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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:20, 16 September 2007

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

Proposing a ban on Ron liebman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To place User:Ron liebman under a Community Ban for repeatedly breached the Naming Policy by using misleading usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, without verification; misusing sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman; placing threats of legal action on his talk page[1]

}

Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (January 30th, 2007 - May 11th, 2007) has been haunting us with sock puppets since his indefinite block on May 11th. He is using these sock puppets to repeatedly add false information to articles (I think, if I'm wrong please correct me). He has 130 suspected puppets and 12 confirmed accounts. These puppets are frequently popping up, and I think a ban should be in order. I think he has exhausted all of our patience. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely blocked since May. Moving from only one 31 hour block to an indefinite is harsh. Why not try a block of a few months first? Unblock, if he re-offends, indefinitely block. Banno 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the user been informed of this discussion, and has the issue of identity been solved? Banno 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps more explanation is needed, including links and diffs. Banno 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given that he has been blocked indefinitely, after only one block of 31 (why 31?) hours, and that the indefinite ban has been in place since May, I am considering unblocking him. Banno 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then this discussion can produce a result, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prima faci, this looks like Liebman started editing seriously in March [2], got into a few disputes and broke 3RR and was blocked briefly, tried to avoid 3RR with a few sockpuppets and was blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a block of a few months would have been better. Since then he has used sockpuppets to avoid the block. I suggest unblocking, so that he doesn't have a need to use sockpuppets, and with the condition that a breach of 3RR, including via sockpuppets, will result in an indefinite block and community ban. Banno 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has shown no willingness whatsoever to conform to the rules about citations and POV-pushing, ever since his first activities in January up until now (or at least yesterday, when he was very active with his socks). With no commitment from him to do better, how do you imagine that unblocking him will help solve anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't disagree with this more vehemently, Banno. Liebman has been using the identities of real living people at both SABR and http://baseball-reference.com/bullpen while denying all sockpuppetry and even claiming that other people are stalking him (checkuser says otherwise). This edit at bullpen confirms that he's almost stealing other people's identity. He's been discredited on this wiki and theirs and responded with venomous messages like this and this just for a quick sample. Frankly I'm shocked that someone would be rewarded for months of rampant false information and sockpuppetry by being released from their block! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Endorse ban - He lied saying all the socks were imitators, yet this check right after he said that proved otherwise. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"A list of diffs"? There are hundreds of them. I suggest you start with the history for Hideki Matsui and cross-check it with the list of sockpuppets (listed in the first paragraph, above) to see which ones are his, and then you will just begin to get the idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you, which will be lost on you if you're under the age of 50 or so, but that's OK: "Duke 'im, Banno!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Duke 'im"??? Banno 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the best spoonerism I could come up with for "Book 'im, Danno!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh. You've lost me. Banno 01:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Five-O. Georgewilliamherbert 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thanks. Banno 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban I am quite happy that the sockpuppet evidence provided above is sufficient to warrant the denial of editing privileges to this person. I was the blocking admin. (aeropagitica) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support. Looking at the evidence, each offense taken by itself would warrant a ban. Deliberately adding false information, egregious sockpuppetry (over 80 socks, by my count) and impersonating real people. All together? Gone. Blueboy 96 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I was only peripherally involved with this mess, but what I saw was plenty awful enough. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: He is already indefinitely blocked, but he keeps using a public library, with its multiple IP addreses, to create new accounts and continue his activities. I would like to know how or if banning will solve that problem? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently the "ban" is only implied, i.e. it falls under #1 of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban where he is indefblocked and no admin is willing to unblock. A consensus here would be an upgrade of sorts, falling under the umbrella of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. That's my understanding anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aha. It's a formal proceeding that prohibits an admin from unilaterally unblocking him, but from Liebman's standpoint it would be business as usual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mostly yes. It also may bring the situation to more people's attention so Liebman's antics become more difficult for him. Otherwise, it's just another entry in the long list at WP:LTA. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A formal ban will make it much easier to deal with his tactics--i.e., unlimited Checkuser requests, revert/delete-on-sight of all his contributions and block-on-sight of all socks.Blueboy 96 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I remember that a range block of one of the library systems he uses was put into effect at one point, for the IP starting with 141, I think. A formal ban would definitely be a good thing, imho. I've been doing a lot of watching for his "edits" and reporting them to WP:AIV. His snarky comments towards me and others have been a real treat, not so much. Plus his creating sockpuppet IDs as digs at people, like this one of Baseball Bugs and No Guru and me, for instance. Whatever can be done to stem the tide, so that we might all spend our time actually making constructive contributions to Wikipedia, would be muchly appreciated. Thanks all. :) -Ebyabe 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence presented so far is that Liebman has

repeatedly breached the Naming policy by using misleading usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, without verification.
He has a record of misusing sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman.

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

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

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

Sorry, but any admin who unblocks this guy ought to be desysopped for gross dereliction of duty, IMHO. You're talking about a person who impersonated real people ... I could be wrong here, but in doing this, he exposed Wikipedia to a good deal of legal danger. Blueboy 96 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a threat of leagal action in his recent post[3]. Further reason to consider a block on his talk page. Banno 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal to ban User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling from library-related topics

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

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Take for example the latest edit war. The YALSA, a library organization, does a billion different things, one of which is publish lists of popular books. It once included a book called "The Gossip Girl" on a reader list. Some people think "The Gossip Girl" is controversial. LAEC uses the diseparate facts to contruct an argument that the YALSA is immoral, and he goes to the YALSA repeatedly reinserts an article about "The Gossip Girl is racy reading"-- a news article which doesn't even mention YALSA. The text of the YASLA wikipedia article doesn't mention "The Gossip Girl." The link so inappropriate for the article, I don't know where to begin on what it violates: Battlefield, Soapboxing, Conflict of Interest, Original Research. But LAEC reinserts the link [4][5][6][7]. When 3RR prevents him from readding it, another editor with a suspiciously meaty/socky edit history shows up to add it back in for him. [8]

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

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

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

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

Yes, wow. I've just finished that meticulously documented RFC and I'm rather surprised this editor wasn't sitebanned a year ago. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, do you withdraw these two legal threats?[9][10] If not, I'll administer an indefinite block. If so, I'll endorse the proposed topic ban. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LAEC, I was immensely proud of you for stepping away from that dispute between you and KillerChihuahua, among others. For that, you have my respect. Unfortunately, in light of the evidence presented here today, I am greatly disappointed. When you stepped out of that argument, I thought you were a changed editor, that you had turned over a new leaf. It pains my heart so deeply to see now that this simply wasn't true. I truly hope we can still be friends and respect each other, but the evidence presented against you leaves me no choice but to endorse a topical ban. Durova, I can understand your horror at all these diffs, but I strongly encourage you to not indefinitely block LAEC. I'm sure that he can find ways to contribute constructively on non-library topics, gain the community's trust, and perhaps appeal to the Arbitration Committee after a year. LAEC, I'm so deeply sorry to have to do this. I only wish I had another choice. With a heavy heart, Arky ^¡Hablar! 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, there was no dispute "between (LEAC) and myself. You must be completely confused, Arky. He was being highly disruptive, I warned him, he ignored me, I blocked. There was no dispute at all, there was disruption and its consequences. The only "dispute" one might somehow painfully pull from that incident was whether one can harass good-faith editors with a barrage of personal attacks or not. My position was No, LEAC's was Yes. I submit to you that is not a dispute, that is willfully arguing one of our most basic rules for interaction with other users. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please feel to examine my edits for any type of puppetry. I have made suggestions that disagreed with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling [11] over the issue of the criticality of the information. I feel its valid and critical to at least some extent, and he seems to disagree over the critical part. I feel that any really neutral party would see this as a simple content dispute, and I believe the information being presented is clearly relevant as it is about young readers, is dealt with by the ALA chief, and enriches the article. Thats not OR, its simple and sensible editing. The Wikiscanner news recently has made vanity editing more of an issue, but I don't think we would need to ban or block any organization members, unless they become too biased towards vanity editing. Right now I feel the situation is manageable. I do encourage admin awareness for the articles in question, as more critical information will most likely be added to the article. I am happy to work with any admin mentors on the article so as to keep all sides constructive. I am in the process of researching the subject and there does seem to be a fair amount of controversy. I am notifying admins here now so that we can preemptively prevent any further or related conflict. Clearly the issues need to be handled more carefully by all, including myself. Lingorama 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block is this site's standard response to legal threats. Due to the time lapse I'm willing to suppose this editor withdrew those statements at some earlier time and can either provide the diff or repeat the pledge. Regarding the Wikiscanner, as someone who's done complex investigations for a long time I strongly oppose the notion that this tool is some panacea. Editors deserve a reasonable interim to adjust to site standards. A year is more than reasonable and the diffs provided in this thread are sufficient to demonstrate that the problem continues. I wouldn't topic ban any organization members, but I have no problem imposing external limitations on ones who persistently violate fundamental site policies without the appropriate learning curve. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you enact any sort of ban, you need to specify exactly which policies you believe LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is violating so that others can form neutral opinions. Also, what specificly are the "legal threats" in the links you provided? Citadel18080 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right: WP:NLT, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, and WP:V. Add WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI on the guideline side. The legal threat links speak for themselves. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova's retraction solution at least. I made an attempt at legal sanctions before, under bad legal advisement in a situation not relevant to Wikipedia, and I've had to retract such work. Its not easy to do, though it is constructive. If that is the situation here, I'd also recommend a simple and basic statement of retraction. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling seems to be keen on providing constructive solutions in general.

Judging by the articles in question, I see there is a fair amount of heat among the parties. But there is also a fair effort by some towards balanced editing. So I suspect things will be ok long term. I wasn't suggesting the Wikiscanner be applied, only that the situation seems to be a lot more relevant recently, especially in these sort of cases. The research I am doing on the subject also suggests that the presentation of some rather distasteful but relevant issues is likely to be resisted by anyone with a personal interest. Its useful to be aware of such situations before they occur so we can apply attention in an efficient way at the right times. I'd like to keep any relevant admins posted so as to reduce the occurrence of further problems. Lingorama 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why I think LAEC should be given a second chance. I see nothing serious enough in the diffs provided to warrant an indefinite block, and while I think a topical ban is applicable in this situation, another alternative would be to give LAEC one more chance. If he inserts any POV into a library-related article, this should be enough cause for an indefinite topical ban. I would prefer this option, as it is my belief that LAEC can contribute constructively. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second chance came eleven months ago at the close of RFC. Or to use a good quote from an otherwise unremarkable film: You're young so you get a few chances. Not an infinite number of chances, but a few. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an admittedly preliminary attempt at complex scrutiny: Just an overview - I took a look at LAEC's edits from a year or so ago, and the pattern seems to have changed. The edits and reversions seem to be a lot more measured recently and there is plenty of reasoned and sourced discussion attached. I imagine its due to experience and admin advisement. Also, LAEC doesn't seem to be editing with a single article in mind [12] and he seems to be applying majority view, scientific skepticism, and balance. He seems to edit quite broadly. I don't how relevant that kind of contextual information is here, but I'd say it shows a contextual improvement all the same. I don't see such improvements or breadth by some other involved editors Lingorama 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I still recommend the Durova retraction solution if it applies. Calming the waters, offering explanation and clarity, and offering solutions in general will really help these articles improve. Lingorama 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that some of the edits that have caused this recent dispute are the same edits that LAEC was attempting to make in April on the YALSA page[13] and I'm not convinced anything has changed. I have no opinion on his non-library-related edits or as his contribution as a Wikipedia outside of the scope of this particular action.

LAEC's username comes from a Supreme Court decision, quoted on his user page "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." - Supreme Court of the United States, US v. ALA I have removed inappropriate citations to that court case in the recent past [14] Part of the problem has been that LAECs understanding of this court decision does not match analysis by other legal experts (LAEC is a retred lawyer if I recall correctly) which makes continued reference to this court case particularly troubling from an encyclopedic standpoint. I would also encourage widening the scope of this sanction to include filtering-related topics and legislation such as CIPA [15], DOPA [16] and content control software [17] where these disputes also sometimes crop up.

I find the continual references to my personal status with regards to ALA, my personal blog (where LAEC has commented) and the wikipedia page about me somewhat offputting, though certainly not crossing any explicit boundaries. The fact that he now tries to have people side with him to give him "help with a bully" also concerns me. It is not bullying to follow Wikipedia procedure. Jessamyn (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. LEAC has been canvassing for support.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Vassyana 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vassyana. To be fair, it seems that "canvassing" is something that other related editors seem to be doing [28]. I myself have never been contacted in such a way by LAEC. I am concerned about balance and various interested parties on the ALA and related articles though. I am not sure if bullying is something that is technically dealt with on Wikipedia, but I will doublecheck the ALA articles for any obvious group-pressuring of single editors who hold opposing views. Lingorama 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Well the evidence on the ALA article seem to have a huge amount of IP edits coming from Chicago (68.... numbers especially). I think this is extremely strong evidence that sockpuppetry is being used by the ALA, which is based in Chicago [29]. If that is not a situation that leads to non-partisan editors feeling badgered or bullied, I don't know what is. Lingorama 07:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the page in question, there are maybe 15-20 IP edits in total. Wikiscanner finds no relation at all to ALA-registered hosts. Also, of course, this has no bearing on the behaviour of LAEC. As for the "canvassing" - sorry, but one editor asking one other editor for a second opinion in a rather neutral fashion is not remotely the same as posting an explicit plea for help to 7 selected user pages within 6 minutes. --Stephan Schulz 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to clarify my actions here, the diffs of LAEC canvassing are explicit, numerous, and sequential. This is the most blatant instance yet of an attempt to undermine the integrity of the community sanctions process. Were that tolerated, consensus discussion in this area would degenerate into mob rule. Tu quoque is not a defense: the single diff and WikiScanner results for ALA do not amount to significant evidence, and even if they did that evidence would have no bearing on LAEC's editing status. Durova^Charge! 13:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address and sock-puppet allegations are one of LAEC's standard responses to criticisms of his edits on ALA-related articles [30] and I'm suprised to see another editor championing them since they seem to be so obviously without merit. Lingorama, if you could point out where you see these "huge amount of IP edits" coming from that IP, it might help us understand what you're talking about. As it is the only person with a huge amount of recent edits on the ALA page is LAEC.[31] Again, ALA is a 60,000+ member organization, it is likely that people who make edits to ALA related pages may have some experience or connection to the organization. The guidelines in Wikipedia help us determine what is and is not a good edit so that we don't have to rely solely on editor credibility when assessing the history of an article. Jessamyn (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

I had been pretty open with a topical ban, since the most (but not all) of LAEC's problems were on subjects related to his website. I would still find that option palatable if LAEC was responding to this sanction with a "Now I See The Light" attitude, accepting the principle of Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, and agreeing to cease editing the library/censorship/contentfiltering/ala/aclu sphere of articles.

Unfortunately, it looks like he's responded to this just by battening down the hatches and preparing for a crusade. The incivility of his responses, his inability to appreciate that his actions are problematic-- this makes me think a mere topical ban is just an invitation to future trouble. His recents aggressive wave of canvassing/recruitment/potentialpuppetry, openly referring to those involved in this discussion process as bullies"-- it doesn't bode well. If he gets off with a topical ban, I'd expect to see him just migrating to the border fringe of his banned topics and continuing to be equally disruptive. After more than a year's worth of trouble, it would probably be best to put this user behind us and spend the saved time writing an encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was inclined to support a mere topic ban, but the fact he's canvassing makes me think that won't be enough. I propose a two-month ban from the whole project, and after he comes back, an indefinite ban from all library-related topics. Throw in an indefinite revert parole on all articles as well. And that's only if the legal threats have been withdrawn. If they haven't, I'm with Durova here--ban him and throw away the key. Blueboy 96 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing to manipulate the discussion instead of addressing the legal threat question is the final straw. This is blatant gaming of the system. Indefinitely blocked. Durova^Charge! 13:44, 13 September 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.

User:Malbrain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Reason for block unclear; user unblocked

I have indefinitely blocked this user after seeing his bizarre work on National Labor Federation. Review and undo welcome. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but indef seems a bit harsh. I didn't see anything that couldn't be solved by filing an RfC ... I could be wrong, though. Blueboy 96 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the user's edits there. I've pulled up there last six edits to the article, before they were blocked: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

These all look like misguided, yes, but good-faith edits by a user unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Just to point this out, misguided edits by new users are not uncommon. Yes, it's bizarre for them to be only working on one article, but I see no evidence of vandalism or intentional harm caused. In fact, I'm not even sure if this could warrant an RfC. It seems to me all the user needs in a push in the right direction and a little mentoring. With all due respect, Tom harrison, I'm not sure if it's necessary to indefinitely block an account unfamiliar with even how to write articles for, and I quote, "not here to write an encyclopedia". The thing is, if the user knew how and how not to contribute here, they'd be writing perfectly fine articles. I'm sorry if I come off as rough here, but blocking a user who has only started editing regularly on September 6th 8 days later is overreacting to the highest degree, especially not telling them how to use the {{unblock}} template and thus giving them no chance whatsoever at being unblocked. Sorry again if I sound a little abrasive, Arky ^¡Hablar! 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I posted to hear what people think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined the edits, so won't comment on the block, but there isn't really any need to tell a blocked user how to use {{unblock}}. If you're blocked, you'll get full instructions on your screen as soon as you try to edit. ElinorD (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)‎[reply]

Sorry, ElinorD. I was not aware of his. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a puzzling block. The justification is not at all clear. So a community ban is unlikely. So far as I can see, there is no case here. Banno 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I have requested a second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion on block for User:Malbrain. Banno 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you think best, but please keep an eye on him if you unblock. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user has been unblocked by User:Banno and I think that is appropriate. We can watchlist the page and keep an eye on him. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 01:18, 15 September 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.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratify indefinite ban of Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

From AN/I. After an extensive block log and two very recent, lengthy blocks for edit warring and gaming the 3RR system, User:Giovanni33 has been blocked indefintely by User:Durova. His previous block on 15 August 2007 was reduced by User:El_C.

Endorse indefinite ban. --DHeyward 05:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think dispute resolutions have worked in the case of Giovanni33 or would work now. Would be nice if he would change his ways, but after this many blocks and disruption, I doubt it. I have to support the indef block. --Aude (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite ban. Like I said at the ANI discussion, this is disappointing because Giovanni33 has a fantastic work ethic, but his block log and contributions show that he cannot refrain from edit warring and gaming the system to avoid 3RR. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI. Reopening it here (and with a leading request at that) is not helpful. Durova herself (!) is trying to work out a less radical solution. --Stephan Schulz 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The community may ban Giovanni33 regardless of Durova's wishes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure it may. That does not mean that it should rush to it, especially not as long as there is a productive ongoing discussion about this topic.--Stephan Schulz 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this guy has caused more than enough trouble. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not endorse and am suspicious at attempts to reduce this to a vote. AGF and all but as is said above - this is unhelpful and anyone calling for the perm ban of an editor when the "straw that broke the camels back" was him reporting a known pov pusher for 3rr needs to examine their decision criteria. Sophia 06:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be confused. It doesn't matter what the "straw the broke the camel's back" is. What matters is Giovanni's lengthy block log and the disruptive nature of his contributions to the encyclopedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the quality feel the width - great judgment criteria. I suppose it's easier than bothering with the background details. The perm ban of an established editor is a serious matter that should not be decided just by the length of the block log - most of which is over a year old. Sophia 06:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, we should just ignore his block log. Good call. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole area of options between "ban" and "ignore". I am not advocating "ignore" but still fail to see why this particular incident has attracted so much attention. Check out WP:RfC and WP:RfAr and you will see there are many ways to skin a cat. Of course you can always shoot the poor thing and be done with it. Sophia 08:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not jsut one incident. It's the fourth edit warring incident in 2 months involving 4 differnt article and 4 different editors. All involved gaming the system. 3 of which ended in blocks and one of which ended in his 2RR pledge in July. His last block of two weeks was reduced by El_C for all the reasons that are being stated for why he should not receive an indefinite ban. Indeed, El_C is threatening to unilaterally reduce his block again. IT's clear that G33 has not taken his admonishments or his pledges to heart. --DHeyward 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm will not get you the community ban you seek, Pablo. In fact, it increasingly appears to be a form of intimidation. Please try to be a bit more collegial, if not friendly, to your follow editors. Thanks. El_C 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object to sanctions here while ANI discussion is ongoing. Let the dust settle and see what happens with Durova's offer. R. Baley 06:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Length of block log is as much dependent on how quick admins are to block someone as to their actual actions. There are many users with just as extensive a history of edit warring and POV pushing as Giovanni33... several of them actively campaigning for this ban. That their block logs are not, in some cases, as lengthy as Giovanni33's demonstrates to me why such a criteria is a poor choice. Much (though not all) of the impetus for this ban is an effort by one set of edit warriors to banish their opponent. That isn't something we should ever encourage, and if it succeeds it should be applied equally to long term edit warriors of all stripes with similar histories... whether they have the block log to show for it or not. --CBD 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite ban for Giovanni33, or alternatively a 3 month block followed by a 1-year probation period allowing for 1RR only. Breaking 1RR during probation shall result in an automatic indef-ban. If this alternate suggestion is taken, force the resumption of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2‎, which may be escalated into WP:RfArb if the mediation fails again. Those requesting for "parity" here should rather join the aforementioned mediation/arbitration on Mao/Jung Chang to pursue their content disputes. No sanctions are necessary for other editors at this point.--Endroit 14:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was inclined to support a short-term ban from the whole project, to be followed by a permanent topic ban on all Asia-related articles. But after seeing the evidence of stalking, I have to reluctantly endorse an indefinite ban. Blueboy 96 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking?????? No one is actually taking that one seriously as it's absurd and an accusation put out by the editor who Gio was in conflict with. Sophia 14:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, providing the diff's at ANI. I don't believe I ever was in a conflict with Giovanni33. Do you have any proof of it, Sophia?--Endroit 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It takes two to edit-war; it seems unfair to indef-ban one side in a war (particularly when it's the opposing side in this case that actually violated 3RR). This seems to be another case of a double standard being imposed by the ruling clique. *Dan T.* 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Duplicating an ongoing discussion at ANI here is a bad idea, and this discussion was only started after it become obvious that there was not consensus for an indefinite ban at ANI. On his talk page, after being prompted by Durova, Giovanni (following others before him) has proposed alternate remedies of 1RR probation or a topic ban on Mao related articles (with both remedies to be in effect for himself and the editor he edit warred with). Let's pursue those options for now and keep the discussion in the place which it began. I'd rather not even comment here and lend credence to this thread, but I don't want a few editors who have been in content disputes with Giovanni in the past to do an end-around on the dialogue that is already happening.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The behavior of other users should also be looked into, but that doesn't excuse Giovanni33. A fairly lengthy ban (at least 6 months) would be my second choice, though still acceptable. Chaz ^Beckett 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Other solutions should be tried before an end-all-be-all indefinite block. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with many here, a contributing editor should not be blocked, especially after showing such an ability to improve in bahavior. If an admin finds themself loosing patience, perhaps they should step back, patience is required to deal with situations. Their proposal, Giovanni33 that is, seems to be the best implementation to avoiding further edit warring over the issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33's offer

Reposted from user talk:

:Thanks for your offer and being amicable. For the good of the project, I propose a 1RR limit for myself and John Smiths as fair. I self imposed a 2 RR for myself, and only went to 3 when I saw what he was pushing. I'll happily go to 1 revert as a limit for a proposed lenght of time as is agreed per consensus (1 year, 6 months?), with the condition that the same applies to the other editor in these edit wars with me, who has been reverting in excess of what I have been doing over several articles (more than myself). Since this ANI is considering both of us (or should be, per the 3RR report), its apropos that both are dealt with in a similar manner with a solution that benefits the project. It would also dispel appearances of being one-side, unfair, etc.Giovanni33 03:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a 2nd solution that I think would be better for WP: a topic ban on Mao related articles--but again for both parties. The edit wars all center around the Jung Chang book and Mao's China, and I'd be happy to accept a topic ban on these articles provided John Smiths included, as well. This would be my first choice, and I think a better solution as it would end the edit wars period, instead of slowing them down (I can see John Smith doing 1 revert a day, and this would not a real solution).Giovanni33 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these suggestions include reciprocal sanctions on another editor. I would really need to see evidence in support of such a thing before backing that idea, but I have an alternative proposal: this type of remedy fits within the scope of community enforceable mediation where two editors can come together and agree to binding remedies upon themselves. If John Smith is agreeable, I propose a limited unblock of Giovanni33 for the exclusive purpose of community enforceable mediation, which would last until CEM concludes or for one month: if no agreement is forthcoming by that deadline I'd refer to arbitration (shifting the limited unblock to arbitration). This comes with no automatic limitation on John Smith's editing privileges, although I or any other administrator may take action as appropriate. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it would be best for all concerned if the two can reach a settlement between themselves. If this fails, actions with respect to Giovanni33 and John Smith should each be considered on their individual merits. Raymond Arritt 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Option One proposed by Gio seems more favourable to me. As someone who have seen the work of both editors, I know that they have valuable contributions. Only they need to be more willing to give-and-take when they disagree. But I have a question for this Option One - would it be a 1RR/article/week? And is it limited to those articles they have edit warred over? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of community enforceable mediation floated by Durova sounds excellent to me, and is probably largely in line with the spirit of Giovanni's suggestions which seem to revolve around both parties agreeing to some wrongdoing, agreeing to dial down the level of conflict, and submitting to restrictions on their editing activities. Has User:John Smith's been contacted about this proposal? I think he is blocked now but it seems like it would be useful to bring him into the discussion via his talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's and I have traded e-mails and had an online chat. He's preparing a proposal. I'll post here when it's ready. Durova^Charge! 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was his pledge 6 weeks ago on a 3RR/edit warring transgression that went unblocked. A few weeks later, he was blocked again for edit warring with a different editor on a different article. That block was reduced by El_C. This weeks edit war was with yet a different editor, a different blocking admin and a different article. If the 2RR pledge didn't mean anything and his blocks keep getting reduced, why is their a belief that anything other that a long period of quiet reflection will produce a change in behaviour? --DHeyward 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This appears to be an effort by Giovanni33 to shirk responsibility by blaming it all on one user. However, Mongo and others were involved the last time, not John Smith's. I believe the admins from the other recent incidents need to be consulted to determine the appropriate action here. At least a 3-month block on Giovanni33 is in order, for his general disruptions, in addition to the WP:CEM suggested above by Durova.--Endroit 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's offer

This is longer so I'll link to it. Reactions and comments are welcome, and Giovanni33 may respond by talk page posts, e-mail, or chat. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a rant, devoid of any introspection (in it, John Smith doesn't acknowledge his pov pushing of Changism for years). The proposal, if I could parse it, involves himself having some sort of revert advantage, that he promises not to use to his advantage. As a sign of good faith, he asks that his version in the dispute be retained. Feel free to stop me at any time. El_C 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do stop. I'm seeking an effective community solution here to avoid arbitration, which is where things will go if we can't achieve consensus. If there's something constructive to build upon please focus on that, or if there's nothing of value then please say so without placing additional strain on the discussion. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unwilling, or unable, to reach parity, which thus far seems to be the case, perhaps arbitration would be the best recourse. El_C 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am willing and able to reach parity if I see a good case that parity is appropriate. You're welcome to make such a case. Please offer evidence in a dry just-the-facts-ma'am presentation. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just am not sure you are capable of being evenhanded, seeing that your first action will need to be justified in the result. El_C 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any evidence of my impartiality, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel where I was the sole defender of an editor whose ideology I abhorred. I simply don't accept the paradigm that it takes two to tango: I've seen enough editors where there was a primary antagonist, and it's a very commonplace tactic for a primary antagonist to invoke it takes two to tango in a bid for retributive action when sanctions appeared to be imminent. So I examine each instance separately and so far I'm not impressed by the direction that this conversation has taken: rather than a presentation of evidence for analysis and judgement this approaches challenges to my capacity for analysis and judgement. WP:AGF should weigh here. Please, if you have evidence to present for community discussion then do present it. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your impressions, I object to you deciding the content end of an edit war that's been going on for years via clumsy action that obviously lacks consensus and is only supported by seemingly well-defined circles. El_C 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting: I think Giovanni sees the world too politically and categorises people as being "with him", "against him" or "not involved". He also has trouble accepting that others may have a valid point and trying to find compromise that maybe he doesn't agree with but is a "halfway house" that can move things on. So whilst he was blocked, I would suggest we get a mediator (maybe 2-3) to chat things over with him every so often to see how he was feeling. I think he could do with a sort of "behavioural mentor", someone (or some people) to try to get him to be more flexible and less prone to just want to get what he initially thinks is right. If for some reason they thought he hadn't changed they could recommend he stay blocked, but generally they would be there to help him out.

After the X weeks/months were up, Giovanni would be allowed back. He would be put on 1-revert parole (either per article per week or week) for 6 months/1 year. If he started breaking the terms he would be indef blocked. Also if he was referred again by wikipedians for repeated disruptive behaviour even after the parole was up he might be indef blocked, though that would depend on how people felt at the time.

As for myself, I would re-assure Giovanni I wouldn't game his parole by agreeing not to get involved in articles he has edited and/or still edits which I have not edited. He would draw up a list of articles he is interested in that he thinks apply and we could agree them with someone like Durova. If I started reverting his changes on those articles we had agreed on, I would get a 72-hour ban.

In regards to the points we had been mediating, I would agree not to use my revert "advantage" to change them. In return he would agree to med-arb with three administrators who have not been involved in blocking/unblocking us, editing in our favours/against us, etc. I would suggest Durova (again as a very non-partisan admin) be chair admin, and if we couldn't agree on the other two she would find them herself. As a sign of good faith I would ask that Giovanni not try to change the recent edits I proposed to the lead of the Mao: The Unknown Story article - if he was not happy with them after he returned from his block he could ask they be included in the med-arb.

Some wikipedians sympathetic to Giovanni may think this proposal unfair, but I would point out that if we can't agree to a resolution the matter will go to arbitration, which will be long-winded and probably eventually ban Giovanni or otherwise censor him more severely. There is no reason why we can't get to the position where Giovanni never edit-wars again, but I think a bit of "tough love" is is required here to do that. John Smith's 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you link to it, now you're "reposting it"? ^[38] Is this some sort of rhetorical device? It looks like it serves to drown the discussion. El_C 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be candid, your comment looked like an attempt at poisoning the well. I'm not attempting any sort of rhetoric: I have no dog in this race. I'd just rather achieve a workable consensus if it's possible to do that without referring the matter to WP:RFAR. Durova^Charge! 23:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still talking about parity. I find tou are not being responsive about this limited point. El_C 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view of parity is that we consider each case equally dispassionately on its own merits. Giovanni33's case should be considered on its merits, including present behavior in light of prior context. John Smith's case should be considered on its merits, including present behavior in light of prior context. The "if you block one of mine, then we have to block one of theirs" approach uncomfortably resembles tit-for-tat rather than true parity. Raymond Arritt 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block-log and political-derived prejudice appears headed to skew any notions of fair review, leading to such distortion. El_C 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is that many seem to not be reading the block log correctly, citing each line as a seperate block, and ignoring the time many of those took place and the long stretch between them. They should also take note of who the last blocking admin was back in 2006, and who seems to be advocating the block now. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni's remedies seem to be first more fair, limiting one user and not the other, is just telling one its ok to war and the other its not. What prevents the one not limited from continuing to drown the other out? I am more in favor of the first then the second, however if the belief is the topic and their views, then 2 should be studied. I agree with others, John seems to just be ranting, not actually making a solid proposal. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a worry that John Smith is getting off lightly while Giovanni33 bears the brunt of the punishment. Since this is a CSN notice about Giovanni33, this would be appropriate. JS has a much less impressive block log. I have not seen him reported on ANI or CSN previously as Giovanni33 has. He has not violated other rules such as gaming the system and sockpuppet policies as Giovanni33. In fact, he received one the harshest 3RR penalties from El_C given his block log and he chose to block JS but not Giovanni for edit warring on April 4 (yes they were both involved, it was the same article). It's clear that El_C has a conflict with JS and feels some affinity for Giovanni33 as he has inly blocked JS and only unblocked Giovanni33. Bringing JS into Giovanni33's CSN is more of a red herring. This is about Giovanni33's inability to act civillly within the bounds of consensus and the community adopted policies such as 3RR, Sockpuppetry and Gaming the System and his inability to live up to his previous commitments and promises. --DHeyward 02:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really should try not to accuse admins of anything unless you are going to stand by them and report it properly. Slinging mud is not appropriate. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I accused anybody of anything here except Giovanni33 who should be blocked indefinitely. I know of no policy that El_C has broken so there is nothing to report. It certainly would be wildly inappropriate for him to use his admin tools to change the blocks of either Giovanni33 or John Smith as he has a history with both of them. --DHeyward 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request opened

This thread can close now. It appears unlikely to generate consensus so I've taken it to arbitration and given limited unblocks for both John Smith's and Giovanni33 for the purpose of participation there. Other editors may wish to revise and expand the lists of involved parties and dispute resolution attempts. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The community consensus here is clearly to have Gold heart banned. It is highly unlikely that any administrator would be willing to unblock him, as the behavior demonstrated by the user is beyond unacceptable. As such, Gold heart can be considered banned. Acalamari 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Community Ban on User:Gold heart

I'm proposing a community ban for User:Gold heart, per suggestion of Fred Bauder in "The Troubles" ArbCom case. He was a somewhat good user, who suddenly decided to retire from Wikipedia and scrambled his password, but when The Troubles Arbcom case started. he activated an up till then dormant account, User:Thepiper and attempted to contribute to that case (without letting folks know that he was Gold heart). He also created another account, User:Gold Heart (Temp), which violates WP:SOCK and ArbCom Rules. This started a downward spiral which continues to the present time.

Recently, this user has created several sockpuppets to harass User:Alison, both on and off-Wikipedia. This harassment included outing of personal, medical data about Alison on Wikipedia, and the use of anonymous remailers to harass her off-Wikipedia. You can see his on-Wikipedia harassment from the contributions of sockpuppets Pronterra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Perolla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Alison has taken the incredibly brave step of stepping forward to show her harrasser for what he is at User_talk:Alison#Public_statement. Now it's time for the rest of us to step forward. I call for a community ban on User:Gold heart and all accounts that they may possess. SirFozzie 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In order to consider a community ban, we will need diffs to the different allegations that you are making against User:Gold heart. Without seeing links to the actual evidence to these charges (and not a general link, but specific diffs), I personally will not support any ban.--Alabamaboy 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronterra [39] Perella [40], [41], and trying to explain why he's doing this, using another sock account today, [42] SirFozzie 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse witch burning. His trolling using multiple sockpuppets during the ArbCom was a very unwelcome distraction to begin with, and now his sinister behaviour and harassment are becoming totally unacceptable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see evidence that these accounts are the same editor. If so, then I'd support. Has there been a checkuser? Durova^Charge! 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has confirmed that they were User:Gold heart [43]. When I brought this up with ArbCom member Fred Bauder privately off-wiki (due to the sensitive nature of the issue, he confirmed that they were the same account but it would be hard to block the range, because the IP changes). Fred Bauder then directed me over here in the ArbCom case , and suggested an indefinite community ban would be in order [44] here. SirFozzie 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I endorse it. Sockpuppetry to confound an arbitration case is a very serious matter, and the accusations against another editor are nontrivial. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I see no reason not to. Abusing multiple accounts, trolling in an ArbCom case, the positive checkuser request, and the on and off-wiki harassment to an editor in good standing provide no alternative. Arky ^¡Hablar! 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse community ban absolutely. I found that comment posted to RfARB (link 42 posted above by Fozzie) declaring his love genuinely disturbing. The sooner this gets chopped off at the knees, the better. There is no reason whatsoever for us to allow a user to use Wikipedia to harass and stalk one of our editors. I have reblocked Gold Heart (Temp), Gold heart, Perolla with email disabled (partly to disable email and partly to put the blocks in a third party's name rather than his victim's name). This will have no affect on his ability to email Alison, but at least will prevent him from abusing the email function to harass anyone else. Sarah 04:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. What this user has done is unforgivable. Sam Blacketer 13:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support The conduct demonstrated is unacceptable in any civilized online community. Would advise contacting his ISP as well, in light of the serious off-wiki abuse. Blueboy96 14:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alison is probably the only person who the ISP would listen to as a complainant in this case, but if they need any help, I'd support any efforts made by wikipedia to supply them with relevant information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. Wholly unacceptable behaviour. Worth checking other wikis too. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse community ban, per Sarah. Second chances are for people who do a bit of edit warring or POV pushing, or get a bit disruptive. They are NOT for people who start real life harassment of our contributors. ElinorD (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. I'm not familiar with the background to this dispute, but the comments by the user (and his sockpuppets) about Alison's medical history certainly do seem unacceptable. Lots of Wikipedians have medical, personal or emotional issues of various kinds in their lives; publicising details like that about someone else in an attempt to discredit them is not acceptable. As such, I endorse the proposed ban, based solely on the comments made towards Alison; I'm not factoring in the behaviour on the arbitration case, since I don't know the issues involved. Walton^One 14:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse ban. Blatant sockpuppetry, and now harassment of an editor including breach of privacy: there's no wiggle room here. Away with him, and I sincerely hope that he takes time to seek whatever help he needs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unquestionably endorse ban. This user's behavior has been absolutely despicable. --krimpet⟲ 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban now that links to the evidence were provided. This behavior should not be tolerated.--Alabamaboy 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban - completely unacceptable behavior. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 18:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban - For all the reasons stated above. Serious abuse on numerous fronts. - Crockspot 18:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I move to close--is there any objection? I see it snowing outside ... granted, it's been open a day, but I can't see why anyone would ever unblock this guy. Blueboy 96 19:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban, and second motion to close, per WP:SNOW and the unacceptable behaviour of the subject. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban and motion to close. I was the target of Gold Heart's socks at WP:RfAr. Those were ridiculous enough to be little more than a distraction. However, after his account was publically revealed to be a sock, he emailed with with an apology and explained that his actions at ArbCom were more to do with his issues with Alison than myself. That he will go so far to create socks to attack me just because I happened to support Alison's actions is both scary and indicative of the lengths this editor will go. Lets put an end to this now. Rockpocket 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposing a ban on Ron liebman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To place User:Ron liebman under a Community Ban for repeatedly breached the Naming Policy by using misleading usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, without verification; misusing sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman; placing threats of legal action on his talk page[45]

}

Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (January 30th, 2007 - May 11th, 2007) has been haunting us with sock puppets since his indefinite block on May 11th. He is using these sock puppets to repeatedly add false information to articles (I think, if I'm wrong please correct me). He has 130 suspected puppets and 12 confirmed accounts. These puppets are frequently popping up, and I think a ban should be in order. I think he has exhausted all of our patience. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely blocked since May. Moving from only one 31 hour block to an indefinite is harsh. Why not try a block of a few months first? Unblock, if he re-offends, indefinitely block. Banno 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the user been informed of this discussion, and has the issue of identity been solved? Banno 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps more explanation is needed, including links and diffs. Banno 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given that he has been blocked indefinitely, after only one block of 31 (why 31?) hours, and that the indefinite ban has been in place since May, I am considering unblocking him. Banno 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then this discussion can produce a result, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prima faci, this looks like Liebman started editing seriously in March [46], got into a few disputes and broke 3RR and was blocked briefly, tried to avoid 3RR with a few sockpuppets and was blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a block of a few months would have been better. Since then he has used sockpuppets to avoid the block. I suggest unblocking, so that he doesn't have a need to use sockpuppets, and with the condition that a breach of 3RR, including via sockpuppets, will result in an indefinite block and community ban. Banno 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has shown no willingness whatsoever to conform to the rules about citations and POV-pushing, ever since his first activities in January up until now (or at least yesterday, when he was very active with his socks). With no commitment from him to do better, how do you imagine that unblocking him will help solve anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't disagree with this more vehemently, Banno. Liebman has been using the identities of real living people at both SABR and http://baseball-reference.com/bullpen while denying all sockpuppetry and even claiming that other people are stalking him (checkuser says otherwise). This edit at bullpen confirms that he's almost stealing other people's identity. He's been discredited on this wiki and theirs and responded with venomous messages like this and this just for a quick sample. Frankly I'm shocked that someone would be rewarded for months of rampant false information and sockpuppetry by being released from their block! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Endorse ban - He lied saying all the socks were imitators, yet this check right after he said that proved otherwise. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"A list of diffs"? There are hundreds of them. I suggest you start with the history for Hideki Matsui and cross-check it with the list of sockpuppets (listed in the first paragraph, above) to see which ones are his, and then you will just begin to get the idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you, which will be lost on you if you're under the age of 50 or so, but that's OK: "Duke 'im, Banno!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Duke 'im"??? Banno 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the best spoonerism I could come up with for "Book 'im, Danno!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh. You've lost me. Banno 01:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Five-O. Georgewilliamherbert 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thanks. Banno 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban I am quite happy that the sockpuppet evidence provided above is sufficient to warrant the denial of editing privileges to this person. I was the blocking admin. (aeropagitica) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support. Looking at the evidence, each offense taken by itself would warrant a ban. Deliberately adding false information, egregious sockpuppetry (over 80 socks, by my count) and impersonating real people. All together? Gone. Blueboy 96 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I was only peripherally involved with this mess, but what I saw was plenty awful enough. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: He is already indefinitely blocked, but he keeps using a public library, with its multiple IP addreses, to create new accounts and continue his activities. I would like to know how or if banning will solve that problem? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently the "ban" is only implied, i.e. it falls under #1 of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban where he is indefblocked and no admin is willing to unblock. A consensus here would be an upgrade of sorts, falling under the umbrella of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. That's my understanding anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aha. It's a formal proceeding that prohibits an admin from unilaterally unblocking him, but from Liebman's standpoint it would be business as usual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mostly yes. It also may bring the situation to more people's attention so Liebman's antics become more difficult for him. Otherwise, it's just another entry in the long list at WP:LTA. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A formal ban will make it much easier to deal with his tactics--i.e., unlimited Checkuser requests, revert/delete-on-sight of all his contributions and block-on-sight of all socks.Blueboy 96 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I remember that a range block of one of the library systems he uses was put into effect at one point, for the IP starting with 141, I think. A formal ban would definitely be a good thing, imho. I've been doing a lot of watching for his "edits" and reporting them to WP:AIV. His snarky comments towards me and others have been a real treat, not so much. Plus his creating sockpuppet IDs as digs at people, like this one of Baseball Bugs and No Guru and me, for instance. Whatever can be done to stem the tide, so that we might all spend our time actually making constructive contributions to Wikipedia, would be muchly appreciated. Thanks all. :) -Ebyabe 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence presented so far is that Liebman has

repeatedly breached the Naming policy by using misleading usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, without verification.
He has a record of misusing sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman.

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

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

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

Sorry, but any admin who unblocks this guy ought to be desysopped for gross dereliction of duty, IMHO. You're talking about a person who impersonated real people ... I could be wrong here, but in doing this, he exposed Wikipedia to a good deal of legal danger. Blueboy 96 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a threat of leagal action in his recent post[47]. Further reason to consider a block on his talk page. Banno 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal to ban User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling from library-related topics

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

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Take for example the latest edit war. The YALSA, a library organization, does a billion different things, one of which is publish lists of popular books. It once included a book called "The Gossip Girl" on a reader list. Some people think "The Gossip Girl" is controversial. LAEC uses the diseparate facts to contruct an argument that the YALSA is immoral, and he goes to the YALSA repeatedly reinserts an article about "The Gossip Girl is racy reading"-- a news article which doesn't even mention YALSA. The text of the YASLA wikipedia article doesn't mention "The Gossip Girl." The link so inappropriate for the article, I don't know where to begin on what it violates: Battlefield, Soapboxing, Conflict of Interest, Original Research. But LAEC reinserts the link [48][49][50][51]. When 3RR prevents him from readding it, another editor with a suspiciously meaty/socky edit history shows up to add it back in for him. [52]

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

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

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

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

Yes, wow. I've just finished that meticulously documented RFC and I'm rather surprised this editor wasn't sitebanned a year ago. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, do you withdraw these two legal threats?[53][54] If not, I'll administer an indefinite block. If so, I'll endorse the proposed topic ban. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LAEC, I was immensely proud of you for stepping away from that dispute between you and KillerChihuahua, among others. For that, you have my respect. Unfortunately, in light of the evidence presented here today, I am greatly disappointed. When you stepped out of that argument, I thought you were a changed editor, that you had turned over a new leaf. It pains my heart so deeply to see now that this simply wasn't true. I truly hope we can still be friends and respect each other, but the evidence presented against you leaves me no choice but to endorse a topical ban. Durova, I can understand your horror at all these diffs, but I strongly encourage you to not indefinitely block LAEC. I'm sure that he can find ways to contribute constructively on non-library topics, gain the community's trust, and perhaps appeal to the Arbitration Committee after a year. LAEC, I'm so deeply sorry to have to do this. I only wish I had another choice. With a heavy heart, Arky ^¡Hablar! 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, there was no dispute "between (LEAC) and myself. You must be completely confused, Arky. He was being highly disruptive, I warned him, he ignored me, I blocked. There was no dispute at all, there was disruption and its consequences. The only "dispute" one might somehow painfully pull from that incident was whether one can harass good-faith editors with a barrage of personal attacks or not. My position was No, LEAC's was Yes. I submit to you that is not a dispute, that is willfully arguing one of our most basic rules for interaction with other users. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please feel to examine my edits for any type of puppetry. I have made suggestions that disagreed with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling [55] over the issue of the criticality of the information. I feel its valid and critical to at least some extent, and he seems to disagree over the critical part. I feel that any really neutral party would see this as a simple content dispute, and I believe the information being presented is clearly relevant as it is about young readers, is dealt with by the ALA chief, and enriches the article. Thats not OR, its simple and sensible editing. The Wikiscanner news recently has made vanity editing more of an issue, but I don't think we would need to ban or block any organization members, unless they become too biased towards vanity editing. Right now I feel the situation is manageable. I do encourage admin awareness for the articles in question, as more critical information will most likely be added to the article. I am happy to work with any admin mentors on the article so as to keep all sides constructive. I am in the process of researching the subject and there does seem to be a fair amount of controversy. I am notifying admins here now so that we can preemptively prevent any further or related conflict. Clearly the issues need to be handled more carefully by all, including myself. Lingorama 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block is this site's standard response to legal threats. Due to the time lapse I'm willing to suppose this editor withdrew those statements at some earlier time and can either provide the diff or repeat the pledge. Regarding the Wikiscanner, as someone who's done complex investigations for a long time I strongly oppose the notion that this tool is some panacea. Editors deserve a reasonable interim to adjust to site standards. A year is more than reasonable and the diffs provided in this thread are sufficient to demonstrate that the problem continues. I wouldn't topic ban any organization members, but I have no problem imposing external limitations on ones who persistently violate fundamental site policies without the appropriate learning curve. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you enact any sort of ban, you need to specify exactly which policies you believe LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is violating so that others can form neutral opinions. Also, what specificly are the "legal threats" in the links you provided? Citadel18080 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right: WP:NLT, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, and WP:V. Add WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI on the guideline side. The legal threat links speak for themselves. Durova^Charge! 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova's retraction solution at least. I made an attempt at legal sanctions before, under bad legal advisement in a situation not relevant to Wikipedia, and I've had to retract such work. Its not easy to do, though it is constructive. If that is the situation here, I'd also recommend a simple and basic statement of retraction. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling seems to be keen on providing constructive solutions in general.

Judging by the articles in question, I see there is a fair amount of heat among the parties. But there is also a fair effort by some towards balanced editing. So I suspect things will be ok long term. I wasn't suggesting the Wikiscanner be applied, only that the situation seems to be a lot more relevant recently, especially in these sort of cases. The research I am doing on the subject also suggests that the presentation of some rather distasteful but relevant issues is likely to be resisted by anyone with a personal interest. Its useful to be aware of such situations before they occur so we can apply attention in an efficient way at the right times. I'd like to keep any relevant admins posted so as to reduce the occurrence of further problems. Lingorama 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why I think LAEC should be given a second chance. I see nothing serious enough in the diffs provided to warrant an indefinite block, and while I think a topical ban is applicable in this situation, another alternative would be to give LAEC one more chance. If he inserts any POV into a library-related article, this should be enough cause for an indefinite topical ban. I would prefer this option, as it is my belief that LAEC can contribute constructively. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second chance came eleven months ago at the close of RFC. Or to use a good quote from an otherwise unremarkable film: You're young so you get a few chances. Not an infinite number of chances, but a few. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an admittedly preliminary attempt at complex scrutiny: Just an overview - I took a look at LAEC's edits from a year or so ago, and the pattern seems to have changed. The edits and reversions seem to be a lot more measured recently and there is plenty of reasoned and sourced discussion attached. I imagine its due to experience and admin advisement. Also, LAEC doesn't seem to be editing with a single article in mind [56] and he seems to be applying majority view, scientific skepticism, and balance. He seems to edit quite broadly. I don't how relevant that kind of contextual information is here, but I'd say it shows a contextual improvement all the same. I don't see such improvements or breadth by some other involved editors Lingorama 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I still recommend the Durova retraction solution if it applies. Calming the waters, offering explanation and clarity, and offering solutions in general will really help these articles improve. Lingorama 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that some of the edits that have caused this recent dispute are the same edits that LAEC was attempting to make in April on the YALSA page[57] and I'm not convinced anything has changed. I have no opinion on his non-library-related edits or as his contribution as a Wikipedia outside of the scope of this particular action.

LAEC's username comes from a Supreme Court decision, quoted on his user page "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." - Supreme Court of the United States, US v. ALA I have removed inappropriate citations to that court case in the recent past [58] Part of the problem has been that LAECs understanding of this court decision does not match analysis by other legal experts (LAEC is a retred lawyer if I recall correctly) which makes continued reference to this court case particularly troubling from an encyclopedic standpoint. I would also encourage widening the scope of this sanction to include filtering-related topics and legislation such as CIPA [59], DOPA [60] and content control software [61] where these disputes also sometimes crop up.

I find the continual references to my personal status with regards to ALA, my personal blog (where LAEC has commented) and the wikipedia page about me somewhat offputting, though certainly not crossing any explicit boundaries. The fact that he now tries to have people side with him to give him "help with a bully" also concerns me. It is not bullying to follow Wikipedia procedure. Jessamyn (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. LEAC has been canvassing for support.[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Vassyana 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vassyana. To be fair, it seems that "canvassing" is something that other related editors seem to be doing [72]. I myself have never been contacted in such a way by LAEC. I am concerned about balance and various interested parties on the ALA and related articles though. I am not sure if bullying is something that is technically dealt with on Wikipedia, but I will doublecheck the ALA articles for any obvious group-pressuring of single editors who hold opposing views. Lingorama 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Well the evidence on the ALA article seem to have a huge amount of IP edits coming from Chicago (68.... numbers especially). I think this is extremely strong evidence that sockpuppetry is being used by the ALA, which is based in Chicago [73]. If that is not a situation that leads to non-partisan editors feeling badgered or bullied, I don't know what is. Lingorama 07:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the page in question, there are maybe 15-20 IP edits in total. Wikiscanner finds no relation at all to ALA-registered hosts. Also, of course, this has no bearing on the behaviour of LAEC. As for the "canvassing" - sorry, but one editor asking one other editor for a second opinion in a rather neutral fashion is not remotely the same as posting an explicit plea for help to 7 selected user pages within 6 minutes. --Stephan Schulz 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to clarify my actions here, the diffs of LAEC canvassing are explicit, numerous, and sequential. This is the most blatant instance yet of an attempt to undermine the integrity of the community sanctions process. Were that tolerated, consensus discussion in this area would degenerate into mob rule. Tu quoque is not a defense: the single diff and WikiScanner results for ALA do not amount to significant evidence, and even if they did that evidence would have no bearing on LAEC's editing status. Durova^Charge! 13:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address and sock-puppet allegations are one of LAEC's standard responses to criticisms of his edits on ALA-related articles [74] and I'm suprised to see another editor championing them since they seem to be so obviously without merit. Lingorama, if you could point out where you see these "huge amount of IP edits" coming from that IP, it might help us understand what you're talking about. As it is the only person with a huge amount of recent edits on the ALA page is LAEC.[75] Again, ALA is a 60,000+ member organization, it is likely that people who make edits to ALA related pages may have some experience or connection to the organization. The guidelines in Wikipedia help us determine what is and is not a good edit so that we don't have to rely solely on editor credibility when assessing the history of an article. Jessamyn (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

I had been pretty open with a topical ban, since the most (but not all) of LAEC's problems were on subjects related to his website. I would still find that option palatable if LAEC was responding to this sanction with a "Now I See The Light" attitude, accepting the principle of Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, and agreeing to cease editing the library/censorship/contentfiltering/ala/aclu sphere of articles.

Unfortunately, it looks like he's responded to this just by battening down the hatches and preparing for a crusade. The incivility of his responses, his inability to appreciate that his actions are problematic-- this makes me think a mere topical ban is just an invitation to future trouble. His recents aggressive wave of canvassing/recruitment/potentialpuppetry, openly referring to those involved in this discussion process as bullies"-- it doesn't bode well. If he gets off with a topical ban, I'd expect to see him just migrating to the border fringe of his banned topics and continuing to be equally disruptive. After more than a year's worth of trouble, it would probably be best to put this user behind us and spend the saved time writing an encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was inclined to support a mere topic ban, but the fact he's canvassing makes me think that won't be enough. I propose a two-month ban from the whole project, and after he comes back, an indefinite ban from all library-related topics. Throw in an indefinite revert parole on all articles as well. And that's only if the legal threats have been withdrawn. If they haven't, I'm with Durova here--ban him and throw away the key. Blueboy 96 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing to manipulate the discussion instead of addressing the legal threat question is the final straw. This is blatant gaming of the system. Indefinitely blocked. Durova^Charge! 13:44, 13 September 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.

User:Malbrain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Reason for block unclear; user unblocked

I have indefinitely blocked this user after seeing his bizarre work on National Labor Federation. Review and undo welcome. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but indef seems a bit harsh. I didn't see anything that couldn't be solved by filing an RfC ... I could be wrong, though. Blueboy 96 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the user's edits there. I've pulled up there last six edits to the article, before they were blocked: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

These all look like misguided, yes, but good-faith edits by a user unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Just to point this out, misguided edits by new users are not uncommon. Yes, it's bizarre for them to be only working on one article, but I see no evidence of vandalism or intentional harm caused. In fact, I'm not even sure if this could warrant an RfC. It seems to me all the user needs in a push in the right direction and a little mentoring. With all due respect, Tom harrison, I'm not sure if it's necessary to indefinitely block an account unfamiliar with even how to write articles for, and I quote, "not here to write an encyclopedia". The thing is, if the user knew how and how not to contribute here, they'd be writing perfectly fine articles. I'm sorry if I come off as rough here, but blocking a user who has only started editing regularly on September 6th 8 days later is overreacting to the highest degree, especially not telling them how to use the {{unblock}} template and thus giving them no chance whatsoever at being unblocked. Sorry again if I sound a little abrasive, Arky ^¡Hablar! 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I posted to hear what people think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined the edits, so won't comment on the block, but there isn't really any need to tell a blocked user how to use {{unblock}}. If you're blocked, you'll get full instructions on your screen as soon as you try to edit. ElinorD (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)‎[reply]

Sorry, ElinorD. I was not aware of his. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a puzzling block. The justification is not at all clear. So a community ban is unlikely. So far as I can see, there is no case here. Banno 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I have requested a second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion on block for User:Malbrain. Banno 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you think best, but please keep an eye on him if you unblock. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user has been unblocked by User:Banno and I think that is appropriate. We can watchlist the page and keep an eye on him. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 01:18, 15 September 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.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratify indefinite ban of Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

From AN/I. After an extensive block log and two very recent, lengthy blocks for edit warring and gaming the 3RR system, User:Giovanni33 has been blocked indefintely by User:Durova. His previous block on 15 August 2007 was reduced by User:El_C.

Endorse indefinite ban. --DHeyward 05:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think dispute resolutions have worked in the case of Giovanni33 or would work now. Would be nice if he would change his ways, but after this many blocks and disruption, I doubt it. I have to support the indef block. --Aude (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite ban. Like I said at the ANI discussion, this is disappointing because Giovanni33 has a fantastic work ethic, but his block log and contributions show that he cannot refrain from edit warring and gaming the system to avoid 3RR. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI. Reopening it here (and with a leading request at that) is not helpful. Durova herself (!) is trying to work out a less radical solution. --Stephan Schulz 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The community may ban Giovanni33 regardless of Durova's wishes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure it may. That does not mean that it should rush to it, especially not as long as there is a productive ongoing discussion about this topic.--Stephan Schulz 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this guy has caused more than enough trouble. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not endorse and am suspicious at attempts to reduce this to a vote. AGF and all but as is said above - this is unhelpful and anyone calling for the perm ban of an editor when the "straw that broke the camels back" was him reporting a known pov pusher for 3rr needs to examine their decision criteria. Sophia 06:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be confused. It doesn't matter what the "straw the broke the camel's back" is. What matters is Giovanni's lengthy block log and the disruptive nature of his contributions to the encyclopedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the quality feel the width - great judgment criteria. I suppose it's easier than bothering with the background details. The perm ban of an established editor is a serious matter that should not be decided just by the length of the block log - most of which is over a year old. Sophia 06:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, we should just ignore his block log. Good call. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole area of options between "ban" and "ignore". I am not advocating "ignore" but still fail to see why this particular incident has attracted so much attention. Check out WP:RfC and WP:RfAr and you will see there are many ways to skin a cat. Of course you can always shoot the poor thing and be done with it. Sophia 08:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not jsut one incident. It's the fourth edit warring incident in 2 months involving 4 differnt article and 4 different editors. All involved gaming the system. 3 of which ended in blocks and one of which ended in his 2RR pledge in July. His last block of two weeks was reduced by El_C for all the reasons that are being stated for why he should not receive an indefinite ban. Indeed, El_C is threatening to unilaterally reduce his block again. IT's clear that G33 has not taken his admonishments or his pledges to heart. --DHeyward 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm will not get you the community ban you seek, Pablo. In fact, it increasingly appears to be a form of intimidation. Please try to be a bit more collegial, if not friendly, to your follow editors. Thanks. El_C 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object to sanctions here while ANI discussion is ongoing. Let the dust settle and see what happens with Durova's offer. R. Baley 06:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Length of block log is as much dependent on how quick admins are to block someone as to their actual actions. There are many users with just as extensive a history of edit warring and POV pushing as Giovanni33... several of them actively campaigning for this ban. That their block logs are not, in some cases, as lengthy as Giovanni33's demonstrates to me why such a criteria is a poor choice. Much (though not all) of the impetus for this ban is an effort by one set of edit warriors to banish their opponent. That isn't something we should ever encourage, and if it succeeds it should be applied equally to long term edit warriors of all stripes with similar histories... whether they have the block log to show for it or not. --CBD 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite ban for Giovanni33, or alternatively a 3 month block followed by a 1-year probation period allowing for 1RR only. Breaking 1RR during probation shall result in an automatic indef-ban. If this alternate suggestion is taken, force the resumption of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2‎, which may be escalated into WP:RfArb if the mediation fails again. Those requesting for "parity" here should rather join the aforementioned mediation/arbitration on Mao/Jung Chang to pursue their content disputes. No sanctions are necessary for other editors at this point.--Endroit 14:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was inclined to support a short-term ban from the whole project, to be followed by a permanent topic ban on all Asia-related articles. But after seeing the evidence of stalking, I have to reluctantly endorse an indefinite ban. Blueboy 96 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking?????? No one is actually taking that one seriously as it's absurd and an accusation put out by the editor who Gio was in conflict with. Sophia 14:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, providing the diff's at ANI. I don't believe I ever was in a conflict with Giovanni33. Do you have any proof of it, Sophia?--Endroit 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It takes two to edit-war; it seems unfair to indef-ban one side in a war (particularly when it's the opposing side in this case that actually violated 3RR). This seems to be another case of a double standard being imposed by the ruling clique. *Dan T.* 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Duplicating an ongoing discussion at ANI here is a bad idea, and this discussion was only started after it become obvious that there was not consensus for an indefinite ban at ANI. On his talk page, after being prompted by Durova, Giovanni (following others before him) has proposed alternate remedies of 1RR probation or a topic ban on Mao related articles (with both remedies to be in effect for himself and the editor he edit warred with). Let's pursue those options for now and keep the discussion in the place which it began. I'd rather not even comment here and lend credence to this thread, but I don't want a few editors who have been in content disputes with Giovanni in the past to do an end-around on the dialogue that is already happening.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The behavior of other users should also be looked into, but that doesn't excuse Giovanni33. A fairly lengthy ban (at least 6 months) would be my second choice, though still acceptable. Chaz ^Beckett 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Other solutions should be tried before an end-all-be-all indefinite block. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with many here, a contributing editor should not be blocked, especially after showing such an ability to improve in bahavior. If an admin finds themself loosing patience, perhaps they should step back, patience is required to deal with situations. Their proposal, Giovanni33 that is, seems to be the best implementation to avoiding further edit warring over the issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33's offer

Reposted from user talk:

:Thanks for your offer and being amicable. For the good of the project, I propose a 1RR limit for myself and John Smiths as fair. I self imposed a 2 RR for myself, and only went to 3 when I saw what he was pushing. I'll happily go to 1 revert as a limit for a proposed lenght of time as is agreed per consensus (1 year, 6 months?), with the condition that the same applies to the other editor in these edit wars with me, who has been reverting in excess of what I have been doing over several articles (more than myself). Since this ANI is considering both of us (or should be, per the 3RR report), its apropos that both are dealt with in a similar manner with a solution that benefits the project. It would also dispel appearances of being one-side, unfair, etc.Giovanni33 03:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a 2nd solution that I think would be better for WP: a topic ban on Mao related articles--but again for both parties. The edit wars all center around the Jung Chang book and Mao's China, and I'd be happy to accept a topic ban on these articles provided John Smiths included, as well. This would be my first choice, and I think a better solution as it would end the edit wars period, instead of slowing them down (I can see John Smith doing 1 revert a day, and this would not a real solution).Giovanni33 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these suggestions include reciprocal sanctions on another editor. I would really need to see evidence in support of such a thing before backing that idea, but I have an alternative proposal: this type of remedy fits within the scope of community enforceable mediation where two editors can come together and agree to binding remedies upon themselves. If John Smith is agreeable, I propose a limited unblock of Giovanni33 for the exclusive purpose of community enforceable mediation, which would last until CEM concludes or for one month: if no agreement is forthcoming by that deadline I'd refer to arbitration (shifting the limited unblock to arbitration). This comes with no automatic limitation on John Smith's editing privileges, although I or any other administrator may take action as appropriate. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it would be best for all concerned if the two can reach a settlement between themselves. If this fails, actions with respect to Giovanni33 and John Smith should each be considered on their individual merits. Raymond Arritt 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Option One proposed by Gio seems more favourable to me. As someone who have seen the work of both editors, I know that they have valuable contributions. Only they need to be more willing to give-and-take when they disagree. But I have a question for this Option One - would it be a 1RR/article/week? And is it limited to those articles they have edit warred over? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of community enforceable mediation floated by Durova sounds excellent to me, and is probably largely in line with the spirit of Giovanni's suggestions which seem to revolve around both parties agreeing to some wrongdoing, agreeing to dial down the level of conflict, and submitting to restrictions on their editing activities. Has User:John Smith's been contacted about this proposal? I think he is blocked now but it seems like it would be useful to bring him into the discussion via his talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's and I have traded e-mails and had an online chat. He's preparing a proposal. I'll post here when it's ready. Durova^Charge! 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was his pledge 6 weeks ago on a 3RR/edit warring transgression that went unblocked. A few weeks later, he was blocked again for edit warring with a different editor on a different article. That block was reduced by El_C. This weeks edit war was with yet a different editor, a different blocking admin and a different article. If the 2RR pledge didn't mean anything and his blocks keep getting reduced, why is their a belief that anything other that a long period of quiet reflection will produce a change in behaviour? --DHeyward 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This appears to be an effort by Giovanni33 to shirk responsibility by blaming it all on one user. However, Mongo and others were involved the last time, not John Smith's. I believe the admins from the other recent incidents need to be consulted to determine the appropriate action here. At least a 3-month block on Giovanni33 is in order, for his general disruptions, in addition to the WP:CEM suggested above by Durova.--Endroit 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]