Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

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

Geoffrey Mitchell

It's clear he doesn't want to contribute, just to harass me and Matthew. Motion to community ban. Will ^(talk) 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I know people normally ask for diffs. Take your pick. Will ^(talk) 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A look through those edits indicates that the editor in question has never made an edit outside of talk pages and a couple of noticeboard posts, and seems to exist solely to carry on the fight for the indef-blocked Sixty Six (talk · contribs). But, he's also never been blocked and I don't see any other dispute resolution, which makes me think a community ban might be excessive. Maybe an RfC would be a better starting point - a wider range of viewpoints might help. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your comments Tony, I don't think an indefinite ban is out of the question for an account that hasn't made any positive contributions. Addhoc 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal belief is that Geoffrey Mitchell, and the IPs that often "show up", are Sixty Six or friends of Sixty Six (meat puppets). Geoffrey Mitchell has shown quite clearly that he is not here to edit/improve the encyclopaedia, I've tried to ignore the long-term trolling that has occurred, but it's coming to a point where it's becoming a nuisance... and I can't foresee him contributing positively to the encyclopaedia. Perhaps a check user should be performed to verify that he is not Sixty Six? Matthew 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the checkuser. Seems there's a high chance that Geoffrey may be a sock as well, even if the CU comes back as negative. Whs itc hy 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious as well. I'm also going to leave a note on Geoffrey Mitchell's talk page to suggest that he try building the encyclopedia instead of carrying this on; it doesn't look like he's aware of this discussion either, at this point. I still feel that, if he's not a sock (or the checkuser continues to be refused), some other dispute resolution or mediation should be used before a community ban is enacted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's comments were received on my talk page. I'm reposting my responses here, so that all interested parties can view them accordingly:

"Hey, thanks for trying to interject some maturity and civility here, Tony! And you do raise a good point about the editing, as it does appear that only those who've done thousands of edits seem to "count" around here. However, to be honest, I'm like Munta -- I'm seriously concerned that any edits I make will be purged/reversed not because the contributions are invalid/inaccurate/etc, but out of spite, vehemence and vengeance. Sure, I've got several articles out there I'd love to make corrections and additions to, but like Munta and anyone else who's run afoul of Will and Matthew, any change to any page I make will most likely be reversed. Quite bluntly, it would be a damn waste of my time. And if you'll think about it for a minute, how else is *any* Wikian supposed to interpret this debacle? We have a Wikian who *has* contributed positively to several articles -- you have to look at the history of his user page to see it now, thanks to those who were responsible for his blocking to begin with -- and yet because he refused to back down when two adolescents tried to bully him while hiding behind their monitors, he's blocked, ostracized, and otherwise refused further opportunities to contribute positively. Not because he was trolling articles, but because he wouldn't cower when the admin and his sidekick in question growled. Now, taking this into consideration, can you blame myself -- or anyone else, for that matter -- for being more than reluctant with regards to contributing? Which should explain why I've taken up this particular crusade. I *want* to contribute, but not if these two particulars in question are still being allowed to impose blocks and file false claims of "sock puppetry". That sort of behavior is not only without question *very* childish, but it's a symptom of what's keeping Wikipedia from gaining the credibility the concept deserves. Geoffrey Mitchell 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) "

Q: After seeing a positive contributor to Wikipedia bullied and blocked by those filing the complaints, and having been falsely accused of being a sock puppet, would *you* want to contribute article edits and corrections, knowing that your efforts would be wasted? Geoffrey Mitchell 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fair enough. Nobody is saying you have to be an editor here. An indefinite ban could still be applied merely to end this squabble, in order to encourage everyone else to focus on improving articles. Addhoc 10:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read between the lines, that says "Your complaints don't matter. Either shut up and do we tell you to do, or we'll kick you out of here, regardless of whether you're right or wrong." Would someone please explain how Wikipedia benefits from such a policy? Geoffrey Mitchell 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think what Addhoc is saying is that we're here to build an encyclopedia, so that's what everyone should be doing. As I suggested to you, go out and work on articles - outside of the articles that the people you're in conflict with are involved in - and we can all go about our business. Six or more months of arguing over this hasn't built the encyclopedia much; at this point, it looks, from your contributions (and those from the IP you appear to have used prior to registering (as indicated by your first registered edit being to replace that IP's sig with your own)) that you're focused more on backing up Sixty Six than anything else. If you absolutely insist on continuing the argument, consider a user conduct RFC, but I'd advise that instead, you go out and work on articles - a productive contributor is more useful than a banned user. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's several points to address here, Tony:

First off, I acknowledge we're here to build an encyclopedia. What's *not* being acknowledged is that there appears to be a "clique" in effect whose interests are more interested in trying to impose their will -- no pun intended -- upon the shape of articles with undue and unnecessary force. If you look at the history of the events leading up to Sixty Six's permanent block, and the relationships of those involved, it's pretty clear that he was not fairly treated.

There's another related point that should be made here: why aren't Will and Matthew here justifying their actions? As has been pointed out by others, there seems to be some obvious concerted effort to "protect" these two particulars individuals against any criticism to the point that all they have to do is to cry "troll!" and other, more adult admins rush to their rescue without doing any real research into the situation.

Secondly, I really fail to see what the IP address point you're making has to do with anything here. Timeouts happen, and I simply failed to notice it until after the comment was added. I went back and added my signature after I logged in. Is there some Wikipedia rule that says that happenstance is an offense? If not, then this is a non-sequitur on your part.

Thirdly, I'm "focused" because I saw a good contributor to Wikipedia run off of here for the *wrong* reasons. He wasn't run off because his contributions wern't up to snuff, or that he was trolling, but that two specific individuals went on a vendetta against him over his refusal to accept their bullying. Any admin who was truly upholding their responsibilities would have seen this right off the bat, and have put a stop to the whole debacle the proper way. True, Six may have gotten a little heated towards the end, but if you follow the chain of events, Will and Matthew's refusal to work out their issues with Six despite repeated attempts to settle their differences.

What happened was a railroading of the type you'd only expect from a small town sheriff in the Deep South, circa 1961.

Finally, I'll stress again that I *do* want to spend more time contributing to articles. However, as with many who're watching the "Sixty Six Situation" witn interest and have voiced their dissent as to how he was treated, I'm *very* reluctant to make any edits as I, with good reason, do not want to find my time wasted with my contributions purged out of vengeance. Can you or anyone here guarantee that Will and/or Matthew won't take such actions? Or are the "kangaroos" so entrenched in the "kourt" that I should just abandon all hope and leave? Geoffrey Mitchell 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out the IP because it continues to give an indication that even prior to registering, you were involved in this dispute; quite frankly, at this time, you still show all the indicators of a single purpose account and your goal is to keep up the fight with Matthew and Will, et al. This is why I'm encouraging you to go out and edit other articles, away from the dispute - again, it's more productive than carrying on a seven-month or so long fight.

Looking back at Sixty Six's edits, he started out contentious - his first edit under that username referred to "wikinazis" and his second, to his user page, included an insulting comment about Matthew. I went through most of his contribs this afternoon; he did make some good contributions to some articles, but he also had some civility issues that appear to have led to the indef-blocking that was left on despite reviews by several admins. If he wants to edit, I'm sure that an e-mail to one of the arbitrators or an ArbCom clerk would provide him with a starting point - and that's probably about the only thing that's going to move a block forward.

If you have an issue with Matthew or Will regarding their contributions, as I suggested before, an RFC would be a starting point. But, as my last comment on the matter as a completely uninvolved editor, I'd really suggest that you leave this alone, and go on and edit other articles productively. If Matthew or Will (neither of whom are admins, I should note) follow you to those articles and malevolently undo your edits, report them; if your edits are valid, they should not be reverted, and admins will deal with it. Anyhow, that's the best I can offer - I'd like to see everyone go forward from here, and avoid further nastiness; this is my best suggestion. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Will recently "abandoned" his admin position at the same time as the admin who imposed the permanent block on Sixty Six, Alkivar, and Matthew has made three very unsuccessful attempts to become an admin. If you take note of the comments made that were against his admin campaign, it's obvious that he's not as positive a contributor to Wikipedia as he's presenting himself to be. In either case, while not currently active as admins, they are clearly using the same methods previously employed to impose their will against myself and anyone else who's decided to stand up against the type of bullying Sixty Six and others like him have received.Geoffrey Mitchell 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone here even read Matthew's talk page? He's gotten into about 500 disputes here at Wikipedia. I'm not even here to fight with Sceptre or MatthewFenton. I just don't think Sixty_Six should have been blocked, and a legitimate reason has not been given. If you uphold Sixty_Six's ban based on the arguments presented, then the fact that Matthew is still on Wikipedia is ludicrous given that he's been in arguments with about 498 more people that Sixty_Six ever has and has been banned several times before that. Keep in mind, Sixty_Six never even got blocked before that. Is that how Wikipedia works? You get in one disagreement with the wrong person and you are blocked forever right away (no ifs, ands or buts). But you can get into an argument with everyone else who doesn't have connections and get away with it scott free, or at the very least, be given a timeout. Very hypocritical in my opinion. I challenge anyone to find any one of Geoffrey Mitchell's arguments where he has not MATURELY made a point without getting into personal attacks (criticism is not harassment). Unfortunately, it now seems that Sceptre and Matthew have now turned their vendetta on Geoffrey Mitchell and they probably will get him banned as well. Coumarin 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This once again raises the question that no admin has dared to answer during all this: why aren't the accuser(s) previous history of edits and disputes taken into account? It would seem the answer is that the meaning of AGF applies differently to those who are either admins or cohorts of said. It's very hypocritical when you get right down to it. Geoffrey Mitchell 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Fox has this spot on. Write, not fight. Please take this advice seriously. If you keep on fighting and write nothing, you will get kickbanned later, if not right now. Moreschi ^Talk 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised by a former admin to quote this here, since those demanding my head on a platter for sticking up for Sixty Six apparently have forgotten how CN is supposed to work:

"This is not the place to come to if you think someone is causing a problem and should be blocked. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) for that. Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, not a means to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first."

Take special note of the part about using a ban to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. That's clearly what happened in Six's case, and what's apparently being attempted here against those who've taken up his side. Geoffrey Mitchell 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of User:Panairjdde

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

There seems to be unanimuos support for community ban. It was extremely nice of Panairjdde to pop up in this discussion with yet another sock and explain us reasons for his banning. MaxSem 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling for a community ban of the User:Panairjdde. Extensive evidence of his behavior can be found, here. I'm aware that the original user name is blocked indefinetely for using multiple accounts abusively, but I wish to establish that the user is permanently banned by the community which will allow for several things:

1. Perhaps get the user to understand that his edits on WP are unwelcome and that his sock edits will be reverted no matter how valid his contribution is.
2. Make sure that users who revert his sock edits do not receive 3RR blocks from unsuspecting administrators (see example here).
3. If the user continues to create new socks and edits on WP, we can pursue filing an abuse report, with hope that it will be handled more seriously and urgently.

--Palffy 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this--all I needed to see was that he named three of his socks "DisposableAccount." That shows total disregard for the rules. Ban.Blueboy 96 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get what is the practical difference between an indefinite block and a ban:

I shall continue editing as much as I feel I can and want contribute, regardless your opinion: a sick user management process does not mean the whole Wikipedia is somehow wrong;
How a ban could change this? If your friends (the racist Kingjeff) does not know those rules he pretends to defend (as one can see from his block log) it is not my fault;
How a ban could change this?

Best regards, --TufkaPanairjdde 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you keep missing the point that you have been given numerous chances to change your behavior by lenient admins, but instead have repeatedly broken WP rules (and continue to insist that you have the right to do so as well as continue editing as you see fit, as you stated above) and as a result you have admins and editors looking out for you and banning you and your socks on sight. I maintain a need for this ban for the three reasons stated earlier. --Palffy 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand clearly what you say. The problem is that you do not understand what I say. I think that the "user-management" rules of Wikipedia, which is parte of the management of the encyclopedia, is flawed, but at the same time I like very much the encyclopedia in itself. This is why I came to understand that I do not care of your opinion, and that I keep on contributing if I feel so.

On another plane, you keep to ask for the ban: as I told before, I do not care about it, as it is a ban from the "community" not from the "project". I tried to help you to understand that, apart fulfilling your hatred, the ban makes no difference, but, in the end, it does not concern me.

Thank you all for your attenttion.

--TufkaPanairjdde 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Banning policy more closely (...bans often apply to the entire project... and The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users.). The ban is not from a community, the ban is from the project, initiated by the community. You can be banned from the project through any of the 5 sources, Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban. --Palffy 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TufkaPanairjdde is now indefinitely blocked, as is User:Panairjdde. It does not seem that administrators will have the slighest reluctance to block any new socks of his that may appear. I suggest that the issue be closed at this noticeboard. Post to WP:AN/I if the problem should come up again. EdJohnston 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with EdJohnston here. From the user's previous posts on this noticeboard, he clearly states his intentions to continue editing unless he's outright banned from the project. I think many editors are tired of playing hide-and-seek with his socks and wish that other avenues be explored, including a formal revocation of his editing privileges on Wikipedia. --Palffy 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, he just stated that he doesn't consider a community ban a ban from editing the project, and Arbcom has better things to do than pass symbolic resolutions saying that someone disruptive who nobody would unblock is banned. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, let's spell it out in black and white for him. No one would be willing to unblock him, he is therefore banned. And to clarify, a community ban is a ban by the community from the project. Until and unless he shows he is willing to change his behavior and the community is willing to give another chance, he is not welcome here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we getting so close to unanimity here, does anyone feel it would be correct to add his name to Wikipedia:List of banned users? EdJohnston 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it. He's banned from editing by the community (if not community banned) SirFozzie 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless more discussion is needed, I second it.--Blueboy 96 19:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 50+ socks? I'd say go for it. Whs itc hy 18:54, 9 June 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.

User:Vilerocks and User:BassxForte

Vilerocks (talk · contribs)/BassxForte (talk · contribs) (both belong to the same user) Has been editing unconstructively for a very long time (around January). Evidence can be found on this RFC. The main problem is that he never accepts consensus and is clearly disruptive because of it. It leads to alot of very lengthy arguments which go in circles and revert wars. He has stated that he is extremely stubborn, and you will never win, even if an admin intervenes. This is all true, with evidence found pretty much wherever his name appears.

I've posted this twice on WP:CN before with no reply at all; if no one at least tells me if this is the wrong spot, and why, then I will be forced to take it to arbitration. I don't want to do that, I would prefer this process. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm really interested in at least getting any kind of reply, here. My patience is really wearing thin. I really think a community ban is easier than arbitration. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does say in the header of the page that community bans are a last resort. Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, and if you don't feel that the user is learning from the RFC or other discussions, that really is the right way to go - especially if you haven't received a response here.

Having said that, he does seem to have some issues with civility and collaboration, and hasn't seemed to learn much through the dispute resolution thus far. While a community ban is probably not in the cards at this point, if you feel it's necessary for his actions to be dealt with, arbitration might be the only thing to do at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPT indicates three ways to deal with a disruptive editor: A simple ban by an admin, ArbCom, or a community ban. I consider both ArbCom and here to be a form of last resort, but I decided this may be easier, since it includes the opinion of other editors. This is why I'm growing frustrated at my last two attempts, since this appeared to be a correct method but no one replied. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]