchamp, and noting that mmeiser did not provide any diffs, I fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced material is not welcome on Wikipedia. EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like "this person won't let me put original research in the article and this is unfair". -Amarkov moo! 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let alone anything that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable material or original research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for anyone that upholds that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or isn't User:MichaelVerdi very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an 11 hour old account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird that User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's suggestion. I hope they're aware of WP:MEAT. Apologies if I'm wrongheaded here--Cailil ^talk 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LionheartX

User:LionheartX, a ban-evading sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX User:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tH User:Guardian_Tiger User:Apocalyptic_Destroyer and User:ApocalypticDestroyer's was previously community banned (or indef. blocked)[72] per this thread on AN/I for being an abusive, disruptive sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template Here's what arbitrator and admin User:Dmcdevit had to say about one of the socks. [[73]] After multiple attempts to wikilawyer and as well as abuse of the unblock template on User talk:RaGnaRoK+SepHír0tH User talk:Guardian_Tiger, his talkpages were protected by admins, [74] [75] [76] which resulted in more sockpuppetry and evasion. Admin User:Nlu was lenient and agreed to give LionheartX another chance despite all of these violations, disruption, and sockpuppetry (ban-evasion). [77] But also made it clear that LionheartX is on a very short leash and that other admins are not bound by his decision. User:BenAveling, the main advocate who campaigned for Lion's unblock also made it clear that Lion is on a very short leash [78] After more disruptions followed, admin User:Durova indef. blocked the sock account User:LionheartX per [79] [80] The block was overturned one week under cloudy and controversial circumstances. Nevertheless, Lion was advised to stay out of trouble [81]. I have always been a victim of Lion (and his previously socks) tendency to stalk, spam, and harass. Several harassment campaign has been launched by LionheartX to drive me out of wikipedia. The newest one started couple of weeks ago even though he was advised to stay away from me and to stop harssing me. [82] This didn't stop him to orchestrate an anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign by proxy. (spamming usertalkpages to campaign to ban me)[83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]. Spamming in my arbCom case with User:Ideogram [[94]] (there are way too many diffs so just glance through his contributions and you'll see it) and stalk my contributions and POV pushing . [[95]] [[96]] [[97]] [[98]], disrupt Wikipedia:Changing username [[99]] [[100]] [[101]], wikilawyering, and spamming/canvassing [[102]] [[103]] [[104]]. These are the very reasons why he got banned. I strongly urge the community to community ban this user. This isn't about me (even though I am his favorite target), it's about exhausting the community's patience and abusive/disruptive/ban-evasion in general. We should enforce the ban and resolve this issue once and for all. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This community ban request is clearly vindictive and is highly inappropriate. Certified.Gangsta is filing this community ban request in response to evidence submitted during his ArbCom case. Certified.Gangsta is currently facing strong ArbCom sanctions and is not in any position to attack other editors. Certified.Gangsta is clearly misrepresenting the situation. My account was never banned. See the dates on the WP:ANI threads, the most relevant and recent WP:ANI thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. My account was clearly unblocked with the support of many other administrators[105][106]. Certified.Gangsta has no evidence for his allegations of policy violations from my account, but is making unjustified accusations. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram for Certified.Gangsta's ArbCom case, which is still not over, and see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Workshop for diffs of his site violations. The only person violating policy here is Certified.Gangsta, who has extensively made personal attacks, aggresively edit warred, and has a long history of policy violations. Certified.Gangsta has extensively canvassed in an attempt to have my account blocked. Certified.Gangsta is filing this in an attempt to gain leverage in a large number of China-Taiwan content disputes, and this request should definitely be dismissed as such.

Note: Certified.Gangsta previously edited under the following names:

• Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Certified.Gangsta was previously known as Bonafide.hustla and Freestyle.king before he changed his username twice. See Certified.Gangsta's long block log [107] [108] [109]. Please note thatCertified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted that he abused sockpuppets and created the attack account, N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).See [110] [111]. The specific diffs are present here in Certified.Gangsta's Arbitration case, which is still not over. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_LionheartX. Strong sanctions should definitely be carried out against Certified.Gangsta; he has clearly exhausted the community's patience. Thanks. LionheartX 09:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As per the top of this page, "community ban requests should be a last resort". No attempt at dispute resolution has been made by Certified.Gangsta. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ben Aveling, and suggest that Certified.Gangsta should try a user conduct RFC or mediation. It's not easy to judge the validity of a lengthy case made here by someone like Certified.gangsta who has a record at Arbcom. Certified.gangsta himself has been the subject of a user conduct RFC and a discussion at this noticeboard in March, which ended with the transfer of his case to Arbcom. LionheartX's block log shows that Durova undid his sockpuppet block in March as a mistake. Background on the reasons for his unblocking is at [112]. If LionheartX did misbehave on the Arbcom pages, Arbcom will surely be able to deal with that. It is clear that there have been edit wars between Certified.Gangsta and LionheartX in the past. If there is any problem with LionheartX's editing that deserves to be brought here, someone else should bring it. EdJohnston 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mudaliar and User:Venki123 are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is posted by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal community ban on User:Licorne

Licorne (talk · contribs · block log) was banned for one year by ArbCom for personal attacks, POV-pushing and unwillingness to cooperate. Two days after the decision came down, admin Fastfission blocked him indefinitely for anti-Semitic personal attacks.

Seeing that I want to eventually be an admin, I've looked at the case, and my feeling is that for legal reasons we ought to formally convert this into a community ban. He evaded the original ArbCom block at least four times by using anonymous IPs--that by itself merits a community ban.

To clarify--while no admin in his right mind would unblock someone who made the kind of anti-Semitic attacks he made, I shudder at the thought of this guy having a window to bring legal action. We need to close it.Blueboy96 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Licorne has already been entered on List of banned users. Please go and look at his entry there. Does anyone object to having this noticeboard ratify his inclusion there? Does anyone feel that we should request that more evidence be supplied here before doing that? Can anyone familiar with the case offer a brief summary of the evidence? Thanks, EdJohnston 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why we need to ratify this. While the fact that he evaded the original ArbCom ruling at least four times is by itself grounds for a community ban, my feeling is that we need to endorse Fastfission's unilateral ban for legal reasons, Though personally, it was completely warranted from my cursory look at his talk page. Here's the last version before User:Joke137 protected it.Blueboy96 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Licorne was a POV-pusher of the worst kind on Albert Einstein and related articles. He turned out to be an antisemitic asshole (word chosen after careful deliberation and in lack of something stronger in my active vocabulary) of the worst kind. See this if you have a strong stomach, or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne for more details. Several editors threatened to leave Wikipedia for good if he was allowed to go on. --Stephan Schulz 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Juan Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been fully protected for over two weeks due to a "persistent edit war" involving Commodore Sloat and Armon. Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon/Outside comments contains an extensive argument between these two users, with no apparent end in sight. Additionally, both Commodore Sloat and Armon appear to have an extensive history of edit warring, having both been blocked many times for 3RR violations. Rather than locking the entire community out of Juan Cole until (or if) the users responsible for the edit warring can negotiate a solution, I suggest that the article be reduced to semi-protection, and that Commodore Sloat and Armon be placed on community revert probation for a period of three months. They would be limited to one reversion per page per week, except when reverting under the circumstances described in Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions. Such a remedy would effectively prevent Commodore Sloat and Armon from participating in edit wars for the next three months, and would allow them the opportunity to develop proficiency in more harmonious editing techniques. John254 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)