Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chrislk02 (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 15 August 2007 (→‎{{user|Ideogram}}: tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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



Ideogram (talk · contribs)

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.
After reviewing the arguments on both sides from all editors involved in the discussion, I believe there to be a consensus to siteban Ideogram for a period of no shorter than a year. I think it was best said by El C when he said, "As for the site ban, I'd like to say no, since Ideogram does make useful edits. But so do those editors whose productivity is hindered by his conduct. So it looks increasingly untenable". Almost everybody agreed in this thread that Ideogram has serious issues in his involvement in this project, and that these issues are quite detrimental by causing serious problems such as the loss of editors and waste of time in dealing with issues and sorting them out. It appears that most believe that his overall good is overshadowed by the overall bad in his work here, resulting in a net negative for the project. It would appear through Ideograms block log that he has been warned and given ample time to change his ways however the use of sockpuppets to game the system further strengthens the argument that he has no intention of changing. Taking all of this, and all of the opinions below it is regretable that I believe there to be a consensus to ban Ideogram for a period of no shorter than a year.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed solution:Ideogram be sitebanned

Statement by Jehochman

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

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram
Puppetmaster
Sockpuppets

All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. [4]

Abusive incidents of sockpuppetry

  1. Suspected sockpuppet You Are Okay (talk · contribs) was blocked for disrupting WP:AN/I on Aug 9, 2007. See [5] Checkuser evidence says this account is unrelated to Ideogram. [6]
  2. Admitted sockpuppet R1es (talk · contribs) was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. See [7] and [8] Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)
  3. Admitted sockpuppet Galindo (talk · contribs) was edit warring [9] [10] [11] along side Ideogram up to 4RR [12]. In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor [13].

Recent cases involving Ideogram

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

Responses

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

Jehochman demonstrates four edits by Galindo plus another on the main account. So even if the first of Galindo's edits isn't a revert that still totals 4RR in under 24 hours, using the sock to avoid 3RR scrutiny, while the user concurrently warned another editor who was on the verge of violating one of the two policies Ideogram was actually violating. Those actions show Ideogram knows exactly what he was doing. He's admitted that Galindo is his sockpuppet account and Jehochman verifies that too. DurovaCharge! 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking the evidence... There's actually a sequence of four diffs, not five. All four make the same edit, to remove mention of Taiwan which was added by the previous editor in each case. This is edit warring in any case. Jehochman Talk 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ideogram's work for MedCab is certainly valuable and the identity of medcabemail wasn't a secret - the account was later replaced by Mclerk, which helped with updating the cases listed on the community noticeboard. There has been an ArbCom case, which placed Ideogram on revert parole. In this context, and given the lack of an RfC, I'm not going to take this proposal for a community ban seriously. Addhoc 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideogram used a sock puppet to evade a block placed by an Arbcom member for disruption of Arbcom proceedings. The evidence indicates a pattern of trolling, edit warring, and incivility. Jehochman Talk 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ideogram is currently on revert parole from ArbCom, in this context and please accept my apologies for being a process wonk, shouldn't this be handled on the ArbCom enforcement board? Addhoc 14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with being a process wonk. The revert incident precedes that parole; however, Arbcom is unaware of the block evasion. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a siteban is appropriate, and would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, because of the way Ideogram eats up the time and energy of his chosen targets. Even if his medcab work is useful (I haven't studied it), there is no way it can make up for the way he compromises the usefulness and the editing experience of so many other people, by stalking, baiting and trolling them. For examples, please see the evidence I offered in the Ideogram—Certified.Gangsta arbitration in April 2007, where I gave diffs which highlight Ideogram's "battleground" approach to editing.[14] I also offered evidence of his apparent, and successful, determination to run User:Certified.Gangsta off the project.[15] Other people's evidence about Ideogram on the same evidence page is also of interest, especially the comments about how his personal attacks and baiting are disrupting the arbitration itself. For great justice, please also read Ideogram's reply to me in his own evidence section.[16] *I* think that reply illustrates his general attitudes as described by Jehochman, but YMMV. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have been one of Ideogram's favorite themes, favorite topics, and favorite boogeymen, despite never blocking him or actually advocating such. I have been dismissive of him, and I continue to think very poorly of him. He has followed me about from page to page, always introducing, "Geogre won't talk to me!" into everything. Well, that's the troll's lament: being ignored. Even when I have been embroiled in the most contentious issues, those on the other side from me have found Ideogram's intrusions to be inappropriate and unhelpful. More to the point, they are monomaniacal. The question that I had to consider before posting here was not, "Is he guilty of trolling?" but "Is he incapable by temperament, at least at the present time, from editing peaceably?" Given the evidence, above, of his insistence and anger and willingness to ignore the strictures of the site, I have to agree with a ban rather than block. If a significant voice can be raised to illustrate helpfulness and dealing successfully with opposing points of view, then the better way would be arbitration. So far, those voices have been silent. (N.b. this is evidence of ability to work well with people of opposing points of view, not evidence that people like him. There are plenty of lovely and lovable people who cannot tolerate fully cooperative editing.) Geogre 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the beginning, Ideogram seemed to have quickly found his way into conflict (often entirely unrelated to the set of articles he was working on on the main namespace), where he frequently exhibited (surprisingly stereotypical) classical internet troll-like behavior (his passive-aggressive questions-and-follow-up-questions to Geogre, through various venues and throughout various times, are prime examples of this). And while he has become less transparently disruptive in the sheer obviousness of the above, mostly by adopting more laconic, less 'inquisitive' prose, other problems have risen instead, not least being his continued susceptibility to uncivil outbursts, personal attacks, and general unpredictability. It's also noteworthy, I think, that from the beginning (even), Ideogram was embraced by certain senior editors & admins who failed to point this out to him (and even provided him with indirect legitimacy via the MedCab informal dispute resolution mechanism). On the formal dr front, Ideogram has treated his own Arbitration case with such astonishing contempt, it's amazing he emerged from it as he did. When I pointed out his latest abuse of arbitration (him having launched a frivolous RfAr, without a shred of dispute resolution attempt)[17], he responded with hostile innuendo about how I banned him from my talk page [18] (I ctrl. F'd to my last talk page reply to him, but am just not seeing a ban having been issued by yours truly [19]). As for the site ban, I'd like to say no, since Ideogram does make useful edits. But so do those editors whose productivity is hindered by his conduct. So it looks increasingly untenable. El_C 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think El C's analysis is solid. For a user like Ideogram, who does make useful contributions to the encyclopedia, I think a community ban is not the right way to go. Indeed, if I am correct in thinking that El C's comment implies he would be willing to unblock Ideogram, then the latter cannot be community banned. I'm wondering if ArbCom might be the way to go here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideogram isn't blocked at the moment, so there's no need to unblock him. Two of his known socks have a history of abuse, and we don't know about others ones. He's suggested that we haven't found all of them yet. At minimum, Ideogram should be banned until he reveals all his socks and agrees to cease further disruption. I'd like nothing more than for him to become a productive editor, but I don't see how that's possible while he continues engaging in disruptive behavior that drives other editors away from the project. - Jehochman Talk 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "allegations" ArbCom request just got accepted, and is pending opening (currently sitting at 6/1/0/1). Perhaps we should put this on hold, and see what could happen there. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues here are completely different from the issues being considered in that Arbcom case. Ideogram has a history of bringing, and getting involved in, lots of Arbcom cases. Arbcom involvement in an unrelated case shouldn't provide immunity from community sanctions. - Jehochman Talk 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, just saying that the case was accepted, and suggesting holding off on this. Carry on then XD. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reviewing the evidence, I'm not endorsing the ban. However, I do feel something should be done, but nothing as extreme as a perma-ban. At the very least however, I will say that Ideogram has a habit of "weeding out" "bad" users. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but getting overzealous can be dangerous, as we can see here. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen Ideogram all over MedCab in the time I've been frequenting those pages, and his involvement there has shown me that he is capable of being a force for good in the community, with oversight and what have you. I therefore can't endorse a ban. However, ample evidence of Ideogram's disregard for policy has been provided, and among other things I'm not sure I'm still comfortable with such a user being involved in dispute resolution. But I've got to ask, Jehochman: if you'd like to see him become a productive editor, why ban him? If he's such a major trolling hazard, isn't perma-banning him more likely to lead to more sockpuppetry and more problems? It seems to me that rather than addressing Ideogram's behavior, this sanction request is just going to end up feeding the troll, however it turns out. --Moralis (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, as you observe, Ideogram seems to feed on conflict. He tends to target editors who've made mistakes and are trying to reform. He tries to push them over the edge, and often succeeds. This is cynical and must be stopped. I am open to other restrictions that would stop him from sock puppeting, evading blocks and trolling, but I don't know what those are. As for bans leading to more sock puppetry, there's nothing special about this case. You could say that about any banned user. Perhaps if Ideogram gets banned he'll eventually give up on disruption and return as a productive user. I believe that bans can be lifted if a user demonstrates an understanding of what they've done wrong, apologizes, and explains how things will be different in the future. - Jehochman Talk 08:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I also find El C's analysis accurate, I disagree with the conclusion. He may well make some useful contributions; however, how many would his targets have made had they not spent endless time responding to him, defending themselves, and in several cases even leaving the project? Its a net loss, and a large one, whichever way one calculates it. Ideogram has had much time to modify his approach, and he has done so - becoming more skilled at trolling-while-not-seeming-to-troll. This is not an improvement. Time for Wikipedia to be free of the semi-constant barrage of issues begun, fed, and continued by this editor. Support site ban. Second choice: support site ban for one year, with clock reset each time there is a sock, as is usual practice. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the caveats that I was a named party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram and that I had briefly been admin coach to Certified.Gangsta before his edit war with Ideogram began, I agree wholeheartedly with KillerChihuahua's analysis. WP:NOT#Not a battlefield can outweigh a certain percentage of positive contributions when a months-long history demonstrates that an editor consistently diverts the energies of others and drives other productive contributors away from the site. DurovaCharge! 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I caught this guy blanking content last year, and he jumped on me by wikilayering the 3RR. He needs to go. - MSTCrow 20:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to say (after seeing the differential edits above and looking a little deeper myself), the editors edits when in disputes does seem to mostly indicate the need to go to the near extreme of dispute resolutions, including to an end of the establishing of remedies affecting other editors. With a heavy heart, I come to the conclusion.. I do not believe a ban would be a net loss to this project. Addendum: I need to disclose that I did comment at a Arbitration regarding a comment by the editor to my RFA. My opinion here is unrelated to that. Navou banter 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lyle123 (talk · contribs)

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

No need to reconfirm/vote on existing bans. A user is considered banned unless one admin is willing to unblock that user. If that is not the case, they can be considered banned by the community. (See the policy on this.) —— Eagle101Need help? 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Statement by Kwsn

For a while now, I've been thinking about this, and decided an official community ban is in order. Also, I'm more quick and to the point, so this won't take long. Lyle123 is a long term vandal who disguises hoaxes as real TV shows and movies, usually by copy and pasting from another legitimate article. An existing example of one of his hoaxes would be here, a clear rip off of the Sesame Street article, which now a redirect to Car Talk since that's the nicknames the hosts use. He has along list of socks (at least 20), some of which are listed under StealBoy (talk · contribs). Part of my motivation for this would allow ease of deletion of hoaxes under G5, part of it is because his vandalism is not just short term, but very long term. Kwsn 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Endorse ban. I counted 63 socks between both of those accounts. If you've got a sock drawer that big and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy96 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blueboy96. When a long term vandalism report is necessary a siteban is appropriate also. This problem has been ongoing since at least January. Obviously this isn't someone who plans on adjusting to site standards. DurovaCharge! 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Let's make it easier for folks to remove this vandal's contributions. 63 socks is ridiculous SirFozzie 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this user is definitely wasting the community's time. I also endorse this ban - 8 months and 63 socks is just too much disruption--Cailil talk 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify ... per CSD G5 all banned users' contributions--not just hoaxes--can be zapped on sight. I also noticed he's used quite a few anonymous IPs ... they appear to be all over the place. A few AOL IPs, one from Indiana, another from Germany. I wonder if he's using open proxies. Blueboy96 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears he's out of Australia, if you look at the IPs for StealBoy's CU. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yes, if this guy is causing problems, block him and all of his socks. You don't need a discussion to do this. And you don't need a discussion on this forum either. --Tony Sidaway 08:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider him banned, and just get over it.—Ryulóng (??) 08:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the big secret yall sometimes don't get; when someone is blocked and hasn't been unblocked, they are considered community banned. You don't need a vote to make it happen. If you think you got socks on your hands, then go this way. It's that simple. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any objection to closing this discussion? I'm gonna go ahead and add an entry (commented out) at WP:LOBU. Blueboy96 12:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Childhoodsend (talk · contribs)

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.
User's blocklog is clean, no violations present, try using WP:DR. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed solution: Childhoodsend is banned from all global warming and all related articles

Childhoodsend is a huge problem editor on global warming related articles. He is a anti-science POV pusher. Virtually every edit he makes to the article space is part of an edit war and is reverted. Here's a handful from just the past few days:[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

But his most problematic behavior is that he posts lots of specious talk page comments, which have to be debunked from good editors. This is a tremendous waste of time for good editors on the talk page. I recently compiled a list of some of the more transparent lies he told on Talk:Climate change denial, and debunked them using the reliable sources from the article. (Including the NY Times, the Royal Society, Mother Jones, etc) His response? Attack the sources. [26] While at the very same time, he is being taken to task because he doesn't understand the difference between an op-ed and a news story. [27]

But don't take my word for it that he's a hopeless POV pusher. According to some of the best editors on the topic:

  • He "doesn't seem to be of much use" and is a huge time waster [28] - William M. Connolley
  • If people would ignore CE's provocations he'd likely go away and find his fun elsewhere. Unfortunately there is a steady stream of people who haven't twigged his MO and keep reacting to him. He's a strong net negative but clever enough to stay just within the rules, unless being a chronic timewaster is actionable. - Raymond arritt [29]
  • "CE seems mostly to be here to argue and troll." - KimDabelsteinPetersen [30]

I think the solution to this problem is that Childhoodsend is banned from global warming and all related articles.

Note: I expect that some of hte other anti-science POV pushers will show up here to complain about this ban proposal. Just so nobody is fooled, this group includes: Iceage77, Rameses/Britannia (proven sockpuppets), Rossnixon, UBeR, Mnyakko, RonCram, and Oren0 Raul654 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Perhaps only for clarity, Raul should have noted that this thread of his follows from other threads at the AN (here and here, which should have been enough).
I am a bit floored by the nature of the actions and accusations taken against me by this administrator, who should also have had the transparency to at least indicate that he, like me, holds strong opinions about the subject at hand (global warming), in which he regularly involves himself as well. This being said, I'll try to be as brief as possible and will rely on the community's judgment thereafter, as enough time and energy has been already spent on what essentially is an editorial dispute.
Raul has just labeled me as an anti-science POV-pusher above, what you will find is unsupported and of a libellous nature. I actually believe that the articles about global warming should reflect the IPCC findings with due weight, something that I can support with evidence, contrary to Raul, since I have already expressed it [31]. I also have been slightly involved in other scientific articles with no such accusations leveled against me.
Raul then suggests that "Virtually every edit he makes to the article space is part of an edit war and is reverted", and supports this other inflamatory claim with 6 diffs: one is not even about global warming nor even a revert of my own edits(!) (fractional-reserve banking), and I had the support of other editors regarding the others. If selective cherry-picking is already a dishonest method to build an argument, at least when it is used, it should be used not so awkwardly.
As for climate change denial, Raul still does not understand that I am not attacking what these sources say, but that I am merely trying to explain that editorials, especially if published in partisan sources about a political issue, should not be presented as evidence of facts or truths by an encyclopedia (as Raul does) but rather only as evidence that some opinion exists about a theory or trend of thought. I also tried to explain that a story that exists only in partisan publications is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Now, perhaps I am wrong, but to be called a liar and be brought here by an administrator who seeks to have me banned for this is beyond me.
I repeat that I have never attempted to change, negate or contradict the IPCC's findings in the global warming articles, nor to reduce their due weight. As a dedicated reader of Karl Popper, I firmly believe in the scientific method and to be called an anti-science POV-pusher by someone who seeks to silence opposing views and who wont even allow any dissidence about a topic which, according to the scientific community, is still under some level of uncertainty, is, I must say, both ridiculous and offensive.
It must be understood that this entire bickering arises from the latest Newsweek issue about global warming denial, is not about science like Raul tries to put it, and is inherently highly controversial. Raul has refused mediation preemptively [32], so I am sorry for this whole affair.
Also, please note how Raul involves in some anti-science conspiration just about every editor involved in the global warming articles whose views are at odds with the mainstream. That, it seems to me, is telling much. Regards. --Childhood's End 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This utterly disingenuous response cannot go unchallenged. Far from having "never attempted to change, negate or contradict the IPCC's findings," User:Childhoodsend regularly derides the IPCC as a politically-manipulated tool in "the UN's grasp"[33] and represents the present scientific consensus as "UN-sponsored politicized science."[34]He derides Al Gore for "representing the IPCC view wherever he goes"[35] -- would it make sense to criticize someone for representing findings that you concur in??? That he can say with a straight face that he "believes that the articles about global warming should reflect the IPCC findings with due weight" leaves me utterly speechless, unless he means a weight of zero. Raymond Arritt 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments, which I shared in good faith. Nothing in this involves that I believe, or even push for, that we should negate or contradict what comes out of the IPCC, and I invite you not to misrepresent my views. Even though I strongly disagree with the process and believe it is politicized, I do understand that this is the current state of the science and I would object to have the current state of the science presented otherwise. Again, please read again the diff I provided above. Only, I do believe, as the diffs you provide show, that some quality arguments are being overlooked, a view that is, I hope, acceptable to you to the extent that even the IPCC admits for a margin of uncertainty of at least 10%.
Of worthy note, perhaps I should add that following the first edit indicated by Raymond above, this interesting discussion was held on my talk page User talk:Childhoodsend#Good Faith. Regards. --Childhood's End 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Raymond says, CE's response above is totally contradicted by his actions - to wit, his comments on global warming related articles. Furthermore, his pleading that we assume good faith in his obviously bad-faith acts clearly has shades of Carbonite's law: "The more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." The reverts I showed above were not cherry picked - they consitiute most of CE's main-space edits for the last week. Any given week would show something similiar - the majority of his main space edits are reverted because they are edit-war material. Raul654 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this unsupported, gratuitous and inflamatory statement to the appraisal of uninvolved editors/admins. There's nothing more than Raul's opinions above, which would be enough to warrant outright rejection of his petition as frivolous before any real judiciary process. I suppose that WP may work differently, but I have no more to say about this. According to Raul, I should not claim that my edits are done in good faith, even against accusations of bad faith. My edit history is available for all to see. To those interested, again, please take a look at this discussion which was held following one of the edits Raymond is talking about.
As a note, again, Raul is maintaining that this diff [36] involves me in an edit war, while the edit has absolutely nothing to do with an edit of mine and was simply made on the last version of the article, which was last edited by me at the time. That Raul may have presented this as evidence was something, but that he maintains it is telling books. The edits I have made on fractional-reserve banking have been kept, and so were a majority of my other edits in various articles.
These lies and outright fabrication of evidence through cherry-picking are outrageous. --Childhood's End 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for pointing that out. For those who didn't notice, here's the edit Childhoodsend made. And here's the edit Raul654 tried to suggest Childhoodsend made. Such dishonesty for the pursuit of this attack campaign is beyond evident and should be reprimanded by all who care for the integrity of this encyclopedia. ~ UBeR 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm sure I've already expressed an opinion on this one, and I'd rather hear from more uninvolved editors, so I won't repeat myself. The larger issue is interesting, though - how to deal with persistent contrarians on controversial topics (c.f. passive smoking and AIDS reappraisal). We shouldn't discourage good-faith editors whose views are at odds with the scientific consensus. On the other hand, such editors are rarely satisfied with the treatment of minority views prescribed by WP:WEIGHT, and the misuse of talk pages is a major problem on these issues.
Additionally, one or a small number of determined contrarian editors can effectively stall an article/talk page for a prolonged period of time, and I understand Raul654's frustration. It's hard enough to reach consensus on how the article should look as is; it's near impossible when there's an insistence on re-arguing the details of the controversy on the talk page (again, passive smoking and AIDS reappraisal come to mind, as does this recent archetypal example from another editor). Perhaps the solution is not to ban CE, but to have some sort of enforcement attached to the talk-page guidelines for repeat offenders - in other words, talk page comments need to address specific improvements to the article in question, and a low threshold for dealing with USENET-style "debates". Of course, enforcement would be tricky. Just thinking out loud. MastCell Talk 17:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. This is simply a content dispute. Threatening to ban another user is not the right way here. See Dispute resolution —— Eagle101Need help? 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eagle 101, if you want to ban somebody, the burden of proof is greater than indicating that a few editors who take the opposing side don't like him. Addhoc 19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look carefully at User:Childhoodsend's actual contributions, instead of taking his statement at face value. Raymond Arritt 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to voice the same opinions of MastCell, Eagle 101, and Addhoc. This is little more than a content dispute. But it's also a personal dispute; Raul654 has tried many a times to ban people he dislikes from the project (and has failed miserably at that). He resorts to attack campaigns that make Wikipedia look like an embarrassment. He makes things up, such as above where he states I am an "anti-science POV pusher" whereas I have been one of two sole editors who have argued for more scientific resources to be used on global warming and related articles. He makes baseless attacks both on myself and others, calling us idiots and trolls. Most of all, I think the problem here is Raul654's problem in assuming good faith. Even here for example; he has a difficult time differentiating between genuinely and beyond-obvious good-faithed edits and vandalism. Take here for example; he cannot assume good faith in my edits despite there being absolutely nothing wrong with them, and even William M. Connolley agreeing with them (and having to explain to Raul654 why he is wrong). Quite frankly, to ban someone from articles because he voices a dissenting opinion on the talk page is nothing short of ludicrous. ~ UBeR 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the reason for the proposed ban. It was proposed, as I read it, because of tendentious editing and abuse of the article talk page. Editors have been topic-banned or otherwise sanctioned for such things - see User:GordonWatts and his career at Talk:Terri Schiavo. Whether Childhoodsend rises to that level is the question; I'm not saying he does, but that would appear to be the reasoning behind the proposal. MastCell Talk 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is twofold: Content and personal emotions [that he has a hard time controlling over the Internet]. At any rate, you're absolutely correct that talk pages need to be reserved for discussing how to amend the article itself. It seems hard to do though, when no one else is doing it. If something goes as far to the point that it becomes disruptive (per WP:DE), then they can be warned and then blocked from editing for a few hours (such was the case when Raul654 was disruptively editing warring). To go this far as Raul654 has done for his attack campaign is malapropos. ~ UBeR 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I would not trust Raul to ask for the banning, having already blocked the user several times for what appears to be personal disputes. I find Raul's manner in this brusque and demeaning at best (such as saying that UBeR is full of bullshit). I'm not saying that CE is right, he surely might be misguided, but I don't think kicking people out of a topic area is the right thing to do. What, Nydas has been pestering me and Tony over at the WP:SPOILER talk page, and yet you don't see us calling for his ousting. Does Raul think he's above dispute resolution? That's generally how we do things here... David Fuchs (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are now confusing Childhoodsend (who I have asked to be banned from the topic, and whom I have never blocked) with UBeR (who has been blocked many times, twice by me - who is defending CE because they are both POV pushers). Raul654 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confusing them- I'm pointing out that you disparage all those who you disagree with. David Fuchs (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think it was Childhoodsend he said was full of bullshit. Either way, I don't think it matters. ~ UBeR 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here [37]. He then called his edit a "debunking" of my "false claims"... --Childhood's End 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Raul notes one of the main issues is his conduct on talk pages. He actually makes very few edits to the articles themselves. Rather, his specialty is goading others into long, tendentious, and ultimately pointless exchanges on talk pages. I'm convinced that if people simply ignored him that he would get bored and go find entertainment elsewhere. Unfortunately people just can't resist commenting, which keeps the back-and-forth rolling along. Whether that's worth a topic ban is uncertain. My own approach is to ignore him to the greatest extent possible, though I couldn't let his dissimulation above go unchallenged. Raymond Arritt 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of edits:
54 Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
40 Global warming controversy
17 Global warming
17 Scientific opinion on climate change
17 Global warming skepticism
16 Global warming conspiracy theory
This is relatively few, in the sense that he has more talk page edits, however possibly isn't very few. Addhoc 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think discussing changes is a more novel approach then edit warring over them. ~ UBeR 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and also, this list is out of date and misses some info, as I think that the article I edited the most would be progressive rock. --Childhood's End 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Childhoodsend has a clear block log. If his disruptions haven't been blockable, how can there now be grounds for banning? - Jehochman Talk 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my original statement, his primary method of trolling is to foment long, incendiary, conversations on the talk pages (generally unrelated to the article itself) that waste the time of many good users. He avoids personal attacks and stays below the 3rr on main space article, so (as Raymond Arritt said), he says just within the rules and doesn't get blocked. However, let me be crystal clear - he is a profoundly negative influence on those articles. Raul654 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he's not breaking any rules... which means that what he's doing is entirely subjective- so you're saying we should ban someone from a swath of wikipedia because of your "gut feelings", for lack of a better word? David Fuchs (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Yes, he is breaking the rules. Talk pages "should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." - Wikipedia:Talk page This is exactly what CE does - he starts inflammatory, generally off-topic discussions. (2) My gut feeling has nothing to do with it. Look at his contributions. He contributes very little, but dealing with his comments consumes a great deal of time and energy from people who would otherwise be contributing to articles. Raul654 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't know (and I suspect Raul654 doesn't, because he's not an active participant in talk discussions), the talk page for global warming is often filled with "I heard it somewhere" topics where people mostly either are just looking for answers or are trying to refute some claim. This happens all the time on that page. Further, Wikipedia:Talk page is not even a guildline, much less a policy. WP:TALK is an editing guideline. We all agree, talk pages are for the purpose of amending the article. But I think we can all agree the de facto reality is that this isn't always the case. This is just a case of someone not agreeing what's being said. If someone's edits are truly disruptive, they'd be warned and blocked accordingly. This is just another baseless attack campaign by Raul654 that is full of lies (see above, for example) and appeals to authority. ~ UBeR 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral party here: I see no blocks in Childhood's End's log. Has there been an adverse checkuser result? What prior WP:DR steps exactly have been tried? And to all who comment, if you're part of the content dispute please disclose it up front. I recognize several of the user names here from prior interactions. With respect to all the editors here, I'm uneasy about creating a precedent of community banning on this basis. Whether or not this particular proposal is meritorious it would get us on the slippery slope. Wikipedia certainly does have some edit wars where the participants would like to get each other banned because of content views. I won't venture a guess on whether this is such a case, yet I'd really like to see a more objective and measurable basis so this doesn't become a wedge issue for future wikilawyers. DurovaCharge! 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put my reaction quickly and bluntly - no way. Article bans are not to gain an ownership advantage in content disputes. There is too much pot vs. kettle here for anything to happen without a prior RfC or mediation. GRBerry 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely with GRBerry. I'd like to see an RFC first. Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. I have not evaluated whether the underlying claim of tendentious conduct by CE has any merit, and take no position on that, but to go straight to community ban over a content dispute strikes of a much more severe violation of Wikipedia rules than anything a user who has never been blocked could possibly have done, and should merit some sort of administrative warning if the disruptive proposal is not withdrawn. Editors who are not violating rules or dispute resolution should not be forced to waste time defending themselves from a threatened community ban. THF 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the concern is not so much disruption in article space, but persistent misuse of the talk page, I think any solution should be focused there. I recently added the {{notaforum}} template to Talk:Global warming controversy after seeing the goings-on there. I would propose one of two things: either a) the template's instructions are taken seriously, and posts which abuse the talk page as a discussion forum or for general bloviation (e.g. [38]) are removed on sight. Or b) given the issues here, the talk page guidelines are enforced with more teeth on these pages - that is, posters are warned and even blocked (by an uninvolved admin) for persistently using the talk page for purposes other than discussing specific improvements to the article. I think the question of how best to handle a committed single-purpose account which strenuously advocates a minority POV to the overall detriment of the encyclopedia, while remaining within the boundaries of policy, is an interesting one. MastCell Talk 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, I do not want to introduce in this discussion, and I should not, but I'd like to point out that my account is far from being committed to a single-purpose, although yes, one of the topics I am the most interested in is global warming (not the main article, but the sub ones which are less scientific and more political). The edit count provided above was quite incomplete. --Childhood's End 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the edit count is incomplete. For example you have 124 edits to Talk:Global warming, yet you say you are not particularly interested in that article ("not the main one..."). This only reinforces the point that the locus of the problem is unconstructive talk page activity: why over 100 appearances on the talk page from someone who says they're not very interested in the article? Raymond Arritt 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
124 out of how many total edits? Close to 2000 right? And the point was that I am not using my account for a single-purpose. --Childhood's End 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make more clear, Childhoodsend has made 124 edits to talk:Global warming out of a total of nearly 1600 edits. He has also made 17 edits to global warming. How this all matters significantly to the point at hand, I don't know. But it's all there for you to check.[39] ~ UBeR 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do wonder sometimes with these chonically controversial subjects is whether the community could enact some kind of article parole. Universal 1RR for instance? Just to help keep discussions from heating up too much. It's often best to sleep on things before posting on a hot button issue. DurovaCharge! 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I mean by that, I'm thinking the community might apply 1RR to all editors at some specific article and/or talk page. DurovaCharge! 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the flareups are episodic, it would be helpful to have some way of keeping a lid on things. Universal 1RR may not be the best way, since these articles attract a lot of drive-by nonsense that need reverting but doesn't quite count as vandalism. Raymond Arritt 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs reverting, then another editor will likely use his 1RR to end the "edit war". Your point is no big issue. --Childhood's End 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, such marshal-law-like rules as 1RR have been tried (and enforced) on the global warming article. The result was a lot of unwarranted blocks and one user being banned from editing the article for several months. I don't really think the problem here is reverts. The problem is Raul654 disagreeing with what Childhoodsend has to say. Raul654 wants to bypass a system that was made to prevent such meritless attacks. ~ UBeR 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's think outside the box and try to stabilize the article. Would 2RR make sense then? That'd leave everyone with a spare to handle odd drive-by edits. I'm thinking of the other options at our disposal and the alternative that comes to mind is to put the talk page on civility parole, although that might not be particularly applicable here. DurovaCharge! 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And with respect to UBeR's comment, from my vantage this looks like more than a disagreement between Raul654 and Childshood's End. Global warming is a hot button topic for a significant number of people, both on and off Wikipedia. It's been the subtext of at least two arbitration cases and a WP:COIN request regarding that was one of the most difficult questions I've been asked to resolve. I think it may be a very good thing overall to enact measures to cool things down there overall, without pointing fingers at one particular editor or another. Normally the arbitration committee implements that kind of thing after a month or more of grueling discussion. I'd like to see if there's a way to set things on a better track without all that hassle. If you have suggestions toward that end I'm all ears, but move along, nothing to see here doesn't ring well. DurovaCharge! 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but don't see revert-warring as more than an occasional problem. The main issue is persistent bickering, posturing, and off-topic rambling on the talk pages, to the extent that actual discussion of the article can be lost in a sea of noise. Ideally everyone would simply not respond to provocations and let pointless discussion die out without the need to get in the last word. I've tried deleting some of the most unconstructive stuff, but several other editors insisted that it should stay so I no longer bother. Raymond Arritt 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem isn't so much reverts, but sometimes-off-topic discussions, which, as I pointed out above, are commonplace for the global warming article. I think the least of our worries should be an editor who Raul654 disagrees with. Childhoddsend may be one of the of the editors who contribute to unproductive discussions, but then again many people participate in those discussions. What ought to be done is that anything not relating to somehow fixing or editing the article should be deleted from the talk page, per WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:TALK. ~ UBeR 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a great idea, and might go a ways toward addressing the problem here. MastCell Talk 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe part of the problem is that Childhoodsend doesn't understand what POV is. I think the edits with cites show that he is trying to make his edits in good faith, but much of the wording is almost straight out of the Avoid Weasel Words book. Childhoodsend: For example, in this edit, you add 3 citations, but the wording "Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by humans, the lay population does not share such viewpoints." is absolutely not NPOV, especially the phrase "and that it is caused by humans". This is an enormously disputed fact, and for Wikipedia to use the words "despite" and "scientific consensus" is inherently not neutral. Another one is: "A variety of industries, especially the oil industry, have systematically funded think tanks and contrarian scientists to sow doubt about the scientific consensus and make the public think that the situation is not as severe as it is." This is a flat-out accusation which should never exist on Wikipedia. At best, it could say "So and so has claimed _____". Part of the Weasel Words policy is about attributing claims to unnamed groups or persons, whether there are citations for it or not. In addition, words like "systematically" are, again, inherently not-neutral. These types of statements belong in op-eds, not an encyclopedia. Again, I appreciate the good-faith efforts to obtain citations, but you have to remember what a citation provides; in many cases, it merely provides a reference that one person, or one group, did or said something. Above all, remember that this is an encyclopedia. Think about what that means before you make an edit that you do not wish to be reverted. -- Renesis (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've just made a huge mistake. The above edit is Moreschi's. Childhoodsend was absolutely correct to remove that paragraph. Why are other established editors reverting that, when it's clear just how weasel-wordy that paragraph is? -- Renesis (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a good example of what I mean. How can the uninvolved Wikipedians pass around a big bowl of chill pills? DurovaCharge! 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a peace pipe? ~ UBeR 23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wha?? The above edit is a huge indicator in this issue, it seems to me. Anyone calling someone else a "POV pusher" for removing that section is looking for trouble. If that issue were isolated, Raul654 would be way out of line. I'm sure it's not though, and as Childhoodsend himself says he's not innocent either but I don't see any need for bans from articles here unless they were handed out to everyone involved. -- Renesis (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, perhaps I should say that Raul654 has brought me here and asked for my ban especially for this edit and the related discussion about it. I did not ask for such a bickering, and I tried to avoid it by first bringing it at his talk page, where I was coldly dismissed, just like another admin (Dweller) was as well when he proposed mediation. The lesson that I hope he would learn is that there is no clear-cut truth in these matters, and that calling someone a "liar", "BS", and a "POV-pusher" for such an affair is irresponsible, while bringing this here and asking for bans and sanctions amounts to bullying and seems undeserving of admin status. I wish that at least some lesson is learned out of this affair. Not pretending that my hands are holy white, but the WP community, I think, should give signals that it does not accept such abuses of process, perhaps in the line proposed by THF above. --Childhood's End 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see that multiple admins don't think a ban is in order, we might want to move this to say... a request for comment, or better yet go to dispute resolution. Childhoodsend is not getting banned today. —— Eagle101Need help? 06:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is the wrong place for this discussion. Community sanctions must not become the first, second or third step in dispute resolution - but the last resort. There is a tremendous potential for them to be misused. But presumably further discussion should take place on the talk page. Banno 23:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin, and a ban seems warranted to me. FeloniousMonk 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk, perhaps, but the policy states that if one admin is willing to unblock, and I see at least 2 if not more, a ban is not suitable. Bans are for last resorts. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral party to all this, I commented on the Admin noticeboard that I didn't see any proof that Raul had engaged in personal attacks worthy of sanctions. By the same regard, I don't see any reason why Childhood's End should be banned from editing or commenting on global warming articles. This is a content dispute and, like all such disputes, should be worked out among the involved editors. I'm also extremely weary of attempts to ban or block an editor merely because that editor doesn't agree with others.--Alabamaboy 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain to me how this is constructive? I'm trying to assume good faith here, but frankly i can't see that comment as other than a provocation to go into exactly the same discussion as has been debated multiple times on the talk-page, and on the just closed AfD. --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Petersen if there's anything you should have got out of this discussion, it's that if a user's actions are genuinely disruptive, he'll be warned and then blocked if necessary. That's opposed to cutting corners and making frivolous attacks campaigns against users in attempts to get them banned from the project. I hope you understand this. ~ UBeR 01:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yqbd (talk · contribs · block log)

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.
He's banned until he's unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed solution: Yqbd is banned from intelligent design and all related articles

Statement by FeloniousMonk

For a while now, the regular editors of intelligent design have been first accommodating, and later suffering, Yqbd's chronic disruption, but he has exhausted the community's patience and every one of the regular contributors there I've spoken to supports a community ban of Yqbd. Yqbd is largely a SPA who has been conducting a campaign promoting the intelligent design POV and creating long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not attributable to reliable sources, and dismissing, ignoring, and misrepresenting article content which is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources.

The disruption is the result of Yqbd raising endless and baseless objections by daily creating new sections at Talk:Intelligent design which misrepresent and ignore both sources and facts and then edit warring nearly daily to get his changes into the article (a featured article no less) when his objections fail to find any support, much less consensus, on the talk page.

Despite many warnings on his user talk page and 3 previous blocks for 3rr violations at intelligent design [40] Yqbd's disruption of the article shows no sign of abating.

Twice this week I proposed and found strong support for following the steps at WP:DE and seeking at a minimum a topic ban for Yqbd here and here. My final caution to him on his talk page about forcing the community to takes steps to stop his disruption of this article prompted the response that he intends to continue and expand his disruption to resist the userfication of any baseless, disruptive objections:[41], a threat he has now made good on: [42][43][44] Yqbd has clearly met the 3 main hallmarks of a disruptive editor:

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
  • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
  • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

Given his clear pattern of disruptive behavior and the 3 resulting blocks combined with his continued ignoring and dismissing all community input and attempts at moderation, we feel a community topic ban is called for. FeloniousMonk 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yqbd's response

Summary

FeloniousMonk doesn't seem to know what is going on as you can see by some of FeloniousMonk's examples of me correcting a typo or finding an incorrect link to a cited reference that ended up being corrected and updated.

It looks like FeloniousMonk is just not used to the activity one person can legitimately generate because of the lack of activity by opposition in the Talk page. As you can see in this discussion the editors critical of the subject of the article have time to casually discuss whether an article about Casey Luskin was started.

Other examples from FeloniousMonk show that I have made edits and editors have reverted. We then discussed the edit.

Response

I disagree and would like a list of examples that you think isn't allowed on Wikipedia. --Yqbd 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of times, literally, you've been shown where and how you've run afoul of policy. You've simply chose to ignore them. Your user talk page and your block log [45] is a testament to your willingness to ignore both policy and community input. FeloniousMonk 06:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be more specific. --Yqbd 06:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a discussion is disruptive, why didn't anyone say the specific discussion was disruptive instead of responding to the discussion? --Yqbd 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk replies to a discussion [46] instead of saying it's disruptive. --Yqbd 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR?

Despite many warnings on his user talk page and 3 previous blocks for 3rr violations at intelligent design [40] Yqbd's disruption of the article shows no sign of abating.

No 3RR violations since. --Yqbd 06:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Your last block was on August 2, but on August 8 you're right back violating it:[47][48][49][50][51]
And you've since learned to game the system now, reverting right up to the 3rr limit almost daily: August 11: [52][53] [54] FeloniousMonk 07:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just gave three edits with one that is of me correcting a typo. I asked what's wrong with the edit in the Talk page and got responses. None of the responses said the discussion was disruptive, but you userfied it when it could instead go into the archive. --Yqbd 07:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive?

For a while now, the regular editors of intelligent design have been first accommodating, and later suffering, Yqbd's chronic disruption, but he has exhausted the community's patience and every one of the regular contributors there I've spoken to supports a community ban of Yqbd.

What are the examples and reasons? Why didn't anyone say something was disruptive and why instead of responding to the discussion? I have attempted to make edits and had discussions after the editors reverted with their reasons. If anything, you are disrupting our discussions. --Yqbd 07:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your user talk page in the last month? FeloniousMonk 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What offended you? --Yqbd 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPA?

Yqbd is largely a SPA who has been conducting a campaign promoting the intelligent design POV and creating long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not attributable to reliable sources, and dismissing, ignoring, and misrepresenting article content which is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources.

"A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles. This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny."--Yqbd 07:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tendentious?

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
I'd like examples of this please. --Yqbd 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]
  5. [59]
  6. [60]
  7. [61]
  8. [62]
FeloniousMonk 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong with each of those? --Yqbd 07:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [63]
I tried adding the full quote from the source and it was reverted. --Yqbd 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [64]
I tried to replace "modified to avoid" with "without" and it was reverted. We then discussed the revert. I asked for reference of the previous discussion and Sheffield Steel responded. --Yqbd 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [65]
Giving [66] as an example shows how you don't know what is going on. I added "(Webpage cannot be found on 2007-08-08.)" to the reference and SheffieldSteel updated the reference. [67] Notice the comment, "(retrieved article - date was incorrect, website was revised, no biggie)" --Yqbd 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [68]
  2. [69]
These two edits for the mention of 64% of the poll, I believe, is relevant and more accurately represents the poll. The article just mentions what 10% believed. We were discussing this in the Talk page and you disrupted the discussion by userfying it. One of the editors also found something thought to be contradictary because of the discussion. Concession for including a phrase was also brewing. If you did know what was going on in the discussion, it looks like you were just helping one editor that was losing an argument about what the source says. --Yqbd 07:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [70]
This was reverted, discussed, and pretty much settled. The discussion could've been archived instead of userfied by FeloniousMonk. --Yqbd 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [71]
This is just an example of correcting a typo. --Yqbd 07:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [72]
This was reverted, discussed, and pretty much settled. The discussion could've been archived instead of userfied by FeloniousMonk. --Yqbd 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability?

  • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
I'd like examples of this please. --Yqbd 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen you've been asked to provide reliable sources many times at Talk:Intelligent design and you've failed to present any. Diffs will be provided. FeloniousMonk 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example? --Yqbd 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejects community input?

  • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
I'd like examples of this please. --Yqbd 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finding examples of you ignoring other's comments, reasoning and warnings is not difficult, looking at your user talk page. FeloniousMonk 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did I ignore? --Yqbd 07:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given his clear pattern of disruptive behavior and the 3 resulting blocks combined with his continued ignoring and dismissing all community input and attempts at moderation, we feel a community topic ban is called for. FeloniousMonk 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I "ignoring and dismissing all community input" when I'm responding? --Yqbd 07:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ConfuciusOrnis

I'm actually of the opinion that providing specific diffs of User:Yqbd's disruptive behaviour, is somewhat redundant, given practically all of his contributions are disruptive. A reviewer wishing to get a clear picture of his behaviour and why a topic ban is being sought, would be best off reading:

  1. His talk page
  2. The subpage created specifically for his objections
  3. The talk page he is disrupting

Even putting aside his refusal to back up any of his claims with reliable sources, asking the same questions over and over again, ignoring the responses he's given, misrepresenting sources and other users comments, and his charming habit of trying to browbeat other editors into giving up and letting him have his way... even all that aside, the fact that he makes a horrible mess of any talk page he touches ( as he's so ably demonstrated on this page ) is incredibly disruptive, and has the effect of completely hijaking the page and seriously impeding any productive discussion. ornis (t) 08:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give examples of following so how I can show you are mistaken and misunderstanding. --Yqbd 09:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even putting aside his refusal to back up any of his claims with reliable sources
  • asking the same questions over and over again
  • ignoring the responses he's given
  • misrepresenting sources and other users comments
  • his charming habit of trying to browbeat other editors into giving up and letting him have his way
  • the fact that he makes a horrible mess of any talk page he touches...

Comment by dave souza

The assessment by FeloniousMonk and ConfuciusOrnis is, in my opinion, fully accurate and if anything understates the disruptive and tendentious editing of Yqbd. The incessant demands on this page for answers and diffs gives some indication of Yqbd's style, but to demonstrate it in action on the talk:Intelligent design page I've had a look at one particular example. Yqbd began discussing an edit trying to link poll support for creationism with the percentage the pollsters identified with ID here, then after being given an explanation setting out how his reinterpreting the poll findings was original research, reasserted his original research here. After the explanation of policy was repeated in depth, Yqbd ignored that and returned to the original assertion, and again, and again. When the editor refuting the repeated claims declined to repeat the arguments, Yqbd stated "It's a valid question. Don't ignore it, but if you don't want to answer then I'll just give the conclusion"[73], having not long asserted that FeloniousMonk was "just helping out your friends that are losing arguments"[74] – ignoring the point that Yqbd had received no support from other editors for the claims and arguments. Rather a waste of time, really. ... dave souza, talk 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second - venue?

Since when can CSN do topic bans? That seems like something that only ArbCom can do, and this sounds like it's probably a case for them anyhow. Why is it here? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chairboy is correct. See WP:DISPUTE. This does not belong here. --Yamla 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSN has done topic bans before and Arbcom has endorsed the practice. See this important precedent. Yes, this is a proper venue. DurovaCharge! 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still rather see this go through arbitration, but I stand corrected. --Yamla 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without offering an opinion on the current proposal, community topic bans are a sensible idea. It's not too hard to demonstrate where the remedy would be appropriate and it's a lot less hassle for everyone involved to settle that on a community level. An editor could appeal to arbcom if he or she thinks the community made a mistake. DurovaCharge! 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, and how large of a section of the community regularly hangs out here? —— Eagle101Need help? 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to establish consensus on these types of actions when necessary. DurovaCharge! 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic ban is proposed, I would suggest that other relevant boards be notified so that as many people as possible can comment. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outspace) Thats been done in the past when only a few comments were given on a discussion. I don't think there are any objections to that. Navou banter 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Yqbd (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Ryulong for long-term disruption, just as a heads-up. For my 2 cents, I see enough tendentiousness and disruption there to warrant a topic ban. Since he's a single-purpose account, there may not be much difference between a topic ban and a siteban. It's relatively easy for a committed WP:SPA with time on their hands and an axe to grind to stall a talk page with such behavior. Given the evidence of incorrigible edit-warring and tendentiousness, I don't have a problem with the indefinite block, though it wouldn't have been my first choice. MastCell Talk 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has posted an unblock request. User_talk:Yqbd#Unblock_request. I've no opinion on its merits. DurovaCharge! 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well regardless of what happens on this board, if an admin unblocks he is not considered banned. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sitebanned if that happens, but topic banning remains to be determined. DurovaCharge! 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Mentorship. Navou banter 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembered has a long history of extensive disruption, to the point of being blocked numerous times by different administrators, nearly community banned as described on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive8#PalestineRemembered_again, and has been the subject of a request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered, which was dismissed when it was discovered that PalestineRemembered had "only" misrepresented the source of information he had added to an article, but didn't actually obtain the information from a holocaust denial website. Recently, PalestineRemembered has engaged in some very serious disruption. Without providing any evidence whatsoever, he has strongly insinuated that a fellow editor could be prosecuted for war crimes [75]. Such an insinuation constitutes an egregious personal attack, a severe WP:BLP violation, and a legal threat -- all in one edit! Furthermore, PalestineRemembered has recently plagiarized large amounts of text from this report by the United Nations [76], then edit warred to force the retention of the plagiarized material [77]. Persistent and deliberate plagiarism and copyright violations undermine the integrity of the project, while legal threats, WP:BLP violations against fellow editors, and severe personal attacks harm the project by encouraging productive contributors to leave. To protect Wikipedia from further disruption and serious harm, I propose that PalestineRemembered be banned indefinitely. John254 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The last community ban was based on false information (provided by one of the admins who had previously blocked him for a month, despite being involved in conflicts with PR), as was demonstrated in the ArbCom. Using that as reasoning behind a community ban is deplorable - PR was the victim in that mess. The community should note that 2 of the blocks in the linked log (and the associated unblocks) are directly related to that case. Mark Chovain 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is inaccurate. As I pointed out in that earlier discussion, PR still misrepresented the source and that Jayjg was mistaken about what source PR had taken it from was not actually relevant. The point was that he misrepresented his sourcing. In any event, insituation that a fellow user has comitted war crimes is a massive WP:NPA/WP:LEGAL problem and would seem to be close to the last straw. This editor is simply unable to edit in a cooperative fashion. One procedural note - show we unblock PR for this discussion? JoshuaZ 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PalestineRemembered was blocked for 24 hours on 00:02, 12 August 2007, so the block should have expired by now. I have notified him of the proposed community ban; he is free to present a defense here. John254 03:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was not banned for "misrepresenting a source", nor was the ArbCom set up for that purpose. Both related to the accusation that he took his infromation from a holocaust denial website. The entire CSN discussion was over in a couple of hours, even though it was based on a false claim.
As for unblocking: Nah - leave him blocked. It'll be much easier to get him banned if he doesn't get to have his say. Mark Chovain 03:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Mark Chovain 03:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, fully three minutes before Mark Chovain's most recent comment, PalestineRemembered's block should have expired by now. To disregard that correct observation, then to make gratuitous, inflammatory insinuations to the contrary such as "Nah - leave him blocked. It'll be much easier to get him banned if he doesn't get to have his say." [78] serve no legitimate purpose. John254 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of engaging in useless rhetoric, you could actually discuss the matter. To refresh your memory, the discussion was finally closed by Tony when it became clear that the ArbCom was going to examine the case. That is why it ended up closing after only a few hours. Furthermore, many users were in favor of ban regardless of what the source was, using only the fact that he had blatantly misrepresented his sourcing. If you look at [[79]] (I don't have time to chase down difs) you'll see that I said "We should evaluate this as we would for any editor doing this with any POV and must not block based on the POV in question being more repugnant. That said, this editor has been repeatedly abusive and POV pushing and looking through the user's contributions list, I see only a handful of genuinely productive edits. Deliberate lying about the nature of a source is the last straw" Swatjester, Durova, Tony, and others are all supported his blocking based on this or simply him being a POV pushing SPA. None of that has changed. The user still is repeatedly POV pushing and has almost no(I think it is actually literally zero, but I'll hedge this for now Looked now, it appears that of the last 500 mainspace edits two have not been relates to the conflict, one edit to Prison and one to Cow tipping) edits outside the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This user has been blocked for months at a time by multiple admins. These are the relevant facts, not some smokescreen about a certain admin making a mistake a few months ago. JoshuaZ 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PR was blocked as a result of the CSN by Felonious Monk a full 3 hours before Tony closed the CSN by my calculation (I have to convert time zones though, and could be out by an hour). The RfArb already looks into the issue of SPA in depth. Mark Chovain 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your calculation is correct. The point was that the discussion continued well after that, so the description that "The entire CSN discussion was over in a couple of hours, even though it was based on a false claim" is misleading given that the discussion stopped when it appeared that it was going to go through ArbCom. In any event, the history is not what is important but rather the editor in question. JoshuaZ 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history shouldn't be important, but when people bring up block logs that are based on ballsed-up process as "evidence" of disruption, it the details of that history become important. People reading John's opening paragraph are going to think, "Gee, this guy's done some pretty bad stuff". The fact is, most of it is a storm in a tea-cup. He's annoyed people in the past who know how to make lots of noise. The recent problem was taken to ANI yesterday with a request for a one week block; he was given a 24 hour block. End of story. Mark Chovain 03:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certain elements of the history should be important, certainly the blocks prior to that. While it isn't completely clear to me why the first few blocks were so long (a 1 month block with no prior blocks seems possibly excessive. I haven't had a chance to look at what triggered it in detail) the bottom line is that this user has been repeatedly blocked since the user started editing. JoshuaZ 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PalestineRemembered, after a long and heated discussion with User:Jaakobou who is an Israeli, asked "If you were less than 4 miles away from [Jenin], did you handle a weapon or otherwise take any part in the battle"? Jaakobou has since not answered the question, nor made a generic statement like "I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest in the matter". Instead, he is issuing warnings and condemnations which only inflame the issue. Asking "are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes" without even knowing for sure that the editor was ever an IDF soldier is certainly over the top. But to try and make this into a community ban issue is ludicrous! Indeed, User:Jaakobou has been persistently making unhelpful edits based on policy-violating rationales, although I believe that he is a good faith editor (just like PR). If mentorship is considered the answer, I would suggest that both editors receive it. (I am personally involved and have been warned by Jaakoou for incivility.) Eleland 20:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The proper response to a loaded question is not to answer it. Also, we're supposed to be working on an encyclopedia, not conducting war crime trials. <<-armon->> 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship prior to ban discussion, perhaps?

This is not a simple case, unfortunately. I think we can all agree that alleging that another wikipedian is guilty of "war crimes" is egregious in the extreme and needs to be addressed. Also, having had discourse with this editor, I empathize fully with those who feel that there are times when trying to engage this editor in discourse is very frustrating. Lookinng that the eponymous website from which the user obtained his/her name, [www.palestineremembered.com], one can easily justify that this user arrived at the project with distinct preconceptions and a possible willingness to disrupt in order to implement those preconceptions. That being said, PR has made gainful contributions to the project, and, therefore, before the community discusses a full-fledged ban, I would think that some form of mentorship/guidance, if only in how to stifle ones own frustrations at the apparent inequities in the project (and believe you me, EVERY editor sees the nefarious hand of SOME cabal when their edits are adjusted -- whether it be true or not) and contribute positively, would be a better resolution to the current situation. Should that prove untenable, wikipedia can continue from there. -- Avi 04:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a very good idea. People, read PR's statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered#Statement by PalestineRemebered. A mentor might actually work, and is certainly worth the try. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may work, if the user is willing to accept mentorship.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might work, but apart from my opposition to all involuntary mentorship, this really would have to be voluntary. I'm not sure how likely that would be. -Amarkov moo! 04:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd support mentorship as long as that mentor has the teeth necessary to keep PR in line. I'm not going to speak up as to whether or not PR deserves a community ban or not, but I'd say that he definitely requires some shepherding and someone neutral to speak up when he engages in some of his less than helpful theatrics. (Just for full disclosure, I've reported him for 3rr, been active in edit "conflicts" with him over copyvio issues and recently been accused of being a hormonal woman by him, despite being genetically male.) He may be a good editor someday if he can learn to follow the rules, ie. wp:not a soapbox, wp:v, wp:nor, wp:cite.... Kyaa the Catlord 10:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Personally, I think the time for mentorship, or any other good-faith effort to improve on his part, was after he was given the benefit of the doubt in his last "community ban" discussion. That should have been the the not-so subtle hint to pull his socks up. Sadly it was not. <<-armon->> 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because he accidentally cited the primary source instead of the secondary? You do realise that's all that he did wrong in that, right? He was blocked 3 times and banned for at least a couple of weeks for the one breach of the WP:REF guideline. Why do people keep bringing that up as an example of how "bad" PR is? All that incident did was highlight the extent to which his detractors will go to in fishing for a full ban. Mark Chovain 22:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this is a better course of action that outright banning, especially since some of the blocks appear to have been unfounded. David Fuchs (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly think questions insinuating another editor's potential involvement in war crimes have no place in Wikipedia. What's being forgotten or glossed over in this discussion, however, is the context of PR's past blocks – which is the atmosphere of bad faith, bullying, intimidation, and general animosity on many Middle-East-related pages. Some of this, unfortunately, seems to have seeped into the present discussion. It is held against PR that he is a single-purpose account with a particular ideological orientation (JoshuaZ even suggests that this would be sufficient cause in itself for banning), but it is somehow forgotten just how many editors active and influential on Middle-East-conflict-related pages are single-purpose accounts with a strong, clear ideological disposition; several of the most zealous of these even have admin privileges. Including, not coincidentally, the very editor who falsely smeared PR as a Holocaust denier (in the case alluded to above), then failed to summon the moral courage to retract his ridiculous charge for a full eight days after it had been categorically disproven. The lesson of that sorry episode, which seems to have been lost on several editors here (unsurprisingly given their faulty recollections of it), was that the Middle East sector of Wikipedia is a highly charged place, where even highly-experienced editors (with admin and checkuser privileges, Arbcom experience, and so on) can find themselves violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in fairly spectacular ways. Mentorship may be a good idea for PR, but it's no silver bullet for the problems that pervade Middle-East-related pages. I don't wish to defend the questions PR put to Jaakabou, because I think they were inappropriately conceived and offensively articulated, but I do not think they are a banning offense. And unlike the guilty party's offensive speculation in the last round of Let's-community-ban-PR, PR's offensive speculation was at least presented as a question open to denial or refutation, rather than a conclusive assertion clung to tenaciously even as the grounds for it were systematically demolished. At any rate, any proposed ban of PR that begins with a serious misrepresentation of that last episode will by definition lack credibility.--G-Dett 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of any cases where mentorship has worked, but hey, we can try things repeatedly. To find a good mentor for anyone working in this area will be very difficult; on the evidence former ArbComm members are not adequately qualified. PR is clearly imperfect in his interactions in this topic area; so are most of the admins that have blocked him. PR also is not an intentional troll; he does try to make Wikipedia better. That many disagree as to whether his edits actually do this really isn't significant. The whole Israel-Palestine mess is such a POV battleground that we really shouldn't be doing community ban discussions in that area except for people that are intentional trolls. I note that an organized team of pro-Israel Wikipedia editors exists and has been looking for more members, and start out highly suspicious of any community discussions about this topical area. Frankly, I don't care if pro-X editors have worn out the patience of anti-X editors or vice-versa; I care about whether both sets of editors abide by user conduct policy and whether the uninvolved community believes the editors are trying to improve Wikipedia or not. In summary, I don't think we can find a qualified mentor, but if we can it might be worth trying, and I also don't think the community should endorse this ban proposal. GRBerry 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PalestineRemembered

It is deeply disturbing to discover that the personal allegations made against me in May are still being discussed as if they were, or could possibly have been, true. And/or that my behaviour then (regarding sources or anything else) gave any kind of legitimate reason for suspicious against me. And/or that I had somehow done something unusual, potentially meriting a perma-block. I can easily provide a detailed refutation of those earlier allegations (it's all written up in the case). But I have no need to fill these pages, let me remind everyone that I pleaded for the ArbCom to go ahead, as I believed it would have no alternative but to completely clear my name. I believed that the only just solution was a full retraction and apology from my accuser, mandated by the ArbCom (sadly, the ArbCom was not taken up, so I got no such satisfaction). Please examine the case further - unlike on this occasion, back then the allegations against me were quite deliberate and specific, based on evidence that I was going to find very difficult to refute (but managed to do, in a spectacularily precise fashion - I had the book inches away from me and it pre-dated the other sources I might have found it).

Also very disturbing that my admitted and corrected breach of citation of sources is brought up in an accusatory fashion, since this was never more than a WP guide-line - and there is even real doubt whether it's genuine. (Disputed by a prominent Harvard lawyer in a well known case).

Similarily disturbing that the Single Purpose Account allegation is trotted out again, the attempt to force me to change my name failed, my use of an SPA is specifically allowed for in policy. (I offered to change my name, even applied to do so but then changed my mind).

As to this particular case, the whole business of CoI clearly hasn't been discussed in this regard, I will leave that to others. My own experience of WP hadn't convinced me that making personal allegations is even frowned upon.

I would be happy to be mentored (in a mutually agreeable fashion, obviously), but I believe I have generally stuck to policy, and generally been a productive editor (as I was most certainly trying to be over this particular article Battle of Jenin). I have strayed into uncharted waters (and perhaps made work for others in deciding policy, sorry). But someone must boldly go where no man or woman has been before. PalestineRemembered 09:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a useful statement. Do you have any comment on the allegation that you posted a legal threat? --Dweller 09:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether I posted a "legal threat" - earlier I denied it, but I guess there are different ways to read anything. I can promise you I did not intend to do so and had no reason to do so. My lurid words were designed to elicit one of two responses from Jaakobou, either a declaration that he had no personal knowledge of this April 2002 affair, or that he withdraw from the article on grounds of Conflict of Interest. The mention of war-crimes was flim-flam intending to remind him it was a real question and needed a response, not that I personally thought he'd carried them out (which I truly think is somewhat unlikely).
My original question was in general terms, very easy for him to answer - it ran "Were you >4 miles, >40 miles, >400 miles or >4000 miles away from the incident?". 99.5% of Israelis would have said "greater than 4 miles", and that would have been the end of the matter.
By the time I asked my question the second time, I was frustrated, because not only was he failing to answer something I considered an entirely proper question, but he'd been vandalising my TalkPages with the most extraordinary muddled and meaningless warnings. He does it 3 times - then posts 3 further muddled warnings that he intends to escalate the matter. Recall that Jaakobou is causing this trouble over the "how far from Jenin were you" question, not what came later. Wade through this lot: 18:31, 4 August 2007, then 18:42, 4 August 2007, and 18:08, 6 August 2007. The three "escalating" edits to my TalkPage are these 17:27, 6 August 2007 then 21:25, 6 August 2007 and 09:33, 7 August 2007).
Recall that Jaakobou has a long history of exactly this kind of harrassing behaviour on TalkPages, two admins claim he's harrassed them at this AN/I and been blocked for it. See also [80] and [81], all from the same date. These further two exchanges are action against editors who (I'm pretty sure) are careful and productive - yet it includes posting their personal details into public view. So this editor accusing me is himself guilty of very robust interaction with other editors - many people might think his general behaviour and attitude to other editors is far worse than mine.
Under those circumstances the edit that many people clearly find offensive was intended solely to make clear that, if Jaakobou wasn't prepared to deny his participation/personal knowledge (something I thought made for a conflict of interest, though I could be wrong), then he should stop editing the article. No more, no less. He'd raised suspicions once (which is why I first asked the question), his subsequent behaviour was very aggressive (and suspicious - he abruptly left the TalkPage where he'd been so busy) and I felt, rightly or wrongly, that the question couldn't go unanswered. My personal opinion is that the integrity of the project is compromised if people with personal knowledge participate without declaring it. Policy appears to be on my side in this case, and I believe the community should "be on my side" too.
Lastly, I can't help feeling there are big cultural difference visible here and it is these that are causing me to be targetted in this fashion. I have now had several reports against me that have clearly caused large numbers of editors really severe alarm. In each case, the substance has proved (I believe) to be trivial and easily explained. If I'm right, the project will suffer an increasing number of these things in the months and years ahead as more people learn English and join the Web. However, that's a discussion for another time - if you're really interested I'll start a Sandbox on it. PalestineRemembered 11:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just to get this clear, are you saying down that this particular issue (legal threat) is down to poor judgement on your part, or that other people misread you? --Dweller 13:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a clear case of people misreading what I wrote. I don't believe that anyone can take seriously the claim that I made a "legal threat". My language was lurid (perhaps offensively so) but not directly accusatory. It was likely less accusatory that that of Jaakobou who repeatedly stated that my (rather inoffensive original question) was libellous (= actionable). Even if it were not a storm in a teacup (as I believe it to be), it is distracting us from the real point at issue.
My attempt at examining policy on Conflict of Interest deleted It seems sad (not to say extraordinary) that motivation (an attempt to see policy operated, even if some consider it to have been misguided originally and gone seriously wrong after some 5 days) is not considered a fit subject to be discussed here. PalestineRemembered 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Participants should be aware that, on top of the alleged abuse of process detailed at the beginning of my statement (whereby making quite specific, unretracted, false allegations of imprisonable offences against me was not even considered improper) there is real concern that I have been targetted from the time I arrived. The following appears at the end of CSN called to perma-block me:
  1. The first block by FeloniousMonk is questionable. Can FM please justify the 1 month block especially that it was the first block.
  2. The second block of FeloniousMonk may be justified only if the first one is. (PR - 2nd block is 2 months).
  3. The third block by Jayjg is unjustified. Jayjg referred to a talk page comment as a justification. Can you explain Jayjg why did you consider this link as a justification for another 1 block? (PR - 3rd block is 1 month).
PR again - please note that no explanations for my treatment was ever presented. Allegations of gross unsuitability to the project persisted and still persist, even from the sources that so strikingly failed to justify the very harsh action they took against me before. Evidence for these allegations was never brought out then, just as it has not been brought out now. Even the "Evidence" section of the abandoned ArbCom[82] contains not a single diff of my contributions from my accusers (there are dozens of diffs from me and others, just not a single one from my accusers).
It's obviously difficult to be completely sure, but (given the total lack of evidence) it would seem likely that this last incident when I asked "are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?" is the nearest thing to a serious disruption ever to come from me in 1,360 edits. PalestineRemembered 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here, PR, is that noone else finds your asking "are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?" as a "tempest in a teacup". We find this sort of accusation so vile that we need to well, come here and discuss possible steps that, as a community, we should take to stop the sort of behaviour that was reported here and elsewhere that you've engaged in. Simply being discussed on this noticeboard should be setting off so many triggers as a wikipedian that you'd be begging not to be banned, rather than dismissing the concerns raised. Kyaa the Catlord 08:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that this page is the proper venue for discussing the ability to edit particular articles vis-a-vis possible CoI. That should be discussed on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This page is to discuss whether or not there exists an exhaustion of community patience, and if not, should there be any potential outcome of the report here that could further everyone's ability to contribute to the project (e.g. some form of mentorship). CoI issues should be brought to the CoI page, and discussed there, without resorting to "lurid" statements designed to provoke, regardless of who uttered them, at whom they were addressed, and the purposes behind them, noble, ignoble, or somewhere in between. -- Avi 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Jaakobou - i could write in length and give a growing number of citations to unreferenced "figurative speech" accusations/claims and the mistakes in them (some of them he linked here), but for now i prefer to mostly stress that PR's statements seem, to me, like he justifies this behavior under some star trek reference and/or "big cultural difference" and continues to accuse me of vandalism. i find it unsettling that (as far as i can see) he feels he can continue with this behavior (even when under review), and get away with such statements as claiming he did not get a notification about the AN/I.his claim (11th august), the notice with a link (7th august) JaakobouChalk Talk 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembered has indeed been a constant source of disruption and has been given plenty of chances to learn and reform already and has squandered each and every one all the while feigning reasonablness and listening to community input. Enough is enough. I support a community ban for PalestineRemembered. FeloniousMonk 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. Is canvassing normally allowed for CSN discussions? I thought given its reputation, this would at least be heavily frowned upon: [83] [84] [85] Mark Chovain 05:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chovain, i asked the 2 people personally involved with the previous blocks to give their own side rather than just have editors, you included, who did not issue these blocks make statements for them. the 3rd person (and link) is a result of my stumbling on a very offensive/suggestive edit summary, you can read about the controversy behind it here). anyways, i can see how my notes could have been seen the way you have and i have no problem with your raising of concern. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the suggestion of a community ban against PalestineRemembered, based on that I don't see pro-Israeli POV pushing editors, including those with administrator privileges, getting banned for the exactly same behaviour. That PalestineRemembered's POV is opposed to theirs does not make him more disruptive than they are. --Servant Saber 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Legal threats by any editor are extremely serious and I would expect anyone accused of making legal threats to be seriously admonished at the very least, probably blocked and possibly banned.

The pro/anti Israel/Palestinian debate is therefore a red herring. As is the debate about COI or other editors' good/bad behaviour, POV-pushing or bad blocks.

The key question here is whether PR's edit truly constitutes a legal threat.

In my opinion, it was, however, I'm actually more concerned that PR does not seem to wish to concede that it was a gross error of judgement, preferring to insist that others are misreading the comment. To me this implies that PR is not capable of learning from the error... and ending up back here again.

My growing experience of dealing with "problem editors" is that those who deny their wrongdoing are very hard to mentor. I hate seeing useful editors banned from Wikipedia, but, as I've explained PR worries me. --Dweller 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the above. When I see phrases like "are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague? Please consider your options carefully before providing a reply. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum in a civilised nation (or indeed, in a western nation), then you might care to consider your response especially carefully" - I consider them as a very very thinly veiled threat. And it is troubling in the extreme that even after being blocked for making these legal threats, PR still insists that this was 'a perfectly proper question', and that 'my behavior was necessary in the interests of the project. ' - this does suggest, as Dweller says, that PR is not capable of learning from the error, nor even from the limited sanction (24 hour block) imposed so far. Isarig 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any reference for PRs alleged excuses. Instead he was writing about his lurid and perhaps offensive language, which lets me trust in PRs willingness to refrain from repeating his error. --Raphael1 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for leaving out the actual reference. Here we go: - claims of 'my behavior was necessary in the interests of the project' - both in the edits and the edit summary, [86], and a desciption of his legal threat as 'a perfectly proper question'. Isarig 19:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is misleading. With 'perfectly proper question' PR was not referring to the lurid "threat" you quote above, but to a question regarding a possible WP:COI Jaakobou might have. The question is personal, but could be well-founded as Jaakobou never answered it. --Raphael1 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not. we're not discussing some hypothetical question regarding CoI which Pr might have asked, but an actual question he asked, which is little more than a thinly veiled legal threat, and which was the immediate cause for the 24h blocked imposed on him, for which the above comment was a direct reply. Isarig
I was about to put in a comment saying the same thing. It would be a bit unfortunate if, after months of there being no evidence of obnoxious behaviour presented against me whatsoever, an allegation so misleading should be allowed to slip through now. PalestineRemembered 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your obnoxious behavior, of which the latest thereat is merely the last straw, speaks for itself. There is more than enough evidence for meaningful sanctions to be imposed here. Isarig 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally support the idea that PR merits a longer block for asking such a nonsense question plus of course the blatant incivility shown at their discussions w/ User:Kyaa the Catlord. At least they should have gone w/ a 2 week or a month block minimum w/ the option of not repeating them again.

I totally disagree. Extensive block log? Not really, I've already questioned some of those blocks at the ArbCom case. Till this day, i haven't received any explanation. PR has also mentioned this fact above as well. ...and has been the subject of a request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Well, have you read the Temporary injunction (none)? Have you read Motion to dismiss adopted where that was "Passed 6 to 0"? Don't forget that more blame was on User:Jayjg than on PR. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The block log is pretty much useless, and the arbitration case has no bearing -- nor do these need to be considered. Asking a rhetorical opponent if they are a war criminal -- for that was the essence of the question, no matter how it is justified as a CoI inquiry -- is a personal attack; asking the question itself is an insult. One can answer "no", one can answer "hell no", or one can answer "go fuck yourself"; the last would not be appropriate on Wikipedia, but it certainly would be the right sensibility. I suppose this particular action is the Wikipedia equivalent. If one can't be civil to ones rhetorical opponents, one must find another place to play than Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threat!? Oh please! Are we saying that PalestineRemembered was threatening to bring a war crimes case in the Hague? I don't think that even his most determined detractors are willing to go out on that limb. This was a simple case of incivility that has already been dealt with. Eleland 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what we are saying is that the 'question' he posed is little more than a threat to have him reported by PR to whatever authorities might be interested in bringing forward charges. Regardless of his actual ability to carry out such a threat, the fact remains that he made it. This kind of interaction has no place on WP, and editors have been perma-banned in the past for much less. Isarig 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While people are pondering whether PalestineRemembered is an asset to Wikipedia, may I ask what percentage of PR's edits to the main name space are not reverted? Beit Or 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to that question would hardly reveal anything, as he is editing articles about topics, where any edit you make, will be as likely as not reverted. --Raphael1 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Many editors make contributions to such articles which have endured. PR's constantly edits are the exception, not the rule. Isarig 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Since PR has accepted jpgordon's suggestion of montoring, would it be worth focusing the discussion on finding a suitable mentor? We're clearly not going to reach any kind of consensus on more serious sanctions here. This discussion has become nothing more than a "he said, she said" slanging match. May I suggest those interested in persuing further sanctions take it to formal dispute resolution? Mark Chovain 02:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. -- Avi 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DR is not the place to pursue sanctions - this is. Isarig 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really useful to pursue them here any longer, as it's clear there is no consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So where should we go from here then? We can continue to discuss this for eternity, but I don't think that's particularly constructive. Mark Chovain 03:30, 15 August 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.

PalestineRemembered Statement

Much/most of the community is horrified by the reworded question regarding potential Conflict of Interest that I asked of another editor here. (Interestingly, the editor I questioned was very upset by the first question, demanding a 7-day block on me, but seems to have been no more upset by my second question than by the first).

Clearly, none of my fellow editors consider the provocation of 6 days of bluster, TalkPage harrassment and likely "Legal threats" against me over the original question to be adequate (or even any) excuse for the re-phrasing I carried out. And, of course, it is their right not to "take notice" of anything they wish.

But let's be clear - I immediately categorised my reworded question as "lurid" and later as "offensive". I told everyone that it was not intended to be a threat, and I said there was no reason for me to make any threat (which in any case, would be laughably impossible to carry out). Whether it was a "legal threat" seems to be in some doubt (some people feel strongly that it was, others do not. Jaakobou himself only calls it "close to legal"). I've not yet "apologised" as such (is there anything to retract?) - but then I don't believe anyone has invited me to apologise. One influential editor thinks it's my failure to concede "that it was a gross error of judgement" which is most worrying. I answered "people misreading me" to his muddled message on "this particular issue (legal threat)". Anyone examining this exchange (in which there is another unconvincing twisting of my words) might think this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel!

In all of this, I've simply been seeking to discover whether another editor has personal knowledge of events described in an article of the encyclopedia. No more, no less. It's a great mystery why the answer to my question seems of so little interest - Conflict of Interest is a regular problem in articles. It's usually commercial rather than personal, but it's (presumably correctly) seen as harmful to what we're trying to do.

Since Jaakobou was clearly/genuinally upset by my original question questioning his whereabouts and activities in April 2002 then he has my sincere apologies. It was not intended to hurt his feelings in any way.

For the re-wording 6 days later, I heartily apologise. I didn't think I was making a "legal threat", and you (Jaakobou) appeared not to think so either. But if it caused you personal distress (and I recognise it could have done so, even though you've not really shown it) then I should not have said it, and I am genuinally sorry. It's difficult to "withdraw" a question, but to the extent I can do that, then I do so. As I think I've said before, the imputation made was "flim-flam", it was not intended to apply to you personally. Furthermore, I can say without qualification that I don't believe it of you. My suspicions were truly of personal knowledge, not of participation.

To everyone who has reached this far, you'll almost certainly feel that this incident (no matter how culpable I may be) doesn't explain what has happened. There has been extensive action taken to stop me editing (3 long blocks, followed by an attempt to perma-block me, along with lots of other harrassment), and it must be clear that my actual behaviour is not the issue. The edit being discussed here is the very first in over 1,360 to be brought up in "evidence". It's almost the first even worth bringing up, and I don't think anyone would call it "disruptive" of the project. (Uncivil - yes, "legal threat" - questionable, "personal attack" - questionable, "disruptive" - pretty unlikely, unless I'm to blame for the multiple postings on my TalkPage, the AN/I and the CSN).

So what is it that angers so many of my fellow editors, right up to top administrators? I believe we all know the answer - it's because most of my edits concern Israel/Palestine. They're very well referenced, acceptably well written and paint a pretty devastating picture of Israel in it's internal and external relations.

And supporters of Israel have a great deal they don't want documented any better than it is documented already. As seen here, they know that Wikipedia is a key point in Israel's campaign for legitimacy in the public mind. The particular (dead-locked) article that triggered this fuss is Battle of Jenin. Large sections of 100% good encyclopedic material is ruthlessly expunged, regardless of references, notability or even apparent consensus.

Given the basis of Wikipedia (which I support), it's difficult to see how this problem can be solved. Think of the "Allegations of Apartheid" ArbCom in progress. A block of editors are (rather credibly) accused of disrupting the encyclopedia by creating pointless articles to barter for the deletion of one article they don't like. Don't blame me, my part in all those articles is minor indeed. Better minds than mine will have to do what is necessary to put the project back on track. I don't think any reading of any part of this project will see me as one of the disruptive elements, I really am trying to improve articles. The ArbCom in progress is dominated by an argument that many thoroughly documented edits have been made in order to disrupt. That's wildly different from my situation and the abandoned ArbCom bearing my name, where there's been no documentation of my behaviour whatsoever.[87] Every one of the disagreements I've been involved in (including this one) have been grounded in "Content Disputes", not behaviour. PalestineRemembered 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Ideogram (talk · contribs)

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.
After reviewing the arguments on both sides from all editors involved in the discussion, I believe there to be a consensus to siteban Ideogram for a period of no shorter than a year. I think it was best said by El C when he said, "As for the site ban, I'd like to say no, since Ideogram does make useful edits. But so do those editors whose productivity is hindered by his conduct. So it looks increasingly untenable". Almost everybody agreed in this thread that Ideogram has serious issues in his involvement in this project, and that these issues are quite detrimental by causing serious problems such as the loss of editors and waste of time in dealing with issues and sorting them out. It appears that most believe that his overall good is overshadowed by the overall bad in his work here, resulting in a net negative for the project. It would appear through Ideograms block log that he has been warned and given ample time to change his ways however the use of sockpuppets to game the system further strengthens the argument that he has no intention of changing. Taking all of this, and all of the opinions below it is regretable that I believe there to be a consensus to ban Ideogram for a period of no shorter than a year.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed solution:Ideogram be sitebanned

Statement by Jehochman

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

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram
Puppetmaster
Sockpuppets

All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. [91]

Abusive incidents of sockpuppetry

  1. Suspected sockpuppet You Are Okay (talk · contribs) was blocked for disrupting WP:AN/I on Aug 9, 2007. See [92] Checkuser evidence says this account is unrelated to Ideogram. [93]
  2. Admitted sockpuppet R1es (talk · contribs) was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. See [94] and [95] Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)
  3. Admitted sockpuppet Galindo (talk · contribs) was edit warring [96] [97] [98] along side Ideogram up to 4RR [99]. In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor [100].

Recent cases involving Ideogram

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

Responses

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

Jehochman demonstrates four edits by Galindo plus another on the main account. So even if the first of Galindo's edits isn't a revert that still totals 4RR in under 24 hours, using the sock to avoid 3RR scrutiny, while the user concurrently warned another editor who was on the verge of violating one of the two policies Ideogram was actually violating. Those actions show Ideogram knows exactly what he was doing. He's admitted that Galindo is his sockpuppet account and Jehochman verifies that too. DurovaCharge! 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking the evidence... There's actually a sequence of four diffs, not five. All four make the same edit, to remove mention of Taiwan which was added by the previous editor in each case. This is edit warring in any case. Jehochman Talk 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ideogram's work for MedCab is certainly valuable and the identity of medcabemail wasn't a secret - the account was later replaced by Mclerk, which helped with updating the cases listed on the community noticeboard. There has been an ArbCom case, which placed Ideogram on revert parole. In this context, and given the lack of an RfC, I'm not going to take this proposal for a community ban seriously. Addhoc 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideogram used a sock puppet to evade a block placed by an Arbcom member for disruption of Arbcom proceedings. The evidence indicates a pattern of trolling, edit warring, and incivility. Jehochman Talk 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ideogram is currently on revert parole from ArbCom, in this context and please accept my apologies for being a process wonk, shouldn't this be handled on the ArbCom enforcement board? Addhoc 14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with being a process wonk. The revert incident precedes that parole; however, Arbcom is unaware of the block evasion. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a siteban is appropriate, and would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, because of the way Ideogram eats up the time and energy of his chosen targets. Even if his medcab work is useful (I haven't studied it), there is no way it can make up for the way he compromises the usefulness and the editing experience of so many other people, by stalking, baiting and trolling them. For examples, please see the evidence I offered in the Ideogram—Certified.Gangsta arbitration in April 2007, where I gave diffs which highlight Ideogram's "battleground" approach to editing.[101] I also offered evidence of his apparent, and successful, determination to run User:Certified.Gangsta off the project.[102] Other people's evidence about Ideogram on the same evidence page is also of interest, especially the comments about how his personal attacks and baiting are disrupting the arbitration itself. For great justice, please also read Ideogram's reply to me in his own evidence section.[103] *I* think that reply illustrates his general attitudes as described by Jehochman, but YMMV. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have been one of Ideogram's favorite themes, favorite topics, and favorite boogeymen, despite never blocking him or actually advocating such. I have been dismissive of him, and I continue to think very poorly of him. He has followed me about from page to page, always introducing, "Geogre won't talk to me!" into everything. Well, that's the troll's lament: being ignored. Even when I have been embroiled in the most contentious issues, those on the other side from me have found Ideogram's intrusions to be inappropriate and unhelpful. More to the point, they are monomaniacal. The question that I had to consider before posting here was not, "Is he guilty of trolling?" but "Is he incapable by temperament, at least at the present time, from editing peaceably?" Given the evidence, above, of his insistence and anger and willingness to ignore the strictures of the site, I have to agree with a ban rather than block. If a significant voice can be raised to illustrate helpfulness and dealing successfully with opposing points of view, then the better way would be arbitration. So far, those voices have been silent. (N.b. this is evidence of ability to work well with people of opposing points of view, not evidence that people like him. There are plenty of lovely and lovable people who cannot tolerate fully cooperative editing.) Geogre 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the beginning, Ideogram seemed to have quickly found his way into conflict (often entirely unrelated to the set of articles he was working on on the main namespace), where he frequently exhibited (surprisingly stereotypical) classical internet troll-like behavior (his passive-aggressive questions-and-follow-up-questions to Geogre, through various venues and throughout various times, are prime examples of this). And while he has become less transparently disruptive in the sheer obviousness of the above, mostly by adopting more laconic, less 'inquisitive' prose, other problems have risen instead, not least being his continued susceptibility to uncivil outbursts, personal attacks, and general unpredictability. It's also noteworthy, I think, that from the beginning (even), Ideogram was embraced by certain senior editors & admins who failed to point this out to him (and even provided him with indirect legitimacy via the MedCab informal dispute resolution mechanism). On the formal dr front, Ideogram has treated his own Arbitration case with such astonishing contempt, it's amazing he emerged from it as he did. When I pointed out his latest abuse of arbitration (him having launched a frivolous RfAr, without a shred of dispute resolution attempt)[104], he responded with hostile innuendo about how I banned him from my talk page [105] (I ctrl. F'd to my last talk page reply to him, but am just not seeing a ban having been issued by yours truly [106]). As for the site ban, I'd like to say no, since Ideogram does make useful edits. But so do those editors whose productivity is hindered by his conduct. So it looks increasingly untenable. El_C 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think El C's analysis is solid. For a user like Ideogram, who does make useful contributions to the encyclopedia, I think a community ban is not the right way to go. Indeed, if I am correct in thinking that El C's comment implies he would be willing to unblock Ideogram, then the latter cannot be community banned. I'm wondering if ArbCom might be the way to go here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideogram isn't blocked at the moment, so there's no need to unblock him. Two of his known socks have a history of abuse, and we don't know about others ones. He's suggested that we haven't found all of them yet. At minimum, Ideogram should be banned until he reveals all his socks and agrees to cease further disruption. I'd like nothing more than for him to become a productive editor, but I don't see how that's possible while he continues engaging in disruptive behavior that drives other editors away from the project. - Jehochman Talk 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "allegations" ArbCom request just got accepted, and is pending opening (currently sitting at 6/1/0/1). Perhaps we should put this on hold, and see what could happen there. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues here are completely different from the issues being considered in that Arbcom case. Ideogram has a history of bringing, and getting involved in, lots of Arbcom cases. Arbcom involvement in an unrelated case shouldn't provide immunity from community sanctions. - Jehochman Talk 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, just saying that the case was accepted, and suggesting holding off on this. Carry on then XD. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reviewing the evidence, I'm not endorsing the ban. However, I do feel something should be done, but nothing as extreme as a perma-ban. At the very least however, I will say that Ideogram has a habit of "weeding out" "bad" users. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but getting overzealous can be dangerous, as we can see here. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen Ideogram all over MedCab in the time I've been frequenting those pages, and his involvement there has shown me that he is capable of being a force for good in the community, with oversight and what have you. I therefore can't endorse a ban. However, ample evidence of Ideogram's disregard for policy has been provided, and among other things I'm not sure I'm still comfortable with such a user being involved in dispute resolution. But I've got to ask, Jehochman: if you'd like to see him become a productive editor, why ban him? If he's such a major trolling hazard, isn't perma-banning him more likely to lead to more sockpuppetry and more problems? It seems to me that rather than addressing Ideogram's behavior, this sanction request is just going to end up feeding the troll, however it turns out. --Moralis (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, as you observe, Ideogram seems to feed on conflict. He tends to target editors who've made mistakes and are trying to reform. He tries to push them over the edge, and often succeeds. This is cynical and must be stopped. I am open to other restrictions that would stop him from sock puppeting, evading blocks and trolling, but I don't know what those are. As for bans leading to more sock puppetry, there's nothing special about this case. You could say that about any banned user. Perhaps if Ideogram gets banned he'll eventually give up on disruption and return as a productive user. I believe that bans can be lifted if a user demonstrates an understanding of what they've done wrong, apologizes, and explains how things will be different in the future. - Jehochman Talk 08:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I also find El C's analysis accurate, I disagree with the conclusion. He may well make some useful contributions; however, how many would his targets have made had they not spent endless time responding to him, defending themselves, and in several cases even leaving the project? Its a net loss, and a large one, whichever way one calculates it. Ideogram has had much time to modify his approach, and he has done so - becoming more skilled at trolling-while-not-seeming-to-troll. This is not an improvement. Time for Wikipedia to be free of the semi-constant barrage of issues begun, fed, and continued by this editor. Support site ban. Second choice: support site ban for one year, with clock reset each time there is a sock, as is usual practice. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the caveats that I was a named party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram and that I had briefly been admin coach to Certified.Gangsta before his edit war with Ideogram began, I agree wholeheartedly with KillerChihuahua's analysis. WP:NOT#Not a battlefield can outweigh a certain percentage of positive contributions when a months-long history demonstrates that an editor consistently diverts the energies of others and drives other productive contributors away from the site. DurovaCharge! 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I caught this guy blanking content last year, and he jumped on me by wikilayering the 3RR. He needs to go. - MSTCrow 20:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to say (after seeing the differential edits above and looking a little deeper myself), the editors edits when in disputes does seem to mostly indicate the need to go to the near extreme of dispute resolutions, including to an end of the establishing of remedies affecting other editors. With a heavy heart, I come to the conclusion.. I do not believe a ban would be a net loss to this project. Addendum: I need to disclose that I did comment at a Arbitration regarding a comment by the editor to my RFA. My opinion here is unrelated to that. Navou banter 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lyle123 (talk · contribs)

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

No need to reconfirm/vote on existing bans. A user is considered banned unless one admin is willing to unblock that user. If that is not the case, they can be considered banned by the community. (See the policy on this.) —— Eagle101Need help? 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Statement by Kwsn

For a while now, I've been thinking about this, and decided an official community ban is in order. Also, I'm more quick and to the point, so this won't take long. Lyle123 is a long term vandal who disguises hoaxes as real TV shows and movies, usually by copy and pasting from another legitimate article. An existing example of one of his hoaxes would be here, a clear rip off of the Sesame Street article, which now a redirect to Car Talk since that's the nicknames the hosts use. He has along list of socks (at least 20), some of which are listed under StealBoy (talk · contribs). Part of my motivation for this would allow ease of deletion of hoaxes under G5, part of it is because his vandalism is not just short term, but very long term. Kwsn 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Endorse ban. I counted 63 socks between both of those accounts. If you've got a sock drawer that big and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy96 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blueboy96. When a long term vandalism report is necessary a siteban is appropriate also. This problem has been ongoing since at least January. Obviously this isn't someone who plans on adjusting to site standards. DurovaCharge! 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Let's make it easier for folks to remove this vandal's contributions. 63 socks is ridiculous SirFozzie 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this user is definitely wasting the community's time. I also endorse this ban - 8 months and 63 socks is just too much disruption--Cailil talk 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify ... per CSD G5 all banned users' contributions--not just hoaxes--can be zapped on sight. I also noticed he's used quite a few anonymous IPs ... they appear to be all over the place. A few AOL IPs, one from Indiana, another from Germany. I wonder if he's using open proxies. Blueboy96 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears he's out of Australia, if you look at the IPs for StealBoy's CU. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yes, if this guy is causing problems, block him and all of his socks. You don't need a discussion to do this. And you don't need a discussion on this forum either. --Tony Sidaway 08:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider him banned, and just get over it.—Ryulóng (??) 08:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the big secret yall sometimes don't get; when someone is blocked and hasn't been unblocked, they are considered community banned. You don't need a vote to make it happen. If you think you got socks on your hands, then go this way. It's that simple. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any objection to closing this discussion? I'm gonna go ahead and add an entry (commented out) at WP:LOBU. Blueboy96 12:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Childhoodsend (talk · contribs)

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.
User's blocklog is clean, no violations present, try using WP:DR. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed solution: Childhoodsend is banned from all global warming and all related articles

Childhoodsend is a huge problem editor on global warming related articles. He is a anti-science POV pusher. Virtually every edit he makes to the article space is part of an edit war and is reverted. Here's a handful from just the past few days:[107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]

But his most problematic behavior is that he posts lots of specious talk page comments, which have to be debunked from good editors. This is a tremendous waste of time for good editors on the talk page. I recently compiled a list of some of the more transparent lies he told on Talk:Climate change denial, and debunked them using the reliable sources from the article. (Including the NY Times, the Royal Society, Mother Jones, etc) His response? Attack the sources. [113] While at the very same time, he is being taken to task because he doesn't understand the difference between an op-ed and a news story. [114]

But don't take my word for it that he's a hopeless POV pusher. According to some of the best editors on the topic:

  • He "doesn't seem to be of much use" and is a huge time waster [115] - William M. Connolley
  • If people would ignore CE's provocations he'd likely go away and find his fun elsewhere. Unfortunately there is a steady stream of people who haven't twigged his MO and keep reacting to him. He's a strong net negative but clever enough to stay just within the rules, unless being a chronic timewaster is actionable. - Raymond arritt [116]
  • "CE seems mostly to be here to argue and troll." - KimDabelsteinPetersen [117]

I think the solution to this problem is that Childhoodsend is banned from global warming and all related articles.

Note: I expect that some of hte other anti-science POV pushers will show up here to complain about this ban proposal. Just so nobody is fooled, this group includes: Iceage77, Rameses/Britannia (proven sockpuppets), Rossnixon, UBeR, Mnyakko, RonCram, and Oren0 Raul654 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Perhaps only for clarity, Raul should have noted that this thread of his follows from other threads at the AN (here and here, which should have been enough).
I am a bit floored by the nature of the actions and accusations taken against me by this administrator, who should also have had the transparency to at least indicate that he, like me, holds strong opinions about the subject at hand (global warming), in which he regularly involves himself as well. This being said, I'll try to be as brief as possible and will rely on the community's judgment thereafter, as enough time and energy has been already spent on what essentially is an editorial dispute.
Raul has just labeled me as an anti-science POV-pusher above, what you will find is unsupported and of a libellous nature. I actually believe that the articles about global warming should reflect the IPCC findings with due weight, something that I can support with evidence, contrary to Raul, since I have already expressed it [118]. I also have been slightly involved in other scientific articles with no such accusations leveled against me.
Raul then suggests that "Virtually every edit he makes to the article space is part of an edit war and is reverted", and supports this other inflamatory claim with 6 diffs: one is not even about global warming nor even a revert of my own edits(!) (fractional-reserve banking), and I had the support of other editors regarding the others. If selective cherry-picking is already a dishonest method to build an argument, at least when it is used, it should be used not so awkwardly.
As for climate change denial, Raul still does not understand that I am not attacking what these sources say, but that I am merely trying to explain that editorials, especially if published in partisan sources about a political issue, should not be presented as evidence of facts or truths by an encyclopedia (as Raul does) but rather only as evidence that some opinion exists about a theory or trend of thought. I also tried to explain that a story that exists only in partisan publications is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Now, perhaps I am wrong, but to be called a liar and be brought here by an administrator who seeks to have me banned for this is beyond me.
I repeat that I have never attempted to change, negate or contradict the IPCC's findings in the global warming articles, nor to reduce their due weight. As a dedicated reader of Karl Popper, I firmly believe in the scientific method and to be called an anti-science POV-pusher by someone who seeks to silence opposing views and who wont even allow any dissidence about a topic which, according to the scientific community, is still under some level of uncertainty, is, I must say, both ridiculous and offensive.
It must be understood that this entire bickering arises from the latest Newsweek issue about global warming denial, is not about science like Raul tries to put it, and is inherently highly controversial. Raul has refused mediation preemptively [119], so I am sorry for this whole affair.
Also, please note how Raul involves in some anti-science conspiration just about every editor involved in the global warming articles whose views are at odds with the mainstream. That, it seems to me, is telling much. Regards. --Childhood's End 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This utterly disingenuous response cannot go unchallenged. Far from having "never attempted to change, negate or contradict the IPCC's findings," User:Childhoodsend regularly derides the IPCC as a politically-manipulated tool in "the UN's grasp"[120] and represents the present scientific consensus as "UN-sponsored politicized science."[121]He derides Al Gore for "representing the IPCC view wherever he goes"[122] -- would it make sense to criticize someone for representing findings that you concur in??? That he can say with a straight face that he "believes that the articles about global warming should reflect the IPCC findings with due weight" leaves me utterly speechless, unless he means a weight of zero. Raymond Arritt 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments, which I shared in good faith. Nothing in this involves that I believe, or even push for, that we should negate or contradict what comes out of the IPCC, and I invite you not to misrepresent my views. Even though I strongly disagree with the process and believe it is politicized, I do understand that this is the current state of the science and I would object to have the current state of the science presented otherwise. Again, please read again the diff I provided above. Only, I do believe, as the diffs you provide show, that some quality arguments are being overlooked, a view that is, I hope, acceptable to you to the extent that even the IPCC admits for a margin of uncertainty of at least 10%.
Of worthy note, perhaps I should add that following the first edit indicated by Raymond above, this interesting discussion was held on my talk page User talk:Childhoodsend#Good Faith. Regards. --Childhood's End 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Raymond says, CE's response above is totally contradicted by his actions - to wit, his comments on global warming related articles. Furthermore, his pleading that we assume good faith in his obviously bad-faith acts clearly has shades of Carbonite's law: "The more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." The reverts I showed above were not cherry picked - they consitiute most of CE's main-space edits for the last week. Any given week would show something similiar - the majority of his main space edits are reverted because they are edit-war material. Raul654 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this unsupported, gratuitous and inflamatory statement to the appraisal of uninvolved editors/admins. There's nothing more than Raul's opinions above, which would be enough to warrant outright rejection of his petition as frivolous before any real judiciary process. I suppose that WP may work differently, but I have no more to say about this. According to Raul, I should not claim that my edits are done in good faith, even against accusations of bad faith. My edit history is available for all to see. To those interested, again, please take a look at this discussion which was held following one of the edits Raymond is talking about.
As a note, again, Raul is maintaining that this diff [123] involves me in an edit war, while the edit has absolutely nothing to do with an edit of mine and was simply made on the last version of the article, which was last edited by me at the time. That Raul may have presented this as evidence was something, but that he maintains it is telling books. The edits I have made on fractional-reserve banking have been kept, and so were a majority of my other edits in various articles.
These lies and outright fabrication of evidence through cherry-picking are outrageous. --Childhood's End 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for pointing that out. For those who didn't notice, here's the edit Childhoodsend made. And here's the edit Raul654 tried to suggest Childhoodsend made. Such dishonesty for the pursuit of this attack campaign is beyond evident and should be reprimanded by all who care for the integrity of this encyclopedia. ~ UBeR 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm sure I've already expressed an opinion on this one, and I'd rather hear from more uninvolved editors, so I won't repeat myself. The larger issue is interesting, though - how to deal with persistent contrarians on controversial topics (c.f. passive smoking and AIDS reappraisal). We shouldn't discourage good-faith editors whose views are at odds with the scientific consensus. On the other hand, such editors are rarely satisfied with the treatment of minority views prescribed by WP:WEIGHT, and the misuse of talk pages is a major problem on these issues.
Additionally, one or a small number of determined contrarian editors can effectively stall an article/talk page for a prolonged period of time, and I understand Raul654's frustration. It's hard enough to reach consensus on how the article should look as is; it's near impossible when there's an insistence on re-arguing the details of the controversy on the talk page (again, passive smoking and AIDS reappraisal come to mind, as does this recent archetypal example from another editor). Perhaps the solution is not to ban CE, but to have some sort of enforcement attached to the talk-page guidelines for repeat offenders - in other words, talk page comments need to address specific improvements to the article in question, and a low threshold for dealing with USENET-style "debates". Of course, enforcement would be tricky. Just thinking out loud. MastCell Talk 17:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. This is simply a content dispute. Threatening to ban another user is not the right way here. See Dispute resolution —— Eagle101Need help? 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eagle 101, if you want to ban somebody, the burden of proof is greater than indicating that a few editors who take the opposing side don't like him. Addhoc 19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look carefully at User:Childhoodsend's actual contributions, instead of taking his statement at face value. Raymond Arritt 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to voice the same opinions of MastCell, Eagle 101, and Addhoc. This is little more than a content dispute. But it's also a personal dispute; Raul654 has tried many a times to ban people he dislikes from the project (and has failed miserably at that). He resorts to attack campaigns that make Wikipedia look like an embarrassment. He makes things up, such as above where he states I am an "anti-science POV pusher" whereas I have been one of two sole editors who have argued for more scientific resources to be used on global warming and related articles. He makes baseless attacks both on myself and others, calling us idiots and trolls. Most of all, I think the problem here is Raul654's problem in assuming good faith. Even here for example; he has a difficult time differentiating between genuinely and beyond-obvious good-faithed edits and vandalism. Take here for example; he cannot assume good faith in my edits despite there being absolutely nothing wrong with them, and even William M. Connolley agreeing with them (and having to explain to Raul654 why he is wrong). Quite frankly, to ban someone from articles because he voices a dissenting opinion on the talk page is nothing short of ludicrous. ~ UBeR 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the reason for the proposed ban. It was proposed, as I read it, because of tendentious editing and abuse of the article talk page. Editors have been topic-banned or otherwise sanctioned for such things - see User:GordonWatts and his career at Talk:Terri Schiavo. Whether Childhoodsend rises to that level is the question; I'm not saying he does, but that would appear to be the reasoning behind the proposal. MastCell Talk 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is twofold: Content and personal emotions [that he has a hard time controlling over the Internet]. At any rate, you're absolutely correct that talk pages need to be reserved for discussing how to amend the article itself. It seems hard to do though, when no one else is doing it. If something goes as far to the point that it becomes disruptive (per WP:DE), then they can be warned and then blocked from editing for a few hours (such was the case when Raul654 was disruptively editing warring). To go this far as Raul654 has done for his attack campaign is malapropos. ~ UBeR 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I would not trust Raul to ask for the banning, having already blocked the user several times for what appears to be personal disputes. I find Raul's manner in this brusque and demeaning at best (such as saying that UBeR is full of bullshit). I'm not saying that CE is right, he surely might be misguided, but I don't think kicking people out of a topic area is the right thing to do. What, Nydas has been pestering me and Tony over at the WP:SPOILER talk page, and yet you don't see us calling for his ousting. Does Raul think he's above dispute resolution? That's generally how we do things here... David Fuchs (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are now confusing Childhoodsend (who I have asked to be banned from the topic, and whom I have never blocked) with UBeR (who has been blocked many times, twice by me - who is defending CE because they are both POV pushers). Raul654 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confusing them- I'm pointing out that you disparage all those who you disagree with. David Fuchs (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think it was Childhoodsend he said was full of bullshit. Either way, I don't think it matters. ~ UBeR 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here [124]. He then called his edit a "debunking" of my "false claims"... --Childhood's End 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Raul notes one of the main issues is his conduct on talk pages. He actually makes very few edits to the articles themselves. Rather, his specialty is goading others into long, tendentious, and ultimately pointless exchanges on talk pages. I'm convinced that if people simply ignored him that he would get bored and go find entertainment elsewhere. Unfortunately people just can't resist commenting, which keeps the back-and-forth rolling along. Whether that's worth a topic ban is uncertain. My own approach is to ignore him to the greatest extent possible, though I couldn't let his dissimulation above go unchallenged. Raymond Arritt 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of edits:
54 Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
40 Global warming controversy
17 Global warming
17 Scientific opinion on climate change
17 Global warming skepticism
16 Global warming conspiracy theory
This is relatively few, in the sense that he has more talk page edits, however possibly isn't very few. Addhoc 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think discussing changes is a more novel approach then edit warring over them. ~ UBeR 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and also, this list is out of date and misses some info, as I think that the article I edited the most would be progressive rock. --Childhood's End 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Childhoodsend has a clear block log. If his disruptions haven't been blockable, how can there now be grounds for banning? - Jehochman Talk 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my original statement, his primary method of trolling is to foment long, incendiary, conversations on the talk pages (generally unrelated to the article itself) that waste the time of many good users. He avoids personal attacks and stays below the 3rr on main space article, so (as Raymond Arritt said), he says just within the rules and doesn't get blocked. However, let me be crystal clear - he is a profoundly negative influence on those articles. Raul654 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he's not breaking any rules... which means that what he's doing is entirely subjective- so you're saying we should ban someone from a swath of wikipedia because of your "gut feelings", for lack of a better word? David Fuchs (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Yes, he is breaking the rules. Talk pages "should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." - Wikipedia:Talk page This is exactly what CE does - he starts inflammatory, generally off-topic discussions. (2) My gut feeling has nothing to do with it. Look at his contributions. He contributes very little, but dealing with his comments consumes a great deal of time and energy from people who would otherwise be contributing to articles. Raul654 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't know (and I suspect Raul654 doesn't, because he's not an active participant in talk discussions), the talk page for global warming is often filled with "I heard it somewhere" topics where people mostly either are just looking for answers or are trying to refute some claim. This happens all the time on that page. Further, Wikipedia:Talk page is not even a guildline, much less a policy. WP:TALK is an editing guideline. We all agree, talk pages are for the purpose of amending the article. But I think we can all agree the de facto reality is that this isn't always the case. This is just a case of someone not agreeing what's being said. If someone's edits are truly disruptive, they'd be warned and blocked accordingly. This is just another baseless attack campaign by Raul654 that is full of lies (see above, for example) and appeals to authority. ~ UBeR 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral party here: I see no blocks in Childhood's End's log. Has there been an adverse checkuser result? What prior WP:DR steps exactly have been tried? And to all who comment, if you're part of the content dispute please disclose it up front. I recognize several of the user names here from prior interactions. With respect to all the editors here, I'm uneasy about creating a precedent of community banning on this basis. Whether or not this particular proposal is meritorious it would get us on the slippery slope. Wikipedia certainly does have some edit wars where the participants would like to get each other banned because of content views. I won't venture a guess on whether this is such a case, yet I'd really like to see a more objective and measurable basis so this doesn't become a wedge issue for future wikilawyers. DurovaCharge! 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put my reaction quickly and bluntly - no way. Article bans are not to gain an ownership advantage in content disputes. There is too much pot vs. kettle here for anything to happen without a prior RfC or mediation. GRBerry 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely with GRBerry. I'd like to see an RFC first. Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. I have not evaluated whether the underlying claim of tendentious conduct by CE has any merit, and take no position on that, but to go straight to community ban over a content dispute strikes of a much more severe violation of Wikipedia rules than anything a user who has never been blocked could possibly have done, and should merit some sort of administrative warning if the disruptive proposal is not withdrawn. Editors who are not violating rules or dispute resolution should not be forced to waste time defending themselves from a threatened community ban. THF 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the concern is not so much disruption in article space, but persistent misuse of the talk page, I think any solution should be focused there. I recently added the {{notaforum}} template to Talk:Global warming controversy after seeing the goings-on there. I would propose one of two things: either a) the template's instructions are taken seriously, and posts which abuse the talk page as a discussion forum or for general bloviation (e.g. [125]) are removed on sight. Or b) given the issues here, the talk page guidelines are enforced with more teeth on these pages - that is, posters are warned and even blocked (by an uninvolved admin) for persistently using the talk page for purposes other than discussing specific improvements to the article. I think the question of how best to handle a committed single-purpose account which strenuously advocates a minority POV to the overall detriment of the encyclopedia, while remaining within the boundaries of policy, is an interesting one. MastCell Talk 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, I do not want to introduce in this discussion, and I should not, but I'd like to point out that my account is far from being committed to a single-purpose, although yes, one of the topics I am the most interested in is global warming (not the main article, but the sub ones which are less scientific and more political). The edit count provided above was quite incomplete. --Childhood's End 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the edit count is incomplete. For example you have 124 edits to Talk:Global warming, yet you say you are not particularly interested in that article ("not the main one..."). This only reinforces the point that the locus of the problem is unconstructive talk page activity: why over 100 appearances on the talk page from someone who says they're not very interested in the article? Raymond Arritt 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
124 out of how many total edits? Close to 2000 right? And the point was that I am not using my account for a single-purpose. --Childhood's End 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make more clear, Childhoodsend has made 124 edits to talk:Global warming out of a total of nearly 1600 edits. He has also made 17 edits to global warming. How this all matters significantly to the point at hand, I don't know. But it's all there for you to check.[126] ~ UBeR 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do wonder sometimes with these chonically controversial subjects is whether the community could enact some kind of article parole. Universal 1RR for instance? Just to help keep discussions from heating up too much. It's often best to sleep on things before posting on a hot button issue. DurovaCharge! 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I mean by that, I'm thinking the community might apply 1RR to all editors at some specific article and/or talk page. DurovaCharge! 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the flareups are episodic, it would be helpful to have some way of keeping a lid on things. Universal 1RR may not be the best way, since these articles attract a lot of drive-by nonsense that need reverting but doesn't quite count as vandalism. Raymond Arritt 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs reverting, then another editor will likely use his 1RR to end the "edit war". Your point is no big issue. --Childhood's End 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, such marshal-law-like rules as 1RR have been tried (and enforced) on the global warming article. The result was a lot of unwarranted blocks and one user being banned from editing the article for several months. I don't really think the problem here is reverts. The problem is Raul654 disagreeing with what Childhoodsend has to say. Raul654 wants to bypass a system that was made to prevent such meritless attacks. ~ UBeR 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's think outside the box and try to stabilize the article. Would 2RR make sense then? That'd leave everyone with a spare to handle odd drive-by edits. I'm thinking of the other options at our disposal and the alternative that comes to mind is to put the talk page on civility parole, although that might not be particularly applicable here. DurovaCharge! 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And with respect to UBeR's comment, from my vantage this looks like more than a disagreement between Raul654 and Childshood's End. Global warming is a hot button topic for a significant number of people, both on and off Wikipedia. It's been the subtext of at least two arbitration cases and a WP:COIN request regarding that was one of the most difficult questions I've been asked to resolve. I think it may be a very good thing overall to enact measures to cool things down there overall, without pointing fingers at one particular editor or another. Normally the arbitration committee implements that kind of thing after a month or more of grueling discussion. I'd like to see if there's a way to set things on a better track without all that hassle. If you have suggestions toward that end I'm all ears, but move along, nothing to see here doesn't ring well. DurovaCharge! 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but don't see revert-warring as more than an occasional problem. The main issue is persistent bickering, posturing, and off-topic rambling on the talk pages, to the extent that actual discussion of the article can be lost in a sea of noise. Ideally everyone would simply not respond to provocations and let pointless discussion die out without the need to get in the last word. I've tried deleting some of the most unconstructive stuff, but several other editors insisted that it should stay so I no longer bother. Raymond Arritt 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem isn't so much reverts, but sometimes-off-topic discussions, which, as I pointed out above, are commonplace for the global warming article. I think the least of our worries should be an editor who Raul654 disagrees with. Childhoddsend may be one of the of the editors who contribute to unproductive discussions, but then again many people participate in those discussions. What ought to be done is that anything not relating to somehow fixing or editing the article should be deleted from the talk page, per WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:TALK. ~ UBeR 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a great idea, and might go a ways toward addressing the problem here. MastCell Talk 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe part of the problem is that Childhoodsend doesn't understand what POV is. I think the edits with cites show that he is trying to make his edits in good faith, but much of the wording is almost straight out of the Avoid Weasel Words book. Childhoodsend: For example, in this edit, you add 3 citations, but the wording "Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by humans, the lay population does not share such viewpoints." is absolutely not NPOV, especially the phrase "and that it is caused by humans". This is an enormously disputed fact, and for Wikipedia to use the words "despite" and "scientific consensus" is inherently not neutral. Another one is: "A variety of industries, especially the oil industry, have systematically funded think tanks and contrarian scientists to sow doubt about the scientific consensus and make the public think that the situation is not as severe as it is." This is a flat-out accusation which should never exist on Wikipedia. At best, it could say "So and so has claimed _____". Part of the Weasel Words policy is about attributing claims to unnamed groups or persons, whether there are citations for it or not. In addition, words like "systematically" are, again, inherently not-neutral. These types of statements belong in op-eds, not an encyclopedia. Again, I appreciate the good-faith efforts to obtain citations, but you have to remember what a citation provides; in many cases, it merely provides a reference that one person, or one group, did or said something. Above all, remember that this is an encyclopedia. Think about what that means before you make an edit that you do not wish to be reverted. -- Renesis (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've just made a huge mistake. The above edit is Moreschi's. Childhoodsend was absolutely correct to remove that paragraph. Why are other established editors reverting that, when it's clear just how weasel-wordy that paragraph is? -- Renesis (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a good example of what I mean. How can the uninvolved Wikipedians pass around a big bowl of chill pills? DurovaCharge! 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a peace pipe? ~ UBeR 23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wha?? The above edit is a huge indicator in this issue, it seems to me. Anyone calling someone else a "POV pusher" for removing that section is looking for trouble. If that issue were isolated, Raul654 would be way out of line. I'm sure it's not though, and as Childhoodsend himself says he's not innocent either but I don't see any need for bans from articles here unless they were handed out to everyone involved. -- Renesis (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, perhaps I should say that Raul654 has brought me here and asked for my ban especially for this edit and the related discussion about it. I did not ask for such a bickering, and I tried to avoid it by first bringing it at his talk page, where I was coldly dismissed, just like another admin (Dweller) was as well when he proposed mediation. The lesson that I hope he would learn is that there is no clear-cut truth in these matters, and that calling someone a "liar", "BS", and a "POV-pusher" for such an affair is irresponsible, while bringing this here and asking for bans and sanctions amounts to bullying and seems undeserving of admin status. I wish that at least some lesson is learned out of this affair. Not pretending that my hands are holy white, but the WP community, I think, should give signals that it does not accept such abuses of process, perhaps in the line proposed by THF above. --Childhood's End 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see that multiple admins don't think a ban is in order, we might want to move this to say... a request for comment, or better yet go to dispute resolution. Childhoodsend is not getting banned today. —— Eagle101Need help? 06:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is the wrong place for this discussion. Community sanctions must not become the first, second or third step in dispute resolution - but the last resort. There is a tremendous potential for them to be misused. But presumably further discussion should take place on the talk page. Banno 23:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin, and a ban seems warranted to me. FeloniousMonk 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk, perhaps, but the policy states that if one admin is willing to unblock, and I see at least 2 if not more, a ban is not suitable. Bans are for last resorts. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral party to all this, I commented on the Admin noticeboard that I didn't see any proof that Raul had engaged in personal attacks worthy of sanctions. By the same regard, I don't see any reason why Childhood's End should be banned from editing or commenting on global warming articles. This is a content dispute and, like all such disputes, should be worked out among the involved editors. I'm also extremely weary of attempts to ban or block an editor merely because that editor doesn't agree with others.--Alabamaboy 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain to me how this is constructive? I'm trying to assume good faith here, but frankly i can't see that comment as other than a provocation to go into exactly the same discussion as has been debated multiple times on the talk-page, and on the just closed AfD. --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Petersen if there's anything you should have got out of this discussion, it's that if a user's actions are genuinely disruptive, he'll be warned and then blocked if necessary. That's opposed to cutting corners and making frivolous attacks campaigns against users in attempts to get them banned from the project. I hope you understand this. ~ UBeR 01:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yqbd (talk · contribs · block log)

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.
He's banned until he's unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed solution: Yqbd is banned from intelligent design and all related articles

Statement by FeloniousMonk

For a while now, the regular editors of intelligent design have been first accommodating, and later suffering, Yqbd's chronic disruption, but he has exhausted the community's patience and every one of the regular contributors there I've spoken to supports a community ban of Yqbd. Yqbd is largely a SPA who has been conducting a campaign promoting the intelligent design POV and creating long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not attributable to reliable sources, and dismissing, ignoring, and misrepresenting article content which is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources.

The disruption is the result of Yqbd raising endless and baseless objections by daily creating new sections at Talk:Intelligent design which misrepresent and ignore both sources and facts and then edit warring nearly daily to get his changes into the article (a featured article no less) when his objections fail to find any support, much less consensus, on the talk page.

Despite many warnings on his user talk page and 3 previous blocks for 3rr violations at intelligent design [127] Yqbd's disruption of the article shows no sign of abating.

Twice this week I proposed and found strong support for following the steps at WP:DE and seeking at a minimum a topic ban for Yqbd here and here. My final caution to him on his talk page about forcing the community to takes steps to stop his disruption of this article prompted the response that he intends to continue and expand his disruption to resist the userfication of any baseless, disruptive objections:[128], a threat he has now made good on: [129][130][131] Yqbd has clearly met the 3 main hallmarks of a disruptive editor:

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
  • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
  • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

Given his clear pattern of disruptive behavior and the 3 resulting blocks combined with his continued ignoring and dismissing all community input and attempts at moderation, we feel a community topic ban is called for. FeloniousMonk 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yqbd's response

Summary

FeloniousMonk doesn't seem to know what is going on as you can see by some of FeloniousMonk's examples of me correcting a typo or finding an incorrect link to a cited reference that ended up being corrected and updated.

It looks like FeloniousMonk is just not used to the activity one person can legitimately generate because of the lack of activity by opposition in the Talk page. As you can see in this discussion the editors critical of the subject of the article have time to casually discuss whether an article about Casey Luskin was started.

Other examples from FeloniousMonk show that I have made edits and editors have reverted. We then discussed the edit.

Response

I disagree and would like a list of examples that you think isn't allowed on Wikipedia. --Yqbd 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of times, literally, you've been shown where and how you've run afoul of policy. You've simply chose to ignore them. Your user talk page and your block log [132] is a testament to your willingness to ignore both policy and community input. FeloniousMonk 06:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be more specific. --Yqbd 06:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a discussion is disruptive, why didn't anyone say the specific discussion was disruptive instead of responding to the discussion? --Yqbd 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk replies to a discussion [133] instead of saying it's disruptive. --Yqbd 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR?

Despite many warnings on his user talk page and 3 previous blocks for 3rr violations at intelligent design [40] Yqbd's disruption of the article shows no sign of abating.

No 3RR violations since. --Yqbd 06:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Your last block was on August 2, but on August 8 you're right back violating it:[134][135][136][137][138]
And you've since learned to game the system now, reverting right up to the 3rr limit almost daily: August 11: [139][140] [141] FeloniousMonk 07:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just gave three edits with one that is of me correcting a typo. I asked what's wrong with the edit in the Talk page and got responses. None of the responses said the discussion was disruptive, but you userfied it when it could instead go into the archive. --Yqbd 07:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive?

For a while now, the regular editors of intelligent design have been first accommodating, and later suffering, Yqbd's chronic disruption, but he has exhausted the community's patience and every one of the regular contributors there I've spoken to supports a community ban of Yqbd.

What are the examples and reasons? Why didn't anyone say something was disruptive and why instead of responding to the discussion? I have attempted to make edits and had discussions after the editors reverted with their reasons. If anything, you are disrupting our discussions. --Yqbd 07:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your user talk page in the last month? FeloniousMonk 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What offended you? --Yqbd 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPA?

Yqbd is largely a SPA who has been conducting a campaign promoting the intelligent design POV and creating long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not attributable to reliable sources, and dismissing, ignoring, and misrepresenting article content which is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources.

"A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles. This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny."--Yqbd 07:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tendentious?

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
I'd like examples of this please. --Yqbd 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [142]
  2. [143]
  3. [144]
  4. [145]
  5. [146]
  6. [147]
  7. [148]
  8. [149]
FeloniousMonk 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong with each of those? --Yqbd 07:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [150]
I tried adding the full quote from the source and it was reverted. --Yqbd 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [151]
I tried to replace "modified to avoid" with "without" and it was reverted. We then discussed the revert. I asked for reference of the previous discussion and Sheffield Steel responded. --Yqbd 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [152]
Giving [153] as an example shows how you don't know what is going on. I added "(Webpage cannot be found on 2007-08-08.)" to the reference and SheffieldSteel updated the reference. [154] Notice the comment, "(retrieved article - date was incorrect, website was revised, no biggie)" --Yqbd 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [155]
  2. [156]
These two edits for the mention of 64% of the poll, I believe, is relevant and more accurately represents the poll. The article just mentions what 10% believed. We were discussing this in the Talk page and you disrupted the discussion by userfying it. One of the editors also found something thought to be contradictary because of the discussion. Concession for including a phrase was also brewing. If you did know what was going on in the discussion, it looks like you were just helping one editor that was losing an argument about what the source says. --Yqbd 07:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [157]
This was reverted, discussed, and pretty much settled. The discussion could've been archived instead of userfied by FeloniousMonk. --Yqbd 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [158]
This is just an example of correcting a typo. --Yqbd 07:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. [159]
This was reverted, discussed, and pretty much settled. The discussion could've been archived instead of userfied by FeloniousMonk. --Yqbd 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability?

  • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
I'd like examples of this please. --Yqbd 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen you've been asked to provide reliable sources many times at Talk:Intelligent design and you've failed to present any. Diffs will be provided. FeloniousMonk 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example? --Yqbd 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejects community input?

  • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
I'd like examples of this please. --Yqbd 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finding examples of you ignoring other's comments, reasoning and warnings is not difficult, looking at your user talk page. FeloniousMonk 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did I ignore? --Yqbd 07:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given his clear pattern of disruptive behavior and the 3 resulting blocks combined with his continued ignoring and dismissing all community input and attempts at moderation, we feel a community topic ban is called for. FeloniousMonk 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I "ignoring and dismissing all community input" when I'm responding? --Yqbd 07:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ConfuciusOrnis

I'm actually of the opinion that providing specific diffs of User:Yqbd's disruptive behaviour, is somewhat redundant, given practically all of his contributions are disruptive. A reviewer wishing to get a clear picture of his behaviour and why a topic ban is being sought, would be best off reading:

  1. His talk page
  2. The subpage created specifically for his objections
  3. The talk page he is disrupting

Even putting aside his refusal to back up any of his claims with reliable sources, asking the same questions over and over again, ignoring the responses he's given, misrepresenting sources and other users comments, and his charming habit of trying to browbeat other editors into giving up and letting him have his way... even all that aside, the fact that he makes a horrible mess of any talk page he touches ( as he's so ably demonstrated on this page ) is incredibly disruptive, and has the effect of completely hijaking the page and seriously impeding any productive discussion. ornis (t) 08:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give examples of following so how I can show you are mistaken and misunderstanding. --Yqbd 09:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even putting aside his refusal to back up any of his claims with reliable sources
  • asking the same questions over and over again
  • ignoring the responses he's given
  • misrepresenting sources and other users comments
  • his charming habit of trying to browbeat other editors into giving up and letting him have his way
  • the fact that he makes a horrible mess of any talk page he touches...

Comment by dave souza

The assessment by FeloniousMonk and ConfuciusOrnis is, in my opinion, fully accurate and if anything understates the disruptive and tendentious editing of Yqbd. The incessant demands on this page for answers and diffs gives some indication of Yqbd's style, but to demonstrate it in action on the talk:Intelligent design page I've had a look at one particular example. Yqbd began discussing an edit trying to link poll support for creationism with the percentage the pollsters identified with ID here, then after being given an explanation setting out how his reinterpreting the poll findings was original research, reasserted his original research here. After the explanation of policy was repeated in depth, Yqbd ignored that and returned to the original assertion, and again, and again. When the editor refuting the repeated claims declined to repeat the arguments, Yqbd stated "It's a valid question. Don't ignore it, but if you don't want to answer then I'll just give the conclusion"[160], having not long asserted that FeloniousMonk was "just helping out your friends that are losing arguments"[161] – ignoring the point that Yqbd had received no support from other editors for the claims and arguments. Rather a waste of time, really. ... dave souza, talk 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second - venue?

Since when can CSN do topic bans? That seems like something that only ArbCom can do, and this sounds like it's probably a case for them anyhow. Why is it here? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chairboy is correct. See WP:DISPUTE. This does not belong here. --Yamla 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSN has done topic bans before and Arbcom has endorsed the practice. See this important precedent. Yes, this is a proper venue. DurovaCharge! 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still rather see this go through arbitration, but I stand corrected. --Yamla 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without offering an opinion on the current proposal, community topic bans are a sensible idea. It's not too hard to demonstrate where the remedy would be appropriate and it's a lot less hassle for everyone involved to settle that on a community level. An editor could appeal to arbcom if he or she thinks the community made a mistake. DurovaCharge! 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, and how large of a section of the community regularly hangs out here? —— Eagle101Need help? 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to establish consensus on these types of actions when necessary. DurovaCharge! 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic ban is proposed, I would suggest that other relevant boards be notified so that as many people as possible can comment. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outspace) Thats been done in the past when only a few comments were given on a discussion. I don't think there are any objections to that. Navou banter 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Yqbd (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Ryulong for long-term disruption, just as a heads-up. For my 2 cents, I see enough tendentiousness and disruption there to warrant a topic ban. Since he's a single-purpose account, there may not be much difference between a topic ban and a siteban. It's relatively easy for a committed WP:SPA with time on their hands and an axe to grind to stall a talk page with such behavior. Given the evidence of incorrigible edit-warring and tendentiousness, I don't have a problem with the indefinite block, though it wouldn't have been my first choice. MastCell Talk 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has posted an unblock request. User_talk:Yqbd#Unblock_request. I've no opinion on its merits. DurovaCharge! 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well regardless of what happens on this board, if an admin unblocks he is not considered banned. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sitebanned if that happens, but topic banning remains to be determined. DurovaCharge! 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Mentorship. Navou banter 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembered has a long history of extensive disruption, to the point of being blocked numerous times by different administrators, nearly community banned as described on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive8#PalestineRemembered_again, and has been the subject of a request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered, which was dismissed when it was discovered that PalestineRemembered had "only" misrepresented the source of information he had added to an article, but didn't actually obtain the information from a holocaust denial website. Recently, PalestineRemembered has engaged in some very serious disruption. Without providing any evidence whatsoever, he has strongly insinuated that a fellow editor could be prosecuted for war crimes [162]. Such an insinuation constitutes an egregious personal attack, a severe WP:BLP violation, and a legal threat -- all in one edit! Furthermore, PalestineRemembered has recently plagiarized large amounts of text from this report by the United Nations [163], then edit warred to force the retention of the plagiarized material [164]. Persistent and deliberate plagiarism and copyright violations undermine the integrity of the project, while legal threats, WP:BLP violations against fellow editors, and severe personal attacks harm the project by encouraging productive contributors to leave. To protect Wikipedia from further disruption and serious harm, I propose that PalestineRemembered be banned indefinitely. John254 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The last community ban was based on false information (provided by one of the admins who had previously blocked him for a month, despite being involved in conflicts with PR), as was demonstrated in the ArbCom. Using that as reasoning behind a community ban is deplorable - PR was the victim in that mess. The community should note that 2 of the blocks in the linked log (and the associated unblocks) are directly related to that case. Mark Chovain 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is inaccurate. As I pointed out in that earlier discussion, PR still misrepresented the source and that Jayjg was mistaken about what source PR had taken it from was not actually relevant. The point was that he misrepresented his sourcing. In any event, insituation that a fellow user has comitted war crimes is a massive WP:NPA/WP:LEGAL problem and would seem to be close to the last straw. This editor is simply unable to edit in a cooperative fashion. One procedural note - show we unblock PR for this discussion? JoshuaZ 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PalestineRemembered was blocked for 24 hours on 00:02, 12 August 2007, so the block should have expired by now. I have notified him of the proposed community ban; he is free to present a defense here. John254 03:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was not banned for "misrepresenting a source", nor was the ArbCom set up for that purpose. Both related to the accusation that he took his infromation from a holocaust denial website. The entire CSN discussion was over in a couple of hours, even though it was based on a false claim.
As for unblocking: Nah - leave him blocked. It'll be much easier to get him banned if he doesn't get to have his say. Mark Chovain 03:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Mark Chovain 03:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, fully three minutes before Mark Chovain's most recent comment, PalestineRemembered's block should have expired by now. To disregard that correct observation, then to make gratuitous, inflammatory insinuations to the contrary such as "Nah - leave him blocked. It'll be much easier to get him banned if he doesn't get to have his say." [165] serve no legitimate purpose. John254 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of engaging in useless rhetoric, you could actually discuss the matter. To refresh your memory, the discussion was finally closed by Tony when it became clear that the ArbCom was going to examine the case. That is why it ended up closing after only a few hours. Furthermore, many users were in favor of ban regardless of what the source was, using only the fact that he had blatantly misrepresented his sourcing. If you look at [[166]] (I don't have time to chase down difs) you'll see that I said "We should evaluate this as we would for any editor doing this with any POV and must not block based on the POV in question being more repugnant. That said, this editor has been repeatedly abusive and POV pushing and looking through the user's contributions list, I see only a handful of genuinely productive edits. Deliberate lying about the nature of a source is the last straw" Swatjester, Durova, Tony, and others are all supported his blocking based on this or simply him being a POV pushing SPA. None of that has changed. The user still is repeatedly POV pushing and has almost no(I think it is actually literally zero, but I'll hedge this for now Looked now, it appears that of the last 500 mainspace edits two have not been relates to the conflict, one edit to Prison and one to Cow tipping) edits outside the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This user has been blocked for months at a time by multiple admins. These are the relevant facts, not some smokescreen about a certain admin making a mistake a few months ago. JoshuaZ 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PR was blocked as a result of the CSN by Felonious Monk a full 3 hours before Tony closed the CSN by my calculation (I have to convert time zones though, and could be out by an hour). The RfArb already looks into the issue of SPA in depth. Mark Chovain 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your calculation is correct. The point was that the discussion continued well after that, so the description that "The entire CSN discussion was over in a couple of hours, even though it was based on a false claim" is misleading given that the discussion stopped when it appeared that it was going to go through ArbCom. In any event, the history is not what is important but rather the editor in question. JoshuaZ 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history shouldn't be important, but when people bring up block logs that are based on ballsed-up process as "evidence" of disruption, it the details of that history become important. People reading John's opening paragraph are going to think, "Gee, this guy's done some pretty bad stuff". The fact is, most of it is a storm in a tea-cup. He's annoyed people in the past who know how to make lots of noise. The recent problem was taken to ANI yesterday with a request for a one week block; he was given a 24 hour block. End of story. Mark Chovain 03:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certain elements of the history should be important, certainly the blocks prior to that. While it isn't completely clear to me why the first few blocks were so long (a 1 month block with no prior blocks seems possibly excessive. I haven't had a chance to look at what triggered it in detail) the bottom line is that this user has been repeatedly blocked since the user started editing. JoshuaZ 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PalestineRemembered, after a long and heated discussion with User:Jaakobou who is an Israeli, asked "If you were less than 4 miles away from [Jenin], did you handle a weapon or otherwise take any part in the battle"? Jaakobou has since not answered the question, nor made a generic statement like "I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest in the matter". Instead, he is issuing warnings and condemnations which only inflame the issue. Asking "are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes" without even knowing for sure that the editor was ever an IDF soldier is certainly over the top. But to try and make this into a community ban issue is ludicrous! Indeed, User:Jaakobou has been persistently making unhelpful edits based on policy-violating rationales, although I believe that he is a good faith editor (just like PR). If mentorship is considered the answer, I would suggest that both editors receive it. (I am personally involved and have been warned by Jaakoou for incivility.) Eleland 20:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The proper response to a loaded question is not to answer it. Also, we're supposed to be working on an encyclopedia, not conducting war crime trials. <<-armon->> 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship prior to ban discussion, perhaps?

This is not a simple case, unfortunately. I think we can all agree that alleging that another wikipedian is guilty of "war crimes" is egregious in the extreme and needs to be addressed. Also, having had discourse with this editor, I empathize fully with those who feel that there are times when trying to engage this editor in discourse is very frustrating. Lookinng that the eponymous website from which the user obtained his/her name, [www.palestineremembered.com], one can easily justify that this user arrived at the project with distinct preconceptions and a possible willingness to disrupt in order to implement those preconceptions. That being said, PR has made gainful contributions to the project, and, therefore, before the community discusses a full-fledged ban, I would think that some form of mentorship/guidance, if only in how to stifle ones own frustrations at the apparent inequities in the project (and believe you me, EVERY editor sees the nefarious hand of SOME cabal when their edits are adjusted -- whether it be true or not) and contribute positively, would be a better resolution to the current situation. Should that prove untenable, wikipedia can continue from there. -- Avi 04:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a very good idea. People, read PR's statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered#Statement by PalestineRemebered. A mentor might actually work, and is certainly worth the try. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may work, if the user is willing to accept mentorship.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might work, but apart from my opposition to all involuntary mentorship, this really would have to be voluntary. I'm not sure how likely that would be. -Amarkov moo! 04:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd support mentorship as long as that mentor has the teeth necessary to keep PR in line. I'm not going to speak up as to whether or not PR deserves a community ban or not, but I'd say that he definitely requires some shepherding and someone neutral to speak up when he engages in some of his less than helpful theatrics. (Just for full disclosure, I've reported him for 3rr, been active in edit "conflicts" with him over copyvio issues and recently been accused of being a hormonal woman by him, despite being genetically male.) He may be a good editor someday if he can learn to follow the rules, ie. wp:not a soapbox, wp:v, wp:nor, wp:cite.... Kyaa the Catlord 10:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Personally, I think the time for mentorship, or any other good-faith effort to improve on his part, was after he was given the benefit of the doubt in his last "community ban" discussion. That should have been the the not-so subtle hint to pull his socks up. Sadly it was not. <<-armon->> 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because he accidentally cited the primary source instead of the secondary? You do realise that's all that he did wrong in that, right? He was blocked 3 times and banned for at least a couple of weeks for the one breach of the WP:REF guideline. Why do people keep bringing that up as an example of how "bad" PR is? All that incident did was highlight the extent to which his detractors will go to in fishing for a full ban. Mark Chovain 22:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this is a better course of action that outright banning, especially since some of the blocks appear to have been unfounded. David Fuchs (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly think questions insinuating another editor's potential involvement in war crimes have no place in Wikipedia. What's being forgotten or glossed over in this discussion, however, is the context of PR's past blocks – which is the atmosphere of bad faith, bullying, intimidation, and general animosity on many Middle-East-related pages. Some of this, unfortunately, seems to have seeped into the present discussion. It is held against PR that he is a single-purpose account with a particular ideological orientation (JoshuaZ even suggests that this would be sufficient cause in itself for banning), but it is somehow forgotten just how many editors active and influential on Middle-East-conflict-related pages are single-purpose accounts with a strong, clear ideological disposition; several of the most zealous of these even have admin privileges. Including, not coincidentally, the very editor who falsely smeared PR as a Holocaust denier (in the case alluded to above), then failed to summon the moral courage to retract his ridiculous charge for a full eight days after it had been categorically disproven. The lesson of that sorry episode, which seems to have been lost on several editors here (unsurprisingly given their faulty recollections of it), was that the Middle East sector of Wikipedia is a highly charged place, where even highly-experienced editors (with admin and checkuser privileges, Arbcom experience, and so on) can find themselves violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in fairly spectacular ways. Mentorship may be a good idea for PR, but it's no silver bullet for the problems that pervade Middle-East-related pages. I don't wish to defend the questions PR put to Jaakabou, because I think they were inappropriately conceived and offensively articulated, but I do not think they are a banning offense. And unlike the guilty party's offensive speculation in the last round of Let's-community-ban-PR, PR's offensive speculation was at least presented as a question open to denial or refutation, rather than a conclusive assertion clung to tenaciously even as the grounds for it were systematically demolished. At any rate, any proposed ban of PR that begins with a serious misrepresentation of that last episode will by definition lack credibility.--G-Dett 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of any cases where mentorship has worked, but hey, we can try things repeatedly. To find a good mentor for anyone working in this area will be very difficult; on the evidence former ArbComm members are not adequately qualified. PR is clearly imperfect in his interactions in this topic area; so are most of the admins that have blocked him. PR also is not an intentional troll; he does try to make Wikipedia better. That many disagree as to whether his edits actually do this really isn't significant. The whole Israel-Palestine mess is such a POV battleground that we really shouldn't be doing community ban discussions in that area except for people that are intentional trolls. I note that an organized team of pro-Israel Wikipedia editors exists and has been looking for more members, and start out highly suspicious of any community discussions about this topical area. Frankly, I don't care if pro-X editors have worn out the patience of anti-X editors or vice-versa; I care about whether both sets of editors abide by user conduct policy and whether the uninvolved community believes the editors are trying to improve Wikipedia or not. In summary, I don't think we can find a qualified mentor, but if we can it might be worth trying, and I also don't think the community should endorse this ban proposal. GRBerry 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PalestineRemembered

It is deeply disturbing to discover that the personal allegations made against me in May are still being discussed as if they were, or could possibly have been, true. And/or that my behaviour then (regarding sources or anything else) gave any kind of legitimate reason for suspicious against me. And/or that I had somehow done something unusual, potentially meriting a perma-block. I can easily provide a detailed refutation of those earlier allegations (it's all written up in the case). But I have no need to fill these pages, let me remind everyone that I pleaded for the ArbCom to go ahead, as I believed it would have no alternative but to completely clear my name. I believed that the only just solution was a full retraction and apology from my accuser, mandated by the ArbCom (sadly, the ArbCom was not taken up, so I got no such satisfaction). Please examine the case further - unlike on this occasion, back then the allegations against me were quite deliberate and specific, based on evidence that I was going to find very difficult to refute (but managed to do, in a spectacularily precise fashion - I had the book inches away from me and it pre-dated the other sources I might have found it).

Also very disturbing that my admitted and corrected breach of citation of sources is brought up in an accusatory fashion, since this was never more than a WP guide-line - and there is even real doubt whether it's genuine. (Disputed by a prominent Harvard lawyer in a well known case).

Similarily disturbing that the Single Purpose Account allegation is trotted out again, the attempt to force me to change my name failed, my use of an SPA is specifically allowed for in policy. (I offered to change my name, even applied to do so but then changed my mind).

As to this particular case, the whole business of CoI clearly hasn't been discussed in this regard, I will leave that to others. My own experience of WP hadn't convinced me that making personal allegations is even frowned upon.

I would be happy to be mentored (in a mutually agreeable fashion, obviously), but I believe I have generally stuck to policy, and generally been a productive editor (as I was most certainly trying to be over this particular article Battle of Jenin). I have strayed into uncharted waters (and perhaps made work for others in deciding policy, sorry). But someone must boldly go where no man or woman has been before. PalestineRemembered 09:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a useful statement. Do you have any comment on the allegation that you posted a legal threat? --Dweller 09:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether I posted a "legal threat" - earlier I denied it, but I guess there are different ways to read anything. I can promise you I did not intend to do so and had no reason to do so. My lurid words were designed to elicit one of two responses from Jaakobou, either a declaration that he had no personal knowledge of this April 2002 affair, or that he withdraw from the article on grounds of Conflict of Interest. The mention of war-crimes was flim-flam intending to remind him it was a real question and needed a response, not that I personally thought he'd carried them out (which I truly think is somewhat unlikely).
My original question was in general terms, very easy for him to answer - it ran "Were you >4 miles, >40 miles, >400 miles or >4000 miles away from the incident?". 99.5% of Israelis would have said "greater than 4 miles", and that would have been the end of the matter.
By the time I asked my question the second time, I was frustrated, because not only was he failing to answer something I considered an entirely proper question, but he'd been vandalising my TalkPages with the most extraordinary muddled and meaningless warnings. He does it 3 times - then posts 3 further muddled warnings that he intends to escalate the matter. Recall that Jaakobou is causing this trouble over the "how far from Jenin were you" question, not what came later. Wade through this lot: 18:31, 4 August 2007, then 18:42, 4 August 2007, and 18:08, 6 August 2007. The three "escalating" edits to my TalkPage are these 17:27, 6 August 2007 then 21:25, 6 August 2007 and 09:33, 7 August 2007).
Recall that Jaakobou has a long history of exactly this kind of harrassing behaviour on TalkPages, two admins claim he's harrassed them at this AN/I and been blocked for it. See also [167] and [168], all from the same date. These further two exchanges are action against editors who (I'm pretty sure) are careful and productive - yet it includes posting their personal details into public view. So this editor accusing me is himself guilty of very robust interaction with other editors - many people might think his general behaviour and attitude to other editors is far worse than mine.
Under those circumstances the edit that many people clearly find offensive was intended solely to make clear that, if Jaakobou wasn't prepared to deny his participation/personal knowledge (something I thought made for a conflict of interest, though I could be wrong), then he should stop editing the article. No more, no less. He'd raised suspicions once (which is why I first asked the question), his subsequent behaviour was very aggressive (and suspicious - he abruptly left the TalkPage where he'd been so busy) and I felt, rightly or wrongly, that the question couldn't go unanswered. My personal opinion is that the integrity of the project is compromised if people with personal knowledge participate without declaring it. Policy appears to be on my side in this case, and I believe the community should "be on my side" too.
Lastly, I can't help feeling there are big cultural difference visible here and it is these that are causing me to be targetted in this fashion. I have now had several reports against me that have clearly caused large numbers of editors really severe alarm. In each case, the substance has proved (I believe) to be trivial and easily explained. If I'm right, the project will suffer an increasing number of these things in the months and years ahead as more people learn English and join the Web. However, that's a discussion for another time - if you're really interested I'll start a Sandbox on it. PalestineRemembered 11:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just to get this clear, are you saying down that this particular issue (legal threat) is down to poor judgement on your part, or that other people misread you? --Dweller 13:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a clear case of people misreading what I wrote. I don't believe that anyone can take seriously the claim that I made a "legal threat". My language was lurid (perhaps offensively so) but not directly accusatory. It was likely less accusatory that that of Jaakobou who repeatedly stated that my (rather inoffensive original question) was libellous (= actionable). Even if it were not a storm in a teacup (as I believe it to be), it is distracting us from the real point at issue.
My attempt at examining policy on Conflict of Interest deleted It seems sad (not to say extraordinary) that motivation (an attempt to see policy operated, even if some consider it to have been misguided originally and gone seriously wrong after some 5 days) is not considered a fit subject to be discussed here. PalestineRemembered 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Participants should be aware that, on top of the alleged abuse of process detailed at the beginning of my statement (whereby making quite specific, unretracted, false allegations of imprisonable offences against me was not even considered improper) there is real concern that I have been targetted from the time I arrived. The following appears at the end of CSN called to perma-block me:
  1. The first block by FeloniousMonk is questionable. Can FM please justify the 1 month block especially that it was the first block.
  2. The second block of FeloniousMonk may be justified only if the first one is. (PR - 2nd block is 2 months).
  3. The third block by Jayjg is unjustified. Jayjg referred to a talk page comment as a justification. Can you explain Jayjg why did you consider this link as a justification for another 1 block? (PR - 3rd block is 1 month).
PR again - please note that no explanations for my treatment was ever presented. Allegations of gross unsuitability to the project persisted and still persist, even from the sources that so strikingly failed to justify the very harsh action they took against me before. Evidence for these allegations was never brought out then, just as it has not been brought out now. Even the "Evidence" section of the abandoned ArbCom[169] contains not a single diff of my contributions from my accusers (there are dozens of diffs from me and others, just not a single one from my accusers).
It's obviously difficult to be completely sure, but (given the total lack of evidence) it would seem likely that this last incident when I asked "are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?" is the nearest thing to a serious disruption ever to come from me in 1,360 edits. PalestineRemembered 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here, PR, is that noone else finds your asking "are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?" as a "tempest in a teacup". We find this sort of accusation so vile that we need to well, come here and discuss possible steps that, as a community, we should take to stop the sort of behaviour that was reported here and elsewhere that you've engaged in. Simply being discussed on this noticeboard should be setting off so many triggers as a wikipedian that you'd be begging not to be banned, rather than dismissing the concerns raised. Kyaa the Catlord 08:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that this page is the proper venue for discussing the ability to edit particular articles vis-a-vis possible CoI. That should be discussed on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This page is to discuss whether or not there exists an exhaustion of community patience, and if not, should there be any potential outcome of the report here that could further everyone's ability to contribute to the project (e.g. some form of mentorship). CoI issues should be brought to the CoI page, and discussed there, without resorting to "lurid" statements designed to provoke, regardless of who uttered them, at whom they were addressed, and the purposes behind them, noble, ignoble, or somewhere in between. -- Avi 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Jaakobou - i could write in length and give a growing number of citations to unreferenced "figurative speech" accusations/claims and the mistakes in them (some of them he linked here), but for now i prefer to mostly stress that PR's statements seem, to me, like he justifies this behavior under some star trek reference and/or "big cultural difference" and continues to accuse me of vandalism. i find it unsettling that (as far as i can see) he feels he can continue with this behavior (even when under review), and get away with such statements as claiming he did not get a notification about the AN/I.his claim (11th august), the notice with a link (7th august) JaakobouChalk Talk 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembered has indeed been a constant source of disruption and has been given plenty of chances to learn and reform already and has squandered each and every one all the while feigning reasonablness and listening to community input. Enough is enough. I support a community ban for PalestineRemembered. FeloniousMonk 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. Is canvassing normally allowed for CSN discussions? I thought given its reputation, this would at least be heavily frowned upon: [170] [171] [172] Mark Chovain 05:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chovain, i asked the 2 people personally involved with the previous blocks to give their own side rather than just have editors, you included, who did not issue these blocks make statements for them. the 3rd person (and link) is a result of my stumbling on a very offensive/suggestive edit summary, you can read about the controversy behind it here). anyways, i can see how my notes could have been seen the way you have and i have no problem with your raising of concern. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the suggestion of a community ban against PalestineRemembered, based on that I don't see pro-Israeli POV pushing editors, including those with administrator privileges, getting banned for the exactly same behaviour. That PalestineRemembered's POV is opposed to theirs does not make him more disruptive than they are. --Servant Saber 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Legal threats by any editor are extremely serious and I would expect anyone accused of making legal threats to be seriously admonished at the very least, probably blocked and possibly banned.

The pro/anti Israel/Palestinian debate is therefore a red herring. As is the debate about COI or other editors' good/bad behaviour, POV-pushing or bad blocks.

The key question here is whether PR's edit truly constitutes a legal threat.

In my opinion, it was, however, I'm actually more concerned that PR does not seem to wish to concede that it was a gross error of judgement, preferring to insist that others are misreading the comment. To me this implies that PR is not capable of learning from the error... and ending up back here again.

My growing experience of dealing with "problem editors" is that those who deny their wrongdoing are very hard to mentor. I hate seeing useful editors banned from Wikipedia, but, as I've explained PR worries me. --Dweller 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the above. When I see phrases like "are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague? Please consider your options carefully before providing a reply. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum in a civilised nation (or indeed, in a western nation), then you might care to consider your response especially carefully" - I consider them as a very very thinly veiled threat. And it is troubling in the extreme that even after being blocked for making these legal threats, PR still insists that this was 'a perfectly proper question', and that 'my behavior was necessary in the interests of the project. ' - this does suggest, as Dweller says, that PR is not capable of learning from the error, nor even from the limited sanction (24 hour block) imposed so far. Isarig 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any reference for PRs alleged excuses. Instead he was writing about his lurid and perhaps offensive language, which lets me trust in PRs willingness to refrain from repeating his error. --Raphael1 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for leaving out the actual reference. Here we go: - claims of 'my behavior was necessary in the interests of the project' - both in the edits and the edit summary, [173], and a desciption of his legal threat as 'a perfectly proper question'. Isarig 19:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is misleading. With 'perfectly proper question' PR was not referring to the lurid "threat" you quote above, but to a question regarding a possible WP:COI Jaakobou might have. The question is personal, but could be well-founded as Jaakobou never answered it. --Raphael1 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not. we're not discussing some hypothetical question regarding CoI which Pr might have asked, but an actual question he asked, which is little more than a thinly veiled legal threat, and which was the immediate cause for the 24h blocked imposed on him, for which the above comment was a direct reply. Isarig
I was about to put in a comment saying the same thing. It would be a bit unfortunate if, after months of there being no evidence of obnoxious behaviour presented against me whatsoever, an allegation so misleading should be allowed to slip through now. PalestineRemembered 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your obnoxious behavior, of which the latest thereat is merely the last straw, speaks for itself. There is more than enough evidence for meaningful sanctions to be imposed here. Isarig 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally support the idea that PR merits a longer block for asking such a nonsense question plus of course the blatant incivility shown at their discussions w/ User:Kyaa the Catlord. At least they should have gone w/ a 2 week or a month block minimum w/ the option of not repeating them again.

I totally disagree. Extensive block log? Not really, I've already questioned some of those blocks at the ArbCom case. Till this day, i haven't received any explanation. PR has also mentioned this fact above as well. ...and has been the subject of a request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Well, have you read the Temporary injunction (none)? Have you read Motion to dismiss adopted where that was "Passed 6 to 0"? Don't forget that more blame was on User:Jayjg than on PR. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The block log is pretty much useless, and the arbitration case has no bearing -- nor do these need to be considered. Asking a rhetorical opponent if they are a war criminal -- for that was the essence of the question, no matter how it is justified as a CoI inquiry -- is a personal attack; asking the question itself is an insult. One can answer "no", one can answer "hell no", or one can answer "go fuck yourself"; the last would not be appropriate on Wikipedia, but it certainly would be the right sensibility. I suppose this particular action is the Wikipedia equivalent. If one can't be civil to ones rhetorical opponents, one must find another place to play than Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threat!? Oh please! Are we saying that PalestineRemembered was threatening to bring a war crimes case in the Hague? I don't think that even his most determined detractors are willing to go out on that limb. This was a simple case of incivility that has already been dealt with. Eleland 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what we are saying is that the 'question' he posed is little more than a threat to have him reported by PR to whatever authorities might be interested in bringing forward charges. Regardless of his actual ability to carry out such a threat, the fact remains that he made it. This kind of interaction has no place on WP, and editors have been perma-banned in the past for much less. Isarig 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While people are pondering whether PalestineRemembered is an asset to Wikipedia, may I ask what percentage of PR's edits to the main name space are not reverted? Beit Or 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to that question would hardly reveal anything, as he is editing articles about topics, where any edit you make, will be as likely as not reverted. --Raphael1 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Many editors make contributions to such articles which have endured. PR's constantly edits are the exception, not the rule. Isarig 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Since PR has accepted jpgordon's suggestion of montoring, would it be worth focusing the discussion on finding a suitable mentor? We're clearly not going to reach any kind of consensus on more serious sanctions here. This discussion has become nothing more than a "he said, she said" slanging match. May I suggest those interested in persuing further sanctions take it to formal dispute resolution? Mark Chovain 02:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. -- Avi 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DR is not the place to pursue sanctions - this is. Isarig 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really useful to pursue them here any longer, as it's clear there is no consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So where should we go from here then? We can continue to discuss this for eternity, but I don't think that's particularly constructive. Mark Chovain 03:30, 15 August 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.

PalestineRemembered Statement

Much/most of the community is horrified by the reworded question regarding potential Conflict of Interest that I asked of another editor here. (Interestingly, the editor I questioned was very upset by the first question, demanding a 7-day block on me, but seems to have been no more upset by my second question than by the first).

Clearly, none of my fellow editors consider the provocation of 6 days of bluster, TalkPage harrassment and likely "Legal threats" against me over the original question to be adequate (or even any) excuse for the re-phrasing I carried out. And, of course, it is their right not to "take notice" of anything they wish.

But let's be clear - I immediately categorised my reworded question as "lurid" and later as "offensive". I told everyone that it was not intended to be a threat, and I said there was no reason for me to make any threat (which in any case, would be laughably impossible to carry out). Whether it was a "legal threat" seems to be in some doubt (some people feel strongly that it was, others do not. Jaakobou himself only calls it "close to legal"). I've not yet "apologised" as such (is there anything to retract?) - but then I don't believe anyone has invited me to apologise. One influential editor thinks it's my failure to concede "that it was a gross error of judgement" which is most worrying. I answered "people misreading me" to his muddled message on "this particular issue (legal threat)". Anyone examining this exchange (in which there is another unconvincing twisting of my words) might think this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel!

In all of this, I've simply been seeking to discover whether another editor has personal knowledge of events described in an article of the encyclopedia. No more, no less. It's a great mystery why the answer to my question seems of so little interest - Conflict of Interest is a regular problem in articles. It's usually commercial rather than personal, but it's (presumably correctly) seen as harmful to what we're trying to do.

Since Jaakobou was clearly/genuinally upset by my original question questioning his whereabouts and activities in April 2002 then he has my sincere apologies. It was not intended to hurt his feelings in any way.

For the re-wording 6 days later, I heartily apologise. I didn't think I was making a "legal threat", and you (Jaakobou) appeared not to think so either. But if it caused you personal distress (and I recognise it could have done so, even though you've not really shown it) then I should not have said it, and I am genuinally sorry. It's difficult to "withdraw" a question, but to the extent I can do that, then I do so. As I think I've said before, the imputation made was "flim-flam", it was not intended to apply to you personally. Furthermore, I can say without qualification that I don't believe it of you. My suspicions were truly of personal knowledge, not of participation.

To everyone who has reached this far, you'll almost certainly feel that this incident (no matter how culpable I may be) doesn't explain what has happened. There has been extensive action taken to stop me editing (3 long blocks, followed by an attempt to perma-block me, along with lots of other harrassment), and it must be clear that my actual behaviour is not the issue. The edit being discussed here is the very first in over 1,360 to be brought up in "evidence". It's almost the first even worth bringing up, and I don't think anyone would call it "disruptive" of the project. (Uncivil - yes, "legal threat" - questionable, "personal attack" - questionable, "disruptive" - pretty unlikely, unless I'm to blame for the multiple postings on my TalkPage, the AN/I and the CSN).

So what is it that angers so many of my fellow editors, right up to top administrators? I believe we all know the answer - it's because most of my edits concern Israel/Palestine. They're very well referenced, acceptably well written and paint a pretty devastating picture of Israel in it's internal and external relations.

And supporters of Israel have a great deal they don't want documented any better than it is documented already. As seen here, they know that Wikipedia is a key point in Israel's campaign for legitimacy in the public mind. The particular (dead-locked) article that triggered this fuss is Battle of Jenin. Large sections of 100% good encyclopedic material is ruthlessly expunged, regardless of references, notability or even apparent consensus.

Given the basis of Wikipedia (which I support), it's difficult to see how this problem can be solved. Think of the "Allegations of Apartheid" ArbCom in progress. A block of editors are (rather credibly) accused of disrupting the encyclopedia by creating pointless articles to barter for the deletion of one article they don't like. Don't blame me, my part in all those articles is minor indeed. Better minds than mine will have to do what is necessary to put the project back on track. I don't think any reading of any part of this project will see me as one of the disruptive elements, I really am trying to improve articles. The ArbCom in progress is dominated by an argument that many thoroughly documented edits have been made in order to disrupt. That's wildly different from my situation and the abandoned ArbCom bearing my name, where there's been no documentation of my behaviour whatsoever.[174] Every one of the disagreements I've been involved in (including this one) have been grounded in "Content Disputes", not behaviour. PalestineRemembered 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction&oldid=151400308"