Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:41, 8 August 2007

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

This keeps getting archived without close, so I pulled it back from the archives. Give the opinions below, I think it is safe to say there is no consensus to lift the ban on Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) per my proposal, so I've instructed the editor to contact ARBCOM if they wish to contest the banning. --Isotope23 ^talk 14:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs)

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) was originally community banned by consensus for sockpuppeting and disruptive editing at Brett Favre. He returned with a dynamic IP and edited the article again (though not redoing the edits that led to his original ban) last week. I approached him and offered the opportunity to regain his ability to edit here if he would create 1 account to edit from and commit to working within our policies and guidelines. He agreed. He has been editing as BarryBonds800HomeRuns (talk · contribs), primarily the Brett Favre page, but a few others as well. So far the results have been encouraging in my estimation; he still has some work to do in regards to collaborating with other editors, but he seems to understand that and is willing to work with others on that. Obviously, I can't lift a community ban unilaterally, so I wanted to submit a request to lift the community imposed ban and allow him to edit here subject to our policies and guidelines. I'm willing to work with him on understanding policy and guidelines here.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably speaking out of turn here, but as an outsider I would trust your judgement on this. I would like to know what you specifically mean by saying you'd be "willing to work with him on understanding policy and guidelines here", though. John Carter 14:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can clarify... One of the issues that got him into some trouble early on was emphasizing "fact" or "truth" over verifiability and no original research. Also, there have been communication issues where some of the things that the individual has said have come across in a way that probably ruffled some feathers. These are the sort of issues I'm willing to work with him on so he better understands policies, guidelines, and culture here and how it applies to editing and forming consensus. I see it as an informal WP:ADOPT.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a wholly reasonable request and I too trust Isotope23's judgement, but logically it seems to me that the user would do better just continuing on under their new account: probably better to leave the old account (and any bad feelings in the community associated with it) banned and buried. Sometimes a fresh start is best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry if that wasn't clear. My intent was that the individual would continue editing under BarryBonds800HomeRuns (talk · contribs). The Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) account will remain blocked along with all the previous sockpuppet accounts. This is simply a lifting of the ban on the individual behind these accounts. The individual has a distinctive editing style (I'm not the only one who noticed it was him) so this it primarily a request to unban such that if the community feels he should be allowed to edit under BarryBonds800HomeRuns (talk · contribs), the Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) ban will not be enforced on the BarryBonds account. Hope that clarifies.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, based on trusting Isotope23 to handle the situation. I would also suggest that we empower Isotope23 to personally restore the ban if, down the road, Isotope23 decides that the user has not lived up to his promises of reform. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. I have seen no evidence to suggest that this user will be able to work well within the community. In fact, I have collected evidence that seems to suggest just the opposite. Upon his return, after Isotope23 allowed it, here's what we have:
- Misleading edit summary; deliberately reverting my edit without saying why
- Misleading edit summary; these are not punctuation errors
- Misleading edit summary; this is not fixing a colon to a semicolon
- Misleading edit summary; these are not punctuation errors
- Switching order of citations, against consensus at talk page
- This diff, which suggests that he is not willing to work with me on the Brett Favre article

Sorry to sound too vindictive here, and I was willing to give him an 87th chance; however, his edits right after returning have changed my opinion drastically. If you really want more backstory on the guy, go here, where I have collected an archive of important discussions regarding this user in case someone ever forgot. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the principle of a second chance as long as previously banned user enters WP:ADOPT. And since Isotope23 has an informal mentor relationship with BarryBonds800HomeRuns I support it in this case. I do think that unblocks like this should be viewed as probationary and that previous bans (which are the highest form of community sanction) be put to one side rather than out-right forgotten--Cailil ^talk 23:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This got archived, I've pulled it back to the main page to get more feedback before we close the discussion.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose his unban. Some people deserve a second chance, but he's blanked pages numerous times, and people asking him to change had no effect on him 7 months ago, and I see no reason why it would now. He got banned, then made an alt account, showing he has no respect for the rules of Wikipedia. Miles Blues 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose his unban. Rather than acting in good faith, this banned vandal created a new account to get around his community ban. The only thing that sways me at all in the other direction is that Isotope23 is willing to work with him. As such, if the ban is lifted despite my vote, I would not object as I have a lot of respect for Isotope23. --Yamla 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally encourage restoration of editing privileges for an editor who evades a ban on sockpuppets, but it has been half a year and the sock issue began last week? If that's the case and the user accepts mentorship, I'm fine with giving this a try. It's easy to reapply a block if problems resume and maybe this person has matured in the interim. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose his unban, King Bee links tell me that he is trying to get back to his past. I don't thing WP:ADOPT will help him. He been a long-problem editor with very disruptive socks. Sorry Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I should note that I was brought here by an email from Jaranda, but I was the editor who originally worked with SW1955, and I was the one who was, in effect, betrayed by him, since he pledged to behave repeatedly if I showed leniency and broke those pledges every time. The fact that he went right after the article that got him in trouble in the first place doesn't win him any points with me, either. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isotype23 is working with him constructively. The complaints re edits since returning listed by Kingbee are minor. It's a pity that Yamla has gone and blocked the used while this discussion is still going on. --Peter cohen 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is it that my complaints above are minor? I think deliberately reverting a fellow wikipedian's edit and writing a misleading edit summary to try to cover your tracks is rather devious, and hardly minor. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ideogram (talk · contribs)

Statement by Jehochman

Ideogram has engaged in a long term pattern of disruption involving multiple, abusive sockpuppets. He has admitted operating a number of socks, and several more are suspected.

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram
Puppetmaster

Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IdeoBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - bot account, properly identified

Sockpuppets

Wang C-H (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - confirmed by Ideogram. [1]
Ilovetaiwan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:DUCK - see [2]
Galindo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:DUCK - see [3]
R1es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Medcabemail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. [4]

Superior IQ Genuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - was edit warring on July 5, 2006 with above Galindo and Ideogram - already blocked.
Devout Christian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - already blocked.

Abusive incidents of sockpuppetry

Sockpuppet R1es (talk · contribs) was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. See [5] and [6] Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)
Sockpuppet Galindo (talk · contribs) was edit warring [7] [8] [9] along side Ideogram up to 4RR [10]. In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor [11].

Recent cases involving Ideogram

August 2007, Frivolous Arbcom request involving DreamGuy (talk · contribs) is filed and withdrawn by Ideogram.
August 2007, Ideogram intervenes in AN/I drama targeting DreamGuy (talk · contribs), even though Ideogram has no involvement in the underlying dispute. Request for arbitation filed
August 2007, AN/I report titled Disruptive editing and personal attacks by Ideogram. Ideogram told another editor to "shut the fuck up."
April 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing - Ideogram goes after TingMing. TingMing gets banned.
April 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram - Ideogram goes after Certified.Gangsta. CG is banned for one year.
March 2007 drama Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Certified.Gangsta_redux - wikilawyering prelude to above case.

The pattern of Ideogram's behavior is incivility, edit warring, POV pushing, sock puppetry to avoid scrutiny and sew chaos, and worst of all, Ideogram targets users who have been in some kind of trouble and are trying to correct themselves. Ideogram baits and trolls his targets until they relapse, and then he seeks to have them banned. This cynical behavior should not be tolerated at Wikipedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Ideogram case

See here. There are only three edits by Galindo (talk · contribs) and the first is not a revert. --Ideogram 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman demonstrates four edits by Galindo plus another on the main account. So even if the first of Galindo's edits isn't a revert that still totals 4RR in under 24 hours, using the sock to avoid 3RR scrutiny, while the user concurrently warned another editor who was on the verge of violating one of the two policies Ideogram was actually violating. Those actions show Ideogram knows exactly what he was doing. He's admitted that Galindo is his sockpuppet account and Jehochman verifies that too. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking the evidence... There's actually a sequence of four diffs, not five. All four make the same edit, to remove mention of Taiwan which was added by the previous editor in each case. This is edit warring in any case. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say. Let the community investigate the facts and decide. --Ideogram 23:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qst (talk · contribs)

Statement by User:Riana

Courtesy note: Somewhat verbose, my apologies. Please set aside about 15 minutes or so for this, unless you are familiar with the case :) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal to community ban the currently blocked sockpuppeteer, Qst (talk · contribs). Qst is variously known as Tellyaddict, The Sunshine Man, Rlest (formerly Ftp, usurped) (all three of these are legitimate alternate accounts, new accounts created by Qst) and Ds.mt (a block evading sockpuppet, proven by Checkuser). For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the person behind these accounts as Qst, which was chronologically the 3rd account in the series of accounts, or else as TA, TSM, RL and Ds.mt.

TA began actively editing around November of last year; Retiono Virginian (talk · contribs) began editing around January of this year. TA and RV were very close, often seen on talkpages together, both making many automated vandalism reversions and reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. Soon after their arrival, and apparently due to their zealous anti-vandal efforts, they (as well as other innocent users and admins, but mostly these 2 accounts) were plagued by sockpuppets of Mr oompapa (talk · contribs), a particularly persistent puppetmaster IP check. I cannot speak for others, but I personally found it strange that such relatively new users would be so heavily targeted by a vandal - however, the situation seemed more-or-less under control, and I decided not to say anything at the time.

In order to allow Retiono Virginian to escape Oompapa's unwelcome attentions he asked to change accounts, which he did - creating the new account Eaomatrix (please remember this point, it is somewhat relevant later on). However, due to some detective work by Martinp23 (talk · contribs) this account, as well as the Oompapa accounts, were found to be sockpuppets of the banned sockpuppeteer Molag Bal (talk · contribs).

Naturally some suspicion fell upon the Tellyaddict account, which was so close to RV. However Checkuser eliminated him from this equation, and he created a new account, TSM. Initially he chose to tell only a few administrators he trusted about this account, but eventually chose to announce openly on his userpage that he was Tellyaddict. I believe this may have been due to Qst's overwhelming desire to attain adminship (first failed RfA, second (disastrous) failed RfA) - he wishes at all times to keep the contributions from all his accounts together.

TSM (shortly renamed to Qst) continued in much the same way as TA and RV had done - AIV, RfA, AfD, UAA - in short, the cocktail that usually garners quick votes at RfAs. Eventually he sought admin coaching, from myself and Michaelas10 (talk · contribs). I believe this choice may have been due to the fact that Michael and myself are the sort of admin he would probably have been, blocking and deleting types :) His admin coaching, located here, was frankly distressing.

After this, without asking myself or Michael whether we thought the time was right, he requested adminship. Naturally he got beat back horribly, with Moreschi (talk · contribs) and Matthew (talk · contribs) giving rather scathing opposition. He reacted poorly to this, especially with Moreschi link. After this an IP began trolling on Moreschi's talkpage - the SSP is located here, filed by Daniel (talk · contribs). Based on this evidence, I blocked the Qst account pending his explanation for his actions. Shortly after this more BTel IPs began trolling in the userspace of involved editors. Believing this to be Qst, I extended his block by 2 days, telling him that his actions were not helpful. I also posted on ANI about this. It was ultimately established that the logged out IPs were not Qst, but Molag Bal again. I naturally assumed that this meant that Qst = Molag Bal; however Checkuser evidence still cleared him, and the net result of the ANI discussion was that since Molag Bal seems to follow Qst around, it would be best to leave his account blocked and allow him a fresh start.

Qst was instructed to remain low profile and not to edit in anyway likely to raise suspicions as to his original identity. This new account, Fpt, was very quickly discovered by a Molag Bal sockpuppet and was shortly renamed to Rlest. Rlest then chose to announce that he was Qst (not nicely either). He also continued his feud with Miranda (talk · contribs) (whom he dislikes for reason or reasons unknown) and Kmweber (talk · contribs) (whom he dislikes for his views on RfA). Eventually this culminated in a good deal of incivility from Rlest towards Miranda, Kmweber and others, and he was blocked for some time for personal attacks. Qst chose to evade his block through the 4th account, Ds.mt, 5 days into the 7 day block. This was confirmed by a checkuser, and through inadvertent confirmation by the user on IRC and a conspicuous pattern of edits which included closing an RfA [12] and a large number of reports to WP:UAA. Ds.mt also chose to continue his feud with Kurt Weber, commenting on (and certifying) an RfC [13] as well as vandalising Miranda and Moreschi's userpages [14] and [15]. Unusually, Qst then proceeded to vandalise articles before being blocked. [16], [17] and [18]. His unblock requests constituted personal attacks against Moreschi too. [19].

The convoluted and tiring nature of this problem leads me to believe that a ban may earn us some respite. If a ban is merited when a user has exhausted the patience of the community, it is certainly needed here. Qst causes far more trouble than he is worth, serving as a magnet for Molag Bal (although apparently not the same person), as well as his persistent trolling of other editors, and his basic inability to understand how Wikipedia functions - that it is not to be treated as his personal playground. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence compiled by User:Nick

Requests for Adminship

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tellyaddict - 0/9/6 (Withdrawn by an Admin)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tellyaddict2 17/16/1 (Withdrawn by Candidate after 24 hours)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The Sunshine Man - Declined and Deleted.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qst - 0/3/1 (Withdrawn by Candidate after 1 hour, 17 minutes)

User:Tellyaddict

Nomination of Miranda (formerly Real96's) sandboxes. [20]

Nothing much to report, apart from this first sign of a grudge between Qst and Miranda.

User:The Sunshine Man (Usurpsed to User:Qst)

A history of unusual and disruptive behaviour began the moment he closed the 4th RfA above. Moreschi suffered the most from Qst's uncharacteristic behaviour. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].

Qst also proceeded to leave a number of uncivil comments, disruptive remarks and personal attacks on his own talk page and edit warred with administrators over such content. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].

User:Rlest (was renamed from User:Fpt see dif)

Rlest continued in a similar vain to the above, despite being given a huge amount of leeway over his behaviour. He had his accounts unblocked to contribute to ANI threads and was permitted to create a new account (Ftp, subsequently Rlest) in order to continue editing constructively without having to suffer trolling from Molag Bal. This was not successful and Rlest was subsequently blocked for civility breaches.

RfA behaviour: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]

Edit warring over warnings related to the removal of the a personal attack: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]

More Miranda moments (pay particular attention to the edit summaries): [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], and on to ANI [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]

Curiosity Corner (or how the hell can we trust a word he says) [66], [67] and [68] (the I won't be running for RfA for at least 4 months post, made 4 days before his most recent self-nom)

User:Ds.mt (a checkuser confirmed block evading sockpuppet)

~~He was caught in time and there's not much trolling prior to blocking. All the worrying contributions are up above.~~ Added by Miranda: He also assumed bad faith with newcomers, see here. He a person, Sampleconstruct by placing test-4 warnings for deleting an image warning. His request for adminship/admiship interests also apparent from his conversation with Husond.

Other Accounts

User:Aquasplash - temporary account used from March 9 and 10.
User:Qst (Userspace) - for userspace edits, later used for harassment
User:WotD_account - Wikipedian of the Day account
User:Qlt - used to attack Miranda

Disclaimer: I am not 100% positive that Qlt is Rlest, due to possible sockpuppetry of Molag Bal of Qlt. However, I did come up with these two difs: by Qlt, his only edit and this by Rlest. Miranda 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General ramble

I'm fairly convinced that Qst is determined to become an administrator and he knows that his uncivil behaviour and lack of an empty block log on his most recent accounts preclude any chance of these accounts being promoted within the normal 3-9 month time frame, indeed, if any of these account were ever to be promoted, he would probably be looking at spending a year or more editing without going through the RfA process and this appears to be something Qst is unwilling to do. His answer, in my opinion, is to try and game the system by registering a new account following incivility or following a block. There needs to be, in my opinion, some further investigation as to why this user wants to become an administrator and why he is willing to engage in such behaviour to become an administrator. Nick 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The proliferation of these accounts has become somewhat silly. We shouldn't be encouraging people to start new accounts everytime they mess up with their old one. I engineered the opportunity for Qst to reappear under a new account (Fpt/Rlest) with the hope that he would be able to evade Molag Bal's attention in so doing. Given that his edit pattern is fairly distinctive, that proved not be possible and removes the reason why new accounts should be created. My initial response when I read saw this thread here was to propose that the editor be forced to choose on of his present accounts and continue editing solely using that account.

However, given the recent vandalism to the mainspace, I am less willing to extend a gesture of good faith to the editor, whose conduct on Wikipedia has been declining rapidly as these events have unfolded. I quite like the guy and he does make some useful contributions to the project, however I feel these are now outweighed by the disruption that seems of late to accompany them. I am therefore reluctantly willing to endorse a ban of this user. WjBscribe 13:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree that it's time something more is done. And although Molag Bal has never been shown to be Qst et al., it is extremely perplexing how Qst gets caught up in Molag Bal's web so frequently. I remain suspicious of this. I support a community ban of some sort. Although I'd normally say a few months' duration, given Qst's recent block evasion and history of flying off the handle at several editors, it may need to be an indefinite ban. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've about had it with this fellow. His sole purpose in being here is to become an admin when he is patently unfit for the position. When the possibility of the admin toy is taken away from him, he trolls. Not only that: this very important diff clearly shows a strong link between Qst and Molag Bal. Moreover, he has adopted several Molag Bal socks, and displayed almost identical behaviour patterns to Molag Bal. He is not the innocent party here. In my opinion he has worked hand-in-glove with Molag Bal. In addition to all the other stuff. Moreschi ^Talk 14:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have no other choice other than to second WJBscribe. Qst, Tellyaddict, et al have been proved by checkuser to have no relation to Molag Bal, so could we please stop thinking that he is? He obviously knows more than the rest of us, but that in no way means he is Molag. However, we've given him 2 chances to stop the behaviour, and they've all blown up in our faces; you know the idiom "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me". Whenever someone does something to his disliking, he loses rational thought and starts trolling, etc. I have no doubt that he is a solid contributor, but this kind of behavior is not acceptable. —« ANIMUM » 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the idiom was "fool me once, shame on... shame on you. If you fool me, can't get fooled again." Maybe that is just in Texas though.

Kidding aside, while I've come across QST/Telly/Rlest in various incarnations (I actually wasn't aware these were all the same individual) and found the individual to do some decent work around here, the diffs above are troubling and I think the liklihood of continued disruption/dramatics outweighs the good this editor has done, even sans any consideration of the Molag Bal factor. There is a pattern of behavior here and it isn't a good one. I'd endorse a ban for now with the understanding that the editor could possibly be allowed back to editing if they agreed to some restrictions (no RFA's for some set period of time, etc).--Isotope23 ^talk 15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard that version, Isotope :) Anyway, this is probably a good time to say that I've had issues with this editor's general behavior even outside of the sockpuppetry and resulting blow-ups. I found him to be, even when simply vandal-fighting and doing regular work, difficult to work with. The few times I ever interacted with him, communication was difficult and required repeated requests for explanations. Such issues included times where he left vandalism warnings for users who had not vandalized and then refused to explain, even to them, what he had warned them for. Perhaps I observed him only on bad days, but the work I encountered was often less than constructive. Leebo ^T/C 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Leebo - it's George W. Bush quote from 2002.) -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By request, I've given notice of this discussion at User talk:Rlest, which seems to be the account that the user is most likely to check, if he checks any (it's blocked for two months, and the page says he's on wikibreak, but the other accounts are blocked indefinitely and have retired or banned templates). If people think that other notice should be given, please feel free. Whether this discussion should be resolved, rather than put on hold, if Rlest/Qst remains away can be addressed if he does not respond to the notice. Newyorkbrad 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always knew he would strike again. I've known this user since he was User:The Sunshine Man. He was always one of the nicest editors around, and was a very productive editor whom I was sure was going to be an administrator one day. Unfortunately, that day never came. Ever since he requested adminship as Qst and it failed, he has attacked and insulted countless editors, and has come back twice, asking for forgiveness, continuing to edit, and then getting blocked once again. I had always been willing to forgive him, seeing how he is a very productive editor, but his continued incivility and hatred towards many editors, especially Miranda, and sock puppetry (User:Ds.mt and User:Qlt) have made me see the light. Therefore, I entirely support the permanent banning of Qst/Rlest/whatever you want to call him. --Boricuaeddie 18:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to endorse fully site-banning this user and all their accounts. It seems that they were given second and third chances, only for them to come back and cause more and more disruption. A lot of time has been wasted by this user and they only have themselves to blame for these sanctions--Cailil ^talk 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no chance for any kind of leniency and support every kind of solution that with deprive this user of the opportunity to disrupt the work of those worthier than he. --Agamemnon2 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support any kind of ban. This user has been disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole, and has repeatably violated WP:NPA and WP:SOCK, both of which he should know quite well. He was given the chance to come back as a new user after the Qst ordeal, but decided to link the accounts to booster his edit count. He only appears interested in power by being an administrator and hence links the account. He's been given too many chances, and I support the permanent banning of The Sunshine Man/Qst/Ds.mt/Rlest/Telly Addict/ect. ~ Wikihermit 22:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been informed that Qst used a further sockpuppet, Aquasplash (talk · contribs) [69]. The failure to recognise WP:SOCK as one of our most important policies has apparently been present from the very start. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any abuse from this briefly used account, and its second edit acknowledged that this was Tellyaddict's new account. There are other serious issues here, but this one may be a digression. Newyorkbrad 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, he's currently blocked for two months on the Qst account of incivility and person attacks (see link above). The new accounts are violations of WP:SOCK to evade a block which countless admins have endorsed. Daniel →♦ 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I was referring only to the Aquasplash account which by this point is ancient history anyway (all edits on a couple of days in March). Obviously his recent conduct with the accounts created to evade blocks was unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 00:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am outraged when there is a demand to ban someone because of the supposed "exhausting of the community's patience." I am a long-standing member of the community, and I assure you that my patience is virtually inexhaustible. Those whose patience is easily exhausted should find other on-line activities. Edison 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefblock of all accounts

From the discussion above it is clear to me that the community's patience with this user has been exhausted. On this basis I have indefblocked all accounts used by Tellyaddict/Qst with the block summary: "abuse of multiple accounts, incivility, vandalism - community patience exhausted". As it would appear no administrator is willing to unblock, this user may be considered community banned. WjBscribe 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps getting archived without close, so I pulled it back from the archives. Give the opinions below, I think it is safe to say there is no consensus to lift the ban on Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) per my proposal, so I've instructed the editor to contact ARBCOM if they wish to contest the banning. --Isotope23 ^talk 14:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs)

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) was originally community banned by consensus for sockpuppeting and disruptive editing at Brett Favre. He returned with a dynamic IP and edited the article again (though not redoing the edits that led to his original ban) last week. I approached him and offered the opportunity to regain his ability to edit here if he would create 1 account to edit from and commit to working within our policies and guidelines. He agreed. He has been editing as BarryBonds800HomeRuns (talk · contribs), primarily the Brett Favre page, but a few others as well. So far the results have been encouraging in my estimation; he still has some work to do in regards to collaborating with other editors, but he seems to understand that and is willing to work with others on that. Obviously, I can't lift a community ban unilaterally, so I wanted to submit a request to lift the community imposed ban and allow him to edit here subject to our policies and guidelines. I'm willing to work with him on understanding policy and guidelines here.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably speaking out of turn here, but as an outsider I would trust your judgement on this. I would like to know what you specifically mean by saying you'd be "willing to work with him on understanding policy and guidelines here", though. John Carter 14:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can clarify... One of the issues that got him into some trouble early on was emphasizing "fact" or "truth" over verifiability and no original research. Also, there have been communication issues where some of the things that the individual has said have come across in a way that probably ruffled some feathers. These are the sort of issues I'm willing to work with him on so he better understands policies, guidelines, and culture here and how it applies to editing and forming consensus. I see it as an informal WP:ADOPT.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a wholly reasonable request and I too trust Isotope23's judgement, but logically it seems to me that the user would do better just continuing on under their new account: probably better to leave the old account (and any bad feelings in the community associated with it) banned and buried. Sometimes a fresh start is best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry if that wasn't clear. My intent was that the individual would continue editing under BarryBonds800HomeRuns (talk · contribs). The Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) account will remain blocked along with all the previous sockpuppet accounts. This is simply a lifting of the ban on the individual behind these accounts. The individual has a distinctive editing style (I'm not the only one who noticed it was him) so this it primarily a request to unban such that if the community feels he should be allowed to edit under BarryBonds800HomeRuns (talk · contribs), the Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) ban will not be enforced on the BarryBonds account. Hope that clarifies.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, based on trusting Isotope23 to handle the situation. I would also suggest that we empower Isotope23 to personally restore the ban if, down the road, Isotope23 decides that the user has not lived up to his promises of reform. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. I have seen no evidence to suggest that this user will be able to work well within the community. In fact, I have collected evidence that seems to suggest just the opposite. Upon his return, after Isotope23 allowed it, here's what we have:
- Misleading edit summary; deliberately reverting my edit without saying why
- Misleading edit summary; these are not punctuation errors
- Misleading edit summary; this is not fixing a colon to a semicolon
- Misleading edit summary; these are not punctuation errors
- Switching order of citations, against consensus at talk page
- This diff, which suggests that he is not willing to work with me on the Brett Favre article

Sorry to sound too vindictive here, and I was willing to give him an 87th chance; however, his edits right after returning have changed my opinion drastically. If you really want more backstory on the guy, go here, where I have collected an archive of important discussions regarding this user in case someone ever forgot. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the principle of a second chance as long as previously banned user enters WP:ADOPT. And since Isotope23 has an informal mentor relationship with BarryBonds800HomeRuns I support it in this case. I do think that unblocks like this should be viewed as probationary and that previous bans (which are the highest form of community sanction) be put to one side rather than out-right forgotten--Cailil ^talk 23:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This got archived, I've pulled it back to the main page to get more feedback before we close the discussion.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose his unban. Some people deserve a second chance, but he's blanked pages numerous times, and people asking him to change had no effect on him 7 months ago, and I see no reason why it would now. He got banned, then made an alt account, showing he has no respect for the rules of Wikipedia. Miles Blues 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose his unban. Rather than acting in good faith, this banned vandal created a new account to get around his community ban. The only thing that sways me at all in the other direction is that Isotope23 is willing to work with him. As such, if the ban is lifted despite my vote, I would not object as I have a lot of respect for Isotope23. --Yamla 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally encourage restoration of editing privileges for an editor who evades a ban on sockpuppets, but it has been half a year and the sock issue began last week? If that's the case and the user accepts mentorship, I'm fine with giving this a try. It's easy to reapply a block if problems resume and maybe this person has matured in the interim. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose his unban, King Bee links tell me that he is trying to get back to his past. I don't thing WP:ADOPT will help him. He been a long-problem editor with very disruptive socks. Sorry Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I should note that I was brought here by an email from Jaranda, but I was the editor who originally worked with SW1955, and I was the one who was, in effect, betrayed by him, since he pledged to behave repeatedly if I showed leniency and broke those pledges every time. The fact that he went right after the article that got him in trouble in the first place doesn't win him any points with me, either. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isotype23 is working with him constructively. The complaints re edits since returning listed by Kingbee are minor. It's a pity that Yamla has gone and blocked the used while this discussion is still going on. --Peter cohen 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is it that my complaints above are minor? I think deliberately reverting a fellow wikipedian's edit and writing a misleading edit summary to try to cover your tracks is rather devious, and hardly minor. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ideogram (talk · contribs)

Statement by Jehochman

Ideogram has engaged in a long term pattern of disruption involving multiple, abusive sockpuppets. He has admitted operating a number of socks, and several more are suspected.

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram
Puppetmaster

Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IdeoBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - bot account, properly identified

Sockpuppets

Wang C-H (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - confirmed by Ideogram. [70]
Ilovetaiwan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:DUCK - see [71]
Galindo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:DUCK - see [72]
R1es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Medcabemail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. [73]

Superior IQ Genuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - was edit warring on July 5, 2006 with above Galindo and Ideogram - already blocked.
Devout Christian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - already blocked.

Abusive incidents of sockpuppetry

Sockpuppet R1es (talk · contribs) was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. See [74] and [75] Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)
Sockpuppet Galindo (talk · contribs) was edit warring [76] [77] [78] along side Ideogram up to 4RR [79]. In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor [80].

Recent cases involving Ideogram

August 2007, Frivolous Arbcom request involving DreamGuy (talk · contribs) is filed and withdrawn by Ideogram.
August 2007, Ideogram intervenes in AN/I drama targeting DreamGuy (talk · contribs), even though Ideogram has no involvement in the underlying dispute. Request for arbitation filed
August 2007, AN/I report titled Disruptive editing and personal attacks by Ideogram. Ideogram told another editor to "shut the fuck up."
April 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing - Ideogram goes after TingMing. TingMing gets banned.
April 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram - Ideogram goes after Certified.Gangsta. CG is banned for one year.
March 2007 drama Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Certified.Gangsta_redux - wikilawyering prelude to above case.

The pattern of Ideogram's behavior is incivility, edit warring, POV pushing, sock puppetry to avoid scrutiny and sew chaos, and worst of all, Ideogram targets users who have been in some kind of trouble and are trying to correct themselves. Ideogram baits and trolls his targets until they relapse, and then he seeks to have them banned. This cynical behavior should not be tolerated at Wikipedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Ideogram case

See here. There are only three edits by Galindo (talk · contribs) and the first is not a revert. --Ideogram 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman demonstrates four edits by Galindo plus another on the main account. So even if the first of Galindo's edits isn't a revert that still totals 4RR in under 24 hours, using the sock to avoid 3RR scrutiny, while the user concurrently warned another editor who was on the verge of violating one of the two policies Ideogram was actually violating. Those actions show Ideogram knows exactly what he was doing. He's admitted that Galindo is his sockpuppet account and Jehochman verifies that too. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking the evidence... There's actually a sequence of four diffs, not five. All four make the same edit, to remove mention of Taiwan which was added by the previous editor in each case. This is edit warring in any case. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say. Let the community investigate the facts and decide. --Ideogram 23:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qst (talk · contribs)

Statement by User:Riana

Courtesy note: Somewhat verbose, my apologies. Please set aside about 15 minutes or so for this, unless you are familiar with the case :) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal to community ban the currently blocked sockpuppeteer, Qst (talk · contribs). Qst is variously known as Tellyaddict, The Sunshine Man, Rlest (formerly Ftp, usurped) (all three of these are legitimate alternate accounts, new accounts created by Qst) and Ds.mt (a block evading sockpuppet, proven by Checkuser). For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the person behind these accounts as Qst, which was chronologically the 3rd account in the series of accounts, or else as TA, TSM, RL and Ds.mt.

TA began actively editing around November of last year; Retiono Virginian (talk · contribs) began editing around January of this year. TA and RV were very close, often seen on talkpages together, both making many automated vandalism reversions and reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. Soon after their arrival, and apparently due to their zealous anti-vandal efforts, they (as well as other innocent users and admins, but mostly these 2 accounts) were plagued by sockpuppets of Mr oompapa (talk · contribs), a particularly persistent puppetmaster IP check. I cannot speak for others, but I personally found it strange that such relatively new users would be so heavily targeted by a vandal - however, the situation seemed more-or-less under control, and I decided not to say anything at the time.

In order to allow Retiono Virginian to escape Oompapa's unwelcome attentions he asked to change accounts, which he did - creating the new account Eaomatrix (please remember this point, it is somewhat relevant later on). However, due to some detective work by Martinp23 (talk · contribs) this account, as well as the Oompapa accounts, were found to be sockpuppets of the banned sockpuppeteer Molag Bal (talk · contribs).

Naturally some suspicion fell upon the Tellyaddict account, which was so close to RV. However Checkuser eliminated him from this equation, and he created a new account, TSM. Initially he chose to tell only a few administrators he trusted about this account, but eventually chose to announce openly on his userpage that he was Tellyaddict. I believe this may have been due to Qst's overwhelming desire to attain adminship (first failed RfA, second (disastrous) failed RfA) - he wishes at all times to keep the contributions from all his accounts together.

TSM (shortly renamed to Qst) continued in much the same way as TA and RV had done - AIV, RfA, AfD, UAA - in short, the cocktail that usually garners quick votes at RfAs. Eventually he sought admin coaching, from myself and Michaelas10 (talk · contribs). I believe this choice may have been due to the fact that Michael and myself are the sort of admin he would probably have been, blocking and deleting types :) His admin coaching, located here, was frankly distressing.

After this, without asking myself or Michael whether we thought the time was right, he requested adminship. Naturally he got beat back horribly, with Moreschi (talk · contribs) and Matthew (talk · contribs) giving rather scathing opposition. He reacted poorly to this, especially with Moreschi link. After this an IP began trolling on Moreschi's talkpage - the SSP is located here, filed by Daniel (talk · contribs). Based on this evidence, I blocked the Qst account pending his explanation for his actions. Shortly after this more BTel IPs began trolling in the userspace of involved editors. Believing this to be Qst, I extended his block by 2 days, telling him that his actions were not helpful. I also posted on ANI about this. It was ultimately established that the logged out IPs were not Qst, but Molag Bal again. I naturally assumed that this meant that Qst = Molag Bal; however Checkuser evidence still cleared him, and the net result of the ANI discussion was that since Molag Bal seems to follow Qst around, it would be best to leave his account blocked and allow him a fresh start.

Qst was instructed to remain low profile and not to edit in anyway likely to raise suspicions as to his original identity. This new account, Fpt, was very quickly discovered by a Molag Bal sockpuppet and was shortly renamed to Rlest. Rlest then chose to announce that he was Qst (not nicely either). He also continued his feud with Miranda (talk · contribs) (whom he dislikes for reason or reasons unknown) and Kmweber (talk · contribs) (whom he dislikes for his views on RfA). Eventually this culminated in a good deal of incivility from Rlest towards Miranda, Kmweber and others, and he was blocked for some time for personal attacks. Qst chose to evade his block through the 4th account, Ds.mt, 5 days into the 7 day block. This was confirmed by a checkuser, and through inadvertent confirmation by the user on IRC and a conspicuous pattern of edits which included closing an RfA [81] and a large number of reports to WP:UAA. Ds.mt also chose to continue his feud with Kurt Weber, commenting on (and certifying) an RfC [82] as well as vandalising Miranda and Moreschi's userpages [83] and [84]. Unusually, Qst then proceeded to vandalise articles before being blocked. [85], [86] and [87]. His unblock requests constituted personal attacks against Moreschi too. [88].

The convoluted and tiring nature of this problem leads me to believe that a ban may earn us some respite. If a ban is merited when a user has exhausted the patience of the community, it is certainly needed here. Qst causes far more trouble than he is worth, serving as a magnet for Molag Bal (although apparently not the same person), as well as his persistent trolling of other editors, and his basic inability to understand how Wikipedia functions - that it is not to be treated as his personal playground. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence compiled by User:Nick

Requests for Adminship

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tellyaddict - 0/9/6 (Withdrawn by an Admin)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tellyaddict2 17/16/1 (Withdrawn by Candidate after 24 hours)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The Sunshine Man - Declined and Deleted.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qst - 0/3/1 (Withdrawn by Candidate after 1 hour, 17 minutes)

User:Tellyaddict

Nomination of Miranda (formerly Real96's) sandboxes. [89]

Nothing much to report, apart from this first sign of a grudge between Qst and Miranda.

User:The Sunshine Man (Usurpsed to User:Qst)

A history of unusual and disruptive behaviour began the moment he closed the 4th RfA above. Moreschi suffered the most from Qst's uncharacteristic behaviour. [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96].

Qst also proceeded to leave a number of uncivil comments, disruptive remarks and personal attacks on his own talk page and edit warred with administrators over such content. [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105].

User:Rlest (was renamed from User:Fpt see dif)

Rlest continued in a similar vain to the above, despite being given a huge amount of leeway over his behaviour. He had his accounts unblocked to contribute to ANI threads and was permitted to create a new account (Ftp, subsequently Rlest) in order to continue editing constructively without having to suffer trolling from Molag Bal. This was not successful and Rlest was subsequently blocked for civility breaches.

RfA behaviour: [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111]

Edit warring over warnings related to the removal of the a personal attack: [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]

More Miranda moments (pay particular attention to the edit summaries): [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], and on to ANI [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]

Curiosity Corner (or how the hell can we trust a word he says) [135], [136] and [137] (the I won't be running for RfA for at least 4 months post, made 4 days before his most recent self-nom)

User:Ds.mt (a checkuser confirmed block evading sockpuppet)

~~He was caught in time and there's not much trolling prior to blocking. All the worrying contributions are up above.~~ Added by Miranda: He also assumed bad faith with newcomers, see here. He a person, Sampleconstruct by placing test-4 warnings for deleting an image warning. His request for adminship/admiship interests also apparent from his conversation with Husond.

Other Accounts

User:Aquasplash - temporary account used from March 9 and 10.
User:Qst (Userspace) - for userspace edits, later used for harassment
User:WotD_account - Wikipedian of the Day account
User:Qlt - used to attack Miranda