Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

NCdave (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.

NCDave is banned from Steven Milloy and related articles including Advancement of Sound Science Center, Junk Science, and Sound science Raul654 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

---

NCdave (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focused on Steven Milloy. He has evinced most or all of the characteristics of a tendentious editor: he's been blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, although he argues that he was not reverting but was "un-reverting". After the release of one 3RR block, he immediately returned to edit-war over the same issue, resulting in another block. He labels edits he disagrees with as "vandalism". He repeats the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone (see the entire Talk:Steven Milloy). He simultaneously runs 5 or 6 redundant talk page threads, and if other editors fail to respond to one of them, he declares "consensus". His first activity, on arriving at Talk:Steven Milloy, was to systematically append his Last Word to a series of thread which were 6 months to over 1 year old ([1]). He then accused me of malfeasance for archiving these "active" threads. He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent ([2]), defamation, lying ([3], [4]), etc. Recently he's gone in for full-on personal attacks and implicit legal threats ([5]) and attacking uninvolved admins ([6]). These are not new problems: before Milloy, NCdave was a single-purpose POV warrior on Terri Schiavo, where his consensus-building approach of charging other editors with a desire to murder Schiavo led to this RfC.

Bottom line: NCdave is a highly tendentious, disruptive editor with a single purpose at present, a long history and multiple blocks for 3RR and edit-warring, for which he is utterly unrepentant. He persists in disrupting Steven Milloy. I propose that he be banned from the article and talk pages of Steven Milloy and closely related subjects. I will notify NCdave and involved users from the Milloy article of this thread. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban Raul654 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with User:Mastcell, and I have been involved with the dispute over at Steven Milloy. Yilloslime 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. As the Schiavo material shows, this is a repetitive pattern.JQ 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban One is struck by the similarity of his behavior on Steven Milloy to his actions on Terri Schiavo as detailed in the previous RfC. A broader concern is that even if he is banned from Milloy-related articles, he may simply move on to demonstrate the same disruptive behavior in some other topic. Raymond Arritt 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban on Steven Milloy and closely related subjects. Is it possible to list these "closely related subjects" here so we are up front on which articles the ban extends to?--Alabamaboy 23:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Closely related articles would at least include: Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Center and Junk Science, possibly Sound science and perhaps others.Yilloslime 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Alabamaboy 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• When I have a strong POV on a subject I tread lightly, so my opinion here is prefaced by the following: I am not neutral about Terri Schaivo. My views on that case formed from firsthand experience as a caregiver who, while I was speaking on behalf of a terminally ill relative who could not advocate for himself, had the unsettling experience of being interrupted on two separate occasions by a health care professional who presumed the patient's wishes were DNR. Actually his desires were the reverse and he had the foresight to have expressed them in a legal document; I stood over that nurse and that (ahem) "patient advocate" while I insisted they read his real desires. I hope those individuals never made such an abhorrent mistake again. That said, I support the ban proposal. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy. If one's views are so strong that they demand attention then seek another venue, preferably one that satisfies WP:RS so the opinion can then enter an article legitimately as a regular citation. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for bringing up Terri Schiavo in a manner which doesn't do justice to the complexities of her particular situation. My intention in doing so was only to provide the context that NCdave's current issues are not isolated, but part of a pattern of behavior. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but really no need for the apology. Sometimes editors worry that bans are about politics rather than policies. I hope NCdave and others see how that isn't so. Durova^Charge! 12:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban He does not seem to able to give ground, even when his position is untenable. --TimLambert 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban. To my knowledge I have never contributed to the Milloy page, but it's on my watch list (can't remember why). A topic ban strikes me as a very restrained measure to take. I base this from what I've seen on that travesty and confusing mess of a talk page, as well as the edit-warring in general (both S.Milloy pages). Additionally, it should come with a warning that future similar behavior on the next article would result in a long term and complete ban. R. Baley 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Having just reverted-and-blocked a SPA who'd turned up here on their very first edit, after a careful review of this editor's contributions I endorse the topic ban. This fellow is clearly quite the troll, and further problems must clearly lead to a siteban. One thing, though - his first edit, with the summary - "Corrected numerous factual errors and severe POV bias; added additional information, photo, and links" - and this third - "revert JonGwynne's POV vandalism; however, Dale Arnett's subsequent minor correction was retained" - hello, anyone? Do I hear quacking in the foot-clothing drawer, or is there something perfectly legitimate here that I've missed? Moreschi ^Talk 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting. He started editing during the Terri Schiavo controversy, when there was extensive off-wiki canvassing to enlist editors to "correct" the POV of the Wikipedia article (some of this is alluded to in his prior RfC). I assumed that perhaps he had some familiarity with Wikipedia-speak via these off-wiki organizational efforts, but who knows. For the record, I'm not aware of any evidence that he's involved in sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you suspect me of sockpuppetry, Moreschi? Well, you're wrong. I've complained to many people about misbehavior of certain editors on Wikipedia, in the Steven Milloy article and elsewhere, but I didn't ask that person to create his account, and I didn't write that tome of his that you reverted. Every new Wikipedian has a first contribution. I am grateful that his first contribution was here. NCdave 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but I would be fascinated to know how you were using such sophisticated edit summaries, using acronyms for official policy, on your very first edit. BTW, someone is socking here, because the troll who I reverted-and-blocked was quite clearly an experienced user. Moreschi ^Talk 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, WP User 29 opposes banning me. (read his comments, which Moreschi deleted, here) NCdave 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. While the block log speaks volumes, the pattern of disruption on the pages is tendentious in the extreme. NCdave has soapboxed, edit-warred and is now probably sock-puppetted to block-evade - a topic ban in this situation is lenient. This pattern of disruption is one I'm familiar with and one that is far too common on controversial (or simply political) articles - we should have no tolerance for this behaviour in an encyclopedia. That said, I would suggest that the ban be reviewed after a year if NCdave joins WP:ADOPT now. We should try giving them a second chance if they earn it by becoming a constructive editor, however, if they blow that second chance then they have nobody to blame but themselves--Cailil ^talk 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree with topic ban and ban. NCdave is a thoughtful editor who is willing to make changes based on consensus. While working on the Steve Milloy article I saw him jump through a number of hoops to please other editors (read the talk page, it has pages upon pages of his discussion which is more civil than most others). Most editors would rather ignore him than answer his questions and I saw this time and time again at the Steve Milloy article, instead of answering direct questions posed by NCdave, he was ignored and reverted without comment (by many supporting this ban)- then you accuse him of not following a consensus? Please. The fact that he focuses on one topic at a time is irrelevant. --Theblog 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone involved in those discussions: The first one or two times NCDave would ask a particular question or make an argument, he would always get a reply. But when he simply repeats the same questions and lines of reasoning time after time, yes, editors--myself included--stop taking the bait. There's a huge difference between this--a reluctance to re-argue debates that we've already been through--and what you describe as "editors [who] would rather ignore him than answer his questions." OTOH, there are numerous questions and points made on the talk page that were posed to NCDave and were completely ignored by him. Yilloslime 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting that NCdave has been ignored is, I would argue, incorrect. The talk page shows extensive efforts to address his objections. However, our responses to him were generally ignored, and his objections repeated endlessly, aggressively, and tendentiously, regardless of how many outside editors have come in to disagree with them. It is exhausting to deal with someone whose sole focus is Milloy, who makes dozens of argumentative edits to 5 or 6 different talk pages threads per day, who takes any lapse in response as evidence of consensus, and who edit-wars relentlessly for good measure. I would argue that the talk page and NCdave's history are a testament to a reasonable degree of patience and restraint on the part of editors dealing with him. Although that patience, on my part at least, is officially exhausted. Theblog himself has been a thoughtful, collegial, and constructive contributor to the discussion on Steven Milloy, and has advanced positions similar to NCdave's without the associated tendentiousness. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with topic ban and ban. The Steven Milloy page seems to be pretty relentlessly POV. It reads more like a hit job. From what I see, NCdave is trying to make the article more NPOV and that should be applauded. It's clear that some people feel that Milloy is a stooge for tobacco companies, or oil companies, but that feeling gives the whole article a flavor of "Milloy shouldn't be taken seriously". I don't think that's appropriate, and I think efforts to make it more balanced are not necessarily wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearCase Guy (talk • contribs)
  • User's second edit. Moreschi ^Talk 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It isn't an acceptable solution to an article WP:NPOV issue to allow one editor to consistently circumvent policies. The issue here is whether NCdave can operate within site standards, not whether his POV is correct in an abstract sense. Durova^Charge! 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban - talk page abuse, revert warring and based on his block log, no signs of improvement. Addhoc 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Given the evident violations of WP:SOCK (or, less probably but just as bad, outside canvassing) noted by Moreschi, we should be considering a complete and permanent ban, rather than a topic ban. JQ 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I had initially considered proposing a full siteban, because NCdave has two very serious strikes against him in his behavior at Terri Schiavo and now at Steven Milloy. I proposed the topic ban instead to provide him with one last chance to demonstrate that he can edit collaboratively on other topics. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - NCdave has conacted me by email (I'm presuming others have also been contacted like this). He seems to be seriously considering the mentorship programme. I have very strong feelings about the kind of editing NCdave was engaged in as there are a number of editors like this in most so-called "controversial" articles which makes editing in them very difficult. But I'm willing to give NCdave a chance if he proves he is willing to resolve this issue constructively. If he enters WP:ADOPT I think the community should consider a topic ban of limited duration (6-12 months) to be reviewed here at WP:CSN with the in-put of his mentor. Any thoughts?--Cailil ^talk 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have seen no on-wiki evidence anywhere that NCdave has ever acknowledged a problem of any sort with any aspect of his approach to Wikipedia, going all the way back to his RfC through his recent 3RR blocks and this very thread. The difficulties he's encountered have uniformly been blamed entirely on the bias, unfairness, and dishonesty of others. In fact, just today he added a rebuttal to a month-old archived 3RR report - a rebuttal consisting mainly of personal attacks, as has his defense below and his various unblock requests. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of revisiting the topic ban in a year if he enters WP:ADOPT, if the community feels that's the best approach, but is it too much to ask that he acknowledge that there's a problem, or at the very least, make a post or two without unsupported personal attacks? MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell I 100% agree with you. NCdave has made a number of attacks and uncivil remarks that must be withdrawn immediately. I'm only suggesting that he enter the programme so that he can learn how to behave properly on wikipedia. I'm in absolute solidarity with you MastCell in your position that behaviour of this sort is not only tendentious, but incompatible with building an encyclopedia. If NCdave does not withdraw his attacks and work to become a constructive wikipedian then a permanent topic ban or site ban are the only alternatives--Cailil ^talk 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've always thought forever was a long time, and probably all bans should be open to review after 6 months or a year, so I wouldn't object to that - particularly if he's willing to sign on with an experienced mentor. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

---

• Oppose ban (of course). Sorry I've been slow responding, folks; you caught me at a busy time at work.

First let me say that if I believed the things that MastCell said about me, I'd ban me, too. However, he was not truthful. I don't have time to address all of his accusations tonight, but I'll make a start, and resume later. I have to earn a living. NCdave 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Accusation #1: "NCdave is a single-purpose account focused on Steven Milloy." (This was MastCell's first accusation.) Untrue.

Reply #1: I've been contributing on Wikipedia for 2.5 years, with over 1200 contributions, including contributions to about 50 different articles (~30 of them this year), in addition to contributions to numerous other Talk pages & meta-discussion pages. The vast majority of my contributions had nothing at all to do with Steven Milloy. Most of those articles had nothing at all to do with Steven Milloy. At most articles, my edits have been well-received. In fact, less than 13 hours before MastCell filed his complaint here I had made several contributions to the George Foreman article,[7] which obviously has nothing to do with Steven Milloy.

It would be nice to be able to dismiss MastCell's false accusation as an honest error. Maybe he didn't know about my other contributions? Perhaps he got clicked on the wrong user's User Contributions link, and thereby didn't notice all my other work? Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Less than an hour before MastCell filed his complaint here, I had posted a comment in another "meta discussion" page, one where I'd never contributed before, yet MastCell found it and replied there just minutes before filing his complaint against me here![8]

Obviously, MastCell knew when he made his SPA accusation that it was untrue. So why should you believe any of his other complaints? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

NCdave 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (more coming soon...)

---

• Please note: NCdave came to Steven Milloy about 2 months ago, and has made >200 edits to the article and talk pages during that time (see count) with very few on any other topics. Hence WP:SPA. NCdave seems to be citing his participation in this AfD as evidence he's not an SPA. I find that interesting, because a) that is his first and only foray into AfD's and b) it just happens to be an AfD I nominated. One might be tempted to conclude he's following me around. I won't address the accusations of dishonesty, because I think the diffs I've cited speak for themselves there. I will note, though, that today NCdave looked up his month-old 3RR report in the archives and added a lengthy rebuttal consisting mainly of attacks on me. That's right - to a month-old 3RR report from the archives. I honestly could not provide a more convincing example of the issues with tendentiousness, Wikilawyering, personal attacks, and Last-Wordiness that led me to file this proposal. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Along similar lines: After being notified about this CSN, NCDave's first order of business (beyond finishing up an edit to Steven Milloy) was to report me to to WP:AN3 for a month old 3RR violation that I had already dealt with by self reverting when it was pointed out to me. (Obviously, the reviewing admin took no action against me.) Only 1+ days later did he get around to posting his response this CSN here. Yilloslime 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban. Reviewing this user's recent history demonstrates an inability to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia on a number of fronts. I agree with R. Baley that a topic ban (vs. an outright ban) is a gentle application of the guidelines and, while I hope that MastCell is right in thinking NCdave can change his ways, I'm not going to hold my breath. -- MarcoTolo 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

NCdave (talk · contribs) -- follow-up

Hey, come on, Raul654! I wrote that I've been very busy in the real world, and I wrote that my comments were incomplete, but that I would revisit them soon. In the meantime I (obviously) was not editing the Steven Milloy article, so why the rush? Why ban me before I get a chance to answer the accusations against me?

I don't know what the procedures are for it, but I would appreciate this discussion being reopened.

Note: In response to Cailil's suggestion, I have requested that an experienced mentor adopt me per WP:Adopt. (If I get adopted, I guess my first question for my mentor should be what the procedure is for getting this discussion reopened.) NCdave 06:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Raul654 edits the page in question, I do not think he is neutral on the subject- in fact he removed a tag that NCDave argued strongly for on multiple occassions. This is the second time I know of that Raul654 has banned or blocked a user he is in conflict with. I think an immediate unblock is in order on this basis. You can reopen the original discussion, but the block by Raul654 is clearly inappropriate. --Theblog 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Raul654 was summarizing the consensus of uninvolved editors, which was clearly in favor of the topic ban, rather than exercising any particular administrative powers himself. As to whether the thread should be re-opened, or should have been left open longer, I'll defer that to the uninvolved editors and those with more experience on the workings of this page than I have. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that what is supposed to decide such matters? "The consensus of uninvolved editors?" I note that most of the editors who supported the ban are very much involved. How big of a majority does it take to make a "consensus?"

For what it is worth, I wish I'd been allowed the opportunity to address the accusations made against me. Raul654 shut this down less than 24 hours after I said my comments were incomplete but I'd be back soon. Why the rush?

Note that I wasn't editing the article in the meantime. NCdave 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, do you actually think it is appropriate for an admin in conflict with an editor to decide when to close the thread and to ban the editor? It violates WP:block, but WP:BAN does not have a similar rule spelled out. You have obviously taken quite a bit of time to escalate and go through the process and procedures concerning NCDave- which is how it should be if you feel he is breaking rules. But when an admin in conflict with NCDave come in and bans him before he has even given his side of the story makes a mockery of the whole process.--Theblog 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good news: I have been adopted by a mentor! I hope he can help me avoid tripping over Wikipedia's confusing (to me) rules and procedures in the future, and give me good advice for how to better work with some of the other Wikipedia editors. NCdave 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it worth trying to evaluate some of the claims in this ban, proposed by MastCell.

NCdave (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focused on Steven Milloy.

a quick perusal of NCDave's contributions shows edits on a large number of subjects from June 2005, through May 2007. The interest in Milloy seems restricted to after June 2007, no doubt due to the habit of a number of editors for making rapid reversions. The charge of WP:SPA seems difficult to justify.

He labels edits he disagrees with as "vandalism".[[9]]

While this is true for this example quoted, it is noteworthy that NCDave explicitly justifies why he has called it vandalism, and that this is a single example. It is not true that NCDave labels all edits as "vandalism".

He repeats the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone (see the entire Talk:Steven Milloy).

TheBlog, EdPoor, myself and others have shared a common viewpoint with NCDave, e.g. [[10]], [[11]], [[12]].

He then accused me of malfeasance for archiving these "active" threads.[[13]]

interestingly, reading the talk section quoted does not show the word malfeasance. As I read it, NCDave disagrees with your action, sets out why he disagrees, and asks you to revert. He does not call you names. Neither does what he alleges have anything to do with the legal definition of wp:malfeasance. This accusation is simply untrue.

He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent [[14]]

Formally, the text complains (non-specifically) about Milloy-bashers, and is merely one comment. That isn't an explicit accusation of malicious intent. Moreover, Raul654, an admin, reverted one of NCDave's changes with the terse comment that he was reverting the "whitewash". [[15]] Surely we should have similar standards of behaviour expected from all users ?

He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent ([2]), defamation

this is an extremely serious charge, and is unreferenced. There is a distinction between saying that the text someone writes is potentially defamatory, and saying that the person who wrote it is a defamer. I do not recall NCDave directly accusing people of being defamers.

He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent..., defamation, lying [[16]], [[17]]

The first reference [[18]] does not accuse anyone at Wiki, or any editor thereof, of lying. It says that an advocacy group has published what NCDave holds to be lies. They certainly are claims that are not obviously supported.

The second reference [[19]] contains no use of the word "lie", "liar", "lying" in the section quoted.

MastCell did undo one of NCDave's edits to introduce a potentially damaging quote by the Tittabawassee River Watch [[20]]. I agree with NCDave that it is unconscionable that an experienced wikipedian could not fail to realise that this was not a reliable source (breach of WP:V, that the charges were not justified and could not fail to realise that the material was extremely damaging, and should have been removed as per WP:BLP.

The first reference does not support the claim that NCDave accuses anyone on wikipedia of lying. I believe NCDave's second charge, that Mast cell did insert an abusive reference recklessly, is true.

Recently he's gone in for full-on personal attacks and implicit legal threats [[21]]

there are no legal threats in the passage cited. To state that a page has a defamatory meaning is not a threat. As regards to NCDave's "full-on personal attacks", Mastcell is making a "full-on personal attack" against me in the cited passage. I agree with NCDave's comments. Specifically, MastCell has not made any reliable reference to justify the charge that I have made legal threats on wikipedia.

MastCell has made numerous serious charges. I find that at least four of these explicit claims are without foundation. I find several to be misleading, and several to be entirely justifiable behaviour on NCDave's part.

I believe this ban is without foundation, and it is extremely unfortunate that Raul654 implemented the ban so soon after reverting NCDave's edit. Peroxisome 13:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Peroxisome

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.

Consensus is that an indefinite block is not appropriate and the checkuser request has not produced evidence of sockpuppetry. Accordingly, I am lifting the block to take into account the five days this editor has already been blocked. Sandstein 11:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Peroxisome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely by Raul654 (talk · contribs) for trolling an article talk page. Peroxisome has requested to be unblocked, arguing that what he did was merely presenting his arguments. The unblock request has gone unreviewed for nearly 24 hours. This seems to indicate that deciding whether or not this block was appropriate is a somewhat complicated matter that requires the attention of more editors. This board seems to be a good place to gather consensus on this. Please also read the blocked user's talk page for any arguments he may offer in his defence. This is a procedural post; I have no opinion (yet) on the merits of the block. Sandstein 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: like the above thread, this involves the article Steven Milloy. Sandstein 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dang. What is it about Milloy that brings out such love in people. I've never even heard of the guy (guess I need to watch more TV). Anyway, while Peroxisome focuses almost exclusively upon the Steven Milloy and John Brignell pages, I am not seeing enough strong evidence to convince me that Peroxisome is a troll. In fact, I see where issues raised by Peroxisome with regards to the article have been addressed by editors who disagree with him (such as Mastcell at [22]) and that Peroxisome appears to be part of a edit dispute over this article. While Peroxisome has made borderline legal threats[23], I'm not sure there's enough there for an indefinite block. In addition, since Raul654 has edited the Milloy article a few times, I wish he'd let someone else block Peroxisome because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. So I'd say lift the block.--Alabamaboy 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from a non-neutral editor: While Peroxisome (like NCdave) has occasionally raised very valid issues about the article, they are drowned out (particularly recently) by accusations of defamation and plain argumentativeness. This thread comes to mind; when it became clear that he hadn't actually read the source he was arguing endlessly about, he changed the subject and kept arguing. His posts and edit summaries tend to contain legal threats and accusations of dishonesty ([24], [25], [26]), and he consistently accuses editors of defamation ([27], [28]), without troubling himself to bring it up at WP:BLP/N as has been repeatedly suggested. He has the de rigeur 3RR blocks (though none recently, I should note). Would I have blocked him for his behavior, were I an uninvolved admin? Probably not. Am I sorry to see him blocked? Not at all; he seems to revel in provoking a reaction and his constructive input is far outweighed by his approach, in my opinion. Let me be clear: I welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, because without them the article tends to drift too far in one direction. But NCdave, and to a lesser extent Peroxisome, are not hapless editors being persecuted for holding a minority viewpoint. Their behavior in advancing that viewpoint is at issue. That's my 2 cents as an involved and obviously non-neutral editor; I'm glad that this is up here, though, because I would prefer to see some objective feedback about this block. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, MastCell's accusation that I have been pushing my POV is untrue. I have always sought to make the Milloy page (and every other article to which I've contributed) balanced and neutral. MastCell does not welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, he routinely deletes information that does not support his POV. In contrast, I rarely delete anything, I just try to make the article factual and balanced, and include both sides of each issue. NCdave 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unblock, I reviewed his comments on the talk page in question and it does not appear to be trolling to me, I honestly think those are his thoughts, regardless, it is a pure judgement call. Additionally, the fact that admin who blocked him was actively engaged in the discussion and editting of the article is I believe a clear violation of the rules and calls for an immediate unblock. Don't they de-admin people for that? --Theblog 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block. Like the above two editors, I am involved in the dispute and non-neutral. I was a bit surprised to see an indefinite block dropped on him (though I'm still a newbie, and maybe this is standard practice in cases like these). I support a temporary block to allow him another chance, but I do think that it should be some sort of longish block. I agree that in the past he made some useful contributions to the article, but as of late he's been nothing but tendentious. Arguing ad nauseum that 1 + 1 does not, in fact, equal 2—as he was doing in this thread—is not useful, doesn't help the project, and is only disruptive. Action against such behaviour is called for, though perhaps not as strong the one that was doled out. Yilloslime 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. While Peroxisome's behavior over at Steven Milloy has been less than helpful, NCdave's conduct was much worse. The fact that NCdave only got a topic ban for his bad behavior, reinforces my view that Peroxisome's full-site-forever ban is too harsh. I favor instead a topic ban like that issued for NCdave, or a shorter site-wide block. If, however, the suspicion of sockpuppetry on part of peroxisome turns out to be founded, then I would favor the indefinite site-wide ban.Yilloslime 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block. I'm also involved. I don't find Peroxisome at all helpful, and he's clearly a single-purpose campaigner (I've also encountered him on these topics outside Wikipedia). Still, I'd prefer to reserve permanent blocks as a last resort, for cases like that of NCDave.JQ 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block per Yilloslime and JQ. Unlike the case of NCDave, there is a non-negligible possibility that Peroxisome could become a constructive editor. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• I almost unblock this fellow earlier, but I couldn't get a good enough handle on the contentious article in question. I'd support making it a shorter block. --Haemo 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support indef on the basis of this post.[29] Would agree with shortening it if the editor withdraws it and pledges to stop posting legalistic arguments. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I did ask him to stop with the charges of defamation (or go to WP:BLP/N), and this was his response. Of course, maybe the community will have better luck. MastCell ^Talk 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What is your complaint about this post by Perosisome, Durova? It is a very gentle and polite explanation of one of the reasons for his article contributions. The warning tag about WP:BLP says, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Are you suggesting that it is some kind of offense to allude to that policy in polite Talk page comments? Peroxisome's measured comments are well-taken and reasonable. NCdave 08:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Given how often and opportunistically the BLP card has been played, I feel compelled to point out that WP:BLP also says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • And if it isn't it doesn't. NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Peroxisome has commented on this thread on his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note regarding abusive sockpuppetry: I asked Peroxisome directly whether he had any connection to the two brand-new accounts which commented on NCdave's proposed ban above. This was his (non-)answer. I asked him again and got another evasive response. I have filed a checkuser request. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I banned Peroxisome from commenting at my blog, and he returned using several sock puppets, so he has form here. --TimLambert 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, were I a betting man, I would bet serious money that Peroxisome has not engaged in sockpuppetry. I, too, have been falsely accused of sockpuppetry, which I've never done. It is wrong to voice mere suspicions as outright accusations. Your buddy. MastCell, is an admin, and has the ability to track down IP addresses and determine which ones are sock puppets. You should do such checks before you make potentially erroneous accusations.

MastCell says that he is doing a "checkuser request," which I presume is a check of IP addresses and user names, to identify sock puppets. I don't know how long that takes, or how it works, but I hope you will encourage him to share the results here.

Also, I note that one of of the two accounts that MastCell calls "brand-new accounts" has actually been around since 2006. How is that brand-new? NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of admins can't do a checkuser. Because of privacy concerns (among other reasons), checkuser tools are authorized for only a very small number of people. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, I don't have the ability to check IP addresses. The check will be performed by an outside editor. I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peroxisome, where the results will be visible to anyone who cares to look. Those accounts belong to an experienced user; few people are directly involved in this issue enough to care to use socks to comment; Peroxisome just happens to be blocked at the moment; and he's persistently evaded and danced around a direct question regarding the accounts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there are clearly grounds to look into the issue of sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for that information. I look forward to the answer when it arrives. Will you post it here? NCdave 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The checkuser report indicates that Peroxisome is unrelated to the two new accounts which commented on the above thread. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lift the block. Peroxisome is a careful and uniformly reasonable editor, certainly never a troll. He raised very legitimate issues about the article in question, but was routinely reverted and insulted by MastCell and others. MastCell has an axe to grind, because when MastCell did six reverts of the article on the same day, Peroxisome filed a 3RR complaint against MastCell. NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Me again? I didn't block Peroxisome, I didn't discuss his block on- or off-wiki with Raul654, and I made it explicit, in my comment here, that I am not neutral on the subject of Peroxisome. I realize that you've relied on singling me out and attacking me in your 3RR violations, your unblock requests, and your topic-ban discussion. People might give more credence to your position that Peroxisome should be unblocked if you tried a different approach here. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Action? This thread appears to be circling the drain. In the interest of a speedy and fair resolution for Peroxisome, I'll note that checkuser did not indicate he's engaged in sockpuppetry, and there appears to be a consensus, even among editors in conflict with him, to lift or shorten his block. As a side note: I'm asking any uninvolved admin who is watching this thread or considering unblocking Peroxisome to please keep an eye on the situation after doing so. There are real issues here, though an indefinite block may not be the appropriate response at this time, and I'd like some outside, uninvolved eyes on the situation going forward. MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. WHEELER is banned for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

THF

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

This case fits the bill of complex. Try requests for comment or requests for arbitration. Navou ^banter 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

User:THF has a known and acknowledged conflict of interest in respect of Michael Moore. As far as I can tell he has voluntarily undertaken to step back from these articles. In order to damp down the dispute and put an end to the endless discussion threads I propose that we formally record that THF should not directly edit articles relating to Michael Moore or his films, that he is welcome to contribute suggestions on the relevant Talk pages, but that he should not propose links to his own writing on the subject, or discuss such links without noting that he is the author. This restriction will solve the substantive issue with THF's involvement with these topics and make it unnecessary for others to note his real identity, a technical infringement of the harassment policy even if the source of the information is THF himself.

If this is endorsed by the community and accepted by THF, I will undertake to contact the webmasters of michaelmoore.com and ask them to remove their attacks on Wikipedia editor THF. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this resolution, which gives in to intimidation tactics, and implies that Moore's initial criticism had any basis in fact. I make no requests regarding whether WP should take any sanctions against Moore, other than that Wikipedia enforce whatever policy it has evenly, and treat this situation precisely the same way one would treat it if an anti-global-warming website were to start attacking Wikipedia editors it disagreed with. With respect to WP:HARASS, I've stated my position at WP:VPP#THF, and won't repeat it here. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for THF, but as far as I know I don't believe he's volunteered to step back from the Michael Moore articles. There is an active discussion at COI/N, and there seems to be some consensus that while THF may have a POV on Moore, his POV does not necessarily translate into COI, and in fact there have been no abusive edits presented that would indicate a problem. It's still an open case though, so see the discussion for details. ATren 08:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be easier to evaluate your proposal here if you provide differential edits. Also, is THF willing to do this without the community's intervention? Navou ^banter 08:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• This issue focuses solely on the Michael Moore issues, which appear to the Achilles tendon of THF. There are two issues that have gotten THF into trouble, where he has caused massive disruption to the Wikipedia project: 1. His effort to insert into 25 Wikipedia film pages a hit piece on Michael Moore that he authored and his employer published.; and 2. his effort to have MichaelMoore.com labeled an attack site and removed from Wikipedia because it did what THF did for the last year, which was reveal who he is, that he is an outspoken public critic of Michael Moore, and that he edits all of the Michael Moore pages. This public feud THF has with Michael Moore has been brought to Wikipedia, and it has become very disruptive to the project, with talk of throwing Moore "to the dogs" not to "reward" Michael Moore by including links to his pertinent website, et. al. During the film fiasco, THF actually argued that it would be against policy not to include his hit piece. THF does not want us to talk about who he is, so he WP:GAME's the policies and guidelines. On one hand, he links to Moore's website that "outs" him and he tries to get work authored by himself and published by his employer into multiple articles; he then follows that with arguments we can't say who he is. How are we supposed to discuss THF's edits and their context when he is trying to put his own material into the project and his outside feud with Moore is relevant (relevant enough for Moore to acknowledge it)? I do not see how THF can expect WP:HARASS to apply to him when he himself continually outs himself. THF becomes the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is not what our policies and guidelines were drawn up for: we are here to protect private individuals who want to contribute, not public individuals who work for employers whose very nature is public policy disputes and issues, who go out and speak publicly on national airwaves and television programs about the issues he edits, etc. If THF is willing to speak publicly on Fox News, NPR, the Washington Post and internationally on the BBC, why are his edits on Wikipedia over the same topics supposed to conceal his identity? So that he doesn't suffer harassment off-wiki? Then why does he speak publicly with his identity revealed over those very same topics? Does anyone else see how silly this is. It would be a different story if most of us made the same edits, since our careers don't revolve around the very topics that we edit; but THF's career does. He presents himself to the public countless times on these topics, and the public has the ability to contact him about the issues he talks about in the Wall Street Journal, so why is Wikipedia a special animal for him, where we are concealing his identity? This is his job, and I don't see where any of our internal policies regarding protecting the identities of average people apply when a person is already public, exposing them to public comment and scrutiny, over the exact same issues. If User:MessedRocker edits the Rush Limbaugh pages or the Al Franken pages, it's a different case, because MessedRocker isn't writing editorials in the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek over the same issues, and his career and actions outside of Wikipedia, where he essentially remains anonymous, are irrelevant. THF's career and life outside of Wikipedia are synonymous with the edits he makes. Michael Moore was right in pointing out who THF is, since THF is already a public critic of Moore and he is simply using Wikipedia as another public platform for his criticisms. If what Moore did, which was state facts, is considered an "attack" then by logical analogy, so is what THF does to the Moore's articles. Nobody contends that either individual is reporting anything but facts, and THF is already public about his feelings on Moore and his work. So why are we concealing something that THF does not already conceal in both national and international press mediums? --David Shankbone 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what you claim? I'd like to investigate for myself the edits that are considered controversial, but I'm not about to go searching through thousands of edits to find them. ATren 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I supplied I think three or four diffs. If you want more, please let me know which issue and I will hunt them down. --David Shankbone 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David: none of those diffs are article edits (most seem to be civil talk page debates), and none raises any red flag for me. If this were an anonymous editor, there would be no problem with those diffs. Are there others? ATren 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And after all this acrimony and disruption, THF now says he has "nothing to hide." Huh? That might come as news to many of his supporters.--David Shankbone 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have nothing to hide. I have done nothing wrong. I was asking for WP:CIVILity in an effort to stem harassment. This seems to have backfired, so I am shrugging my shoulders.

This is now the ninth forum where David has raised these COI complaints about a content dispute, which are wildly misleading. Every single edit he is complaining about occurred on a talk page. WP:COI expressly permits an editor with a COI to disclose the COI and request a proposed edit. In good faith, I suggested that my published point of view was notable, and thus merited inclusion under NPOV. David (who has elsewhere argued that opinions by THF are notable point of view that merit Wiki-inclusion) objected strenuously, making 17 talk-page comments with a variety of libelous personal attacks. I made 9 talk-page comments responding and defending my proposed edit. After an RFC, consensus was not to include the cite to my writing. It was never added to the main page. That dispute ended more than two weeks ago. Multiple complaints by David to COIN and ANI found I had done nothing wrong other than possibly overreact to some trolling. Where is the problem? THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• You can keep counting all you want, I don't know how this helps your argument; I was asked to comment here on my Talk page. I also dare you bring a libel suit - we've been both been to law school, and if you are going to use such strong terminology then follow it up with action. I take extreme exception to your Wikilawyering and use of legal terms that have no bearing. So bring your suit for libel. Let's see how meritorious it is. Otherwise, please refrain from making scurrilous accusations just because I've "called your number".--David Shankbone 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COOL, David, I never suggested that I was going to sue you, just that you made false statements about me that necessitated a response. I further note that if one of Chip Berlet's or WMC's political opponents went after them with hundreds of edits that were personal attacks forum-shopped over a dozen pages over a two-week-old content dispute on a talk page that never once entered mainspace they would have been blocked three or four times by now. You've made your lengthy case repeatedly, now let others discuss it. THF 17:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We are both trained as attorneys, THF, so do not use legal terms that have no legal bearing. The diff you provided applies to your commentary regarding liability reform, etc., not to how you rank documentaries and what qualifies as a documentary. You have no notability in this regard. If you continue to raise new arguments I will continue to respond to them, and asking me not to do so is a bit WP:KETTLE.

David: it is clear that several editors were insistent on revealing THF's identity against his wishes, and there was a minor edit war on that template. So it seems THF's action to quell that dispute (by adding the link himself) is a gracious concession on his part. If you consider me "one of his supporters", well you might like to know I support the decision he made. (Though, in fact, I am in no way a "supporter" of THF - only of Wikipedia policy). ATren 16:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

THF should be banned from any political (or politicized) articles on which his employer, the American Enterprise Institute, has taken a stand. It's a clear conflict of interest for him to be editing these articles. Raul654 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My employer takes no stands. It is nonpartisan think tank with a collection of scholars who frequently disagree with one another. Fred Thompson and Michael Greve and I have three different opinions about federalism and tort reform, for example. Sally Satel and I disagree with Leon Kass about many bioethics issues. I disagree with John Yoo on a number of legal issues. Norm Ornstein has published articles on the Roberts Court that are 180 degrees opposite of what I've published on the subject. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Sicko, (1) I don't have a COI; and (2) even if I did have a COI, my edits are consistent with WP:SCOIC, because I discuss them on the talk page first several hours in advance.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he doesn't like Moore," or "THF has a conflict of interest because he is right-wing," then I ask that COI guidelines be applied consistently and that every editor on the page who likes Moore or is left-wing be barred from editing the page, and the page be turned over to a set of people who have no opinions about Moore whatsoever. A look at the page's edit history (and at edits I have made) show that it's not the editors of the page who don't like Moore who are POV-pushing.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he has written about Moore," then this is a misreading of the COI guideline. So long as I don't edit the mainspace article to include my writing on Moore, I am not violating COI guidelines. Any other interpretation of the COI policy would demand that people with expertise in the subject cannot edit Wikipedia simply because they have published. Perhaps that's the rule Wikipedia wants, but then it should be enforced evenly, and all of the other academics should be kicked off the project also. Chip Berlet and William Connolley regularly edit (often self-promotionally) in the fields of their expertise, and when trolls repeatedly accuse them of the "appearance of COI," the trolls are blocked. I should not be treated any differently, so long as my mainspace edits are good-faith efforts to comply with Wikipedia policy. I have ~7000 edits on Wikipedia: if I am a POV-pusher, surely someone can find a mainspace diff of something I have done wrong. David's diffs are all to talk-page discussion in an effort to generate consensus--exactly what collaborative editing is all about.

If the argument is "THF's former employer was hired in 2004 by a pharmaceutical company all because the pharmaceutical company hoped that, three years later, THF, when he worked for a completely different employer, would make Wikipedia-policy-compliant edits to an article about a movie about health care, all because he performed some legal work on a completely different unrelated subject for the pharmaceutical company," I suggest that that is a self-refuting argument, and that anyone who makes it got it from an attack site that demonstrates their own COI under even application of the policy. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First I think THF has been fair in being known for the person he is. If he had wanted to, he could have been an anonymous editor on Wiki, and much of the arguments in this discussion would be invalidated.

On the other hand, I doubt whether it is wise for him to engage in Wiki articles on which he has an obvious point of view, which may not be neutral. Perhaps it may indeed be wise to have this voluntary "no-edit" policy, but I don't think that is something that needs enforcement. Arnoutf 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not COI, the issue is disruption

The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering. I've outlined this case in my above comment. Our policies and guidelines protecting user anonymity are there to protect the NYPD police officer who makes a factual but unflattering edit to the Michael Bloomberg page, and should his identity be found out, may have ramifications for him with his job. However, if Fernando Ferrer, a Bloomberg opponent, began editing the Mayor's page, his identity would be pertinent to the discussion, and our guidelines and policies would not protect Ferrer. The situation with THF is analogous to the Ferrer situation, not the police officer. THF's career is to criticize public figures that disagree with his ideological point of view, and in the situation at hand, with Michael Moore in particular. Our guidelines and policies are there to protect those of us who are not public figures so that we may edit with knowledge we possess without fear of negative consequences in our waking life. Harassment, death threats, stalking, job problems. THF, who now says he has nothing to hide, so I am guessing he does not mind being called Ted Frank, has none of these issues and if he does, they are probably more a problem when he goes on Fox News than when he edits Wikipedia. Therein lies the rub: Ted has wanted to protect his identity against "unseen forces" on Wikipedia that he curiously is not concerned about when he goes on national television, with his face, employer and identity for a much larger audience to see. The problems I see for sanctioning, since this is the sanction board, are as follows:

1. THF's WP:Wikilawyering - using and abusing the letter of policies and guidelines with no concern for the spirit of why these were intended. This has caused a massive amount of disruption on the Wikipedia Project. He argues he should be protected by rules that are not there to protect Fernando Ferrer or Ted Frank when they bring their public disputes onto Wikipedia.
2. THF's Disruptive editing - He has consumed the ANI board over the last week asking to have pertinent content removed from articles, in this case Michael Moore and his sub pages, because Moore fingered a known, notable public critic of his as one of his main Wikipedia editors. THF has instigated disruptive edits and made them himself by gaming our policies and guidelines.
3. THF's WP:COI - when a person authors an unnotable piece as THF did, and then argues strenuously to have it included, going so far as saying it is a violation of policy not to include it, they are violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines. When a person who has a public feud with another public person, such as Michael Moore, and then efforts to have that person's content removed from Wikipedia, it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines.

Those are my arguments for sanctioning.
--David Shankbone 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that your argument currently contradicts itself, as you say in the very first sentence that "The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering," yet your very last point at the bottom of your post says COI. —Kurykh 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing and inclusion were on purpose. The COI argument is the least of the problems with THF, yet above it is the only argument framed. The other two issues are the more serious and go to the heart of the matter. Although I am of the opinion that there are COI issues at stake, reasonable minds have differed on all three of the COI incidents that involved THF. The main problems are #1 and #2. --David Shankbone 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here it is... the ban proposal suggests a mainspace ban... I'm asking for some WP:DIFF to mainspace. And if we could correlate those to disruptive editing it would be helpful. Additionally, precedent at this board is to close proposals that are complex... the arbitration committee is more suited for complex cases, so if it turns out research needs to be done, and a straightforward case cannot be presented, I'll probably close this thread provided an absense of substantial objection to that. With regards, Navou ^banter 17:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't feel that THF's behavior needs to only apply to mainspace, since he has used our policies and guidelines to tie everyone up in what is a public feud with Michael Moore. I feel the diffs I have provided above point to this problem. A person can work behind the scenes and cause as much disruption as when they edit the mainspace. --David Shankbone 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I responded to the claims of disruption in an apology on WP:VPP#THF before I knew this thread existed. I won't repeat them here, though I note that David is violating WP:MULTI once again by repeating false accusations on multiple pages instead of directing people to one talk page.

If we're going to talk about disruption, then this needs to go to arb, because out of the two of me and David, it's quite clear who is being more disruptive. I have repeatedly acted to end disputes by conceding issues where I had good-faith arguments for continuing to stand for consistent enforcement of wikipedia policy, and David has refused to relent on anything or assume good faith, even in areas where his arguments were repeatedly rejected, and has repeatedly acted to throw fuel on the fire. And that's just on-wiki: off-wiki, we get to David's use of Wikipedia email servers to send off-wiki threats in an effort to intimidate me to yield on a content dispute. As I discussed off-wiki with several admins, I had been willing to bury the hatchet on that, and let bygones be bygones in the hopes that David would stop WP:STALKing me, but it seems that nothing is going to end David's vendetta against me without an express command from the arbitrators that he should leave me alone. His conduct is extraordinarily disruptive and not acceptable. THF 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. As the top of this page says: Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. This is becoming disruptive all by itself, I would suggest an RFC or ArbCom. RxS 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• For all of the arguments THF raises against me, my Talk page carries no admonishments. Curious that, considering how public this issue is. THF posts different responses all over the place, instead of directing people to one place, and then when I respond to those, I am WP:MULTI. THF, I e-mailed to raise to your attention that you edit Wikipedia a lot during the work day, and asked if you were concerned someone might raise this to the attention of your employer. I never said I would, and trust me, THF, I have a pretty full life and have no desire to try and harm your employ. If I really wanted to make it a threat, I wouldn't have e-mailed via Wikimedia servers, which I used b/c I didn't want to use your AEI address to ask the question - duh. I assumed (correctly) you had a different address assigned to your Wikipedia account than your employer's. I apologized, however, because the question was asked in a heated moment. Like there was no "attack" on you by Michael Moore, there was no "threat" by me in that e-mail. I've encouraged you to bring this up at ArbCom, and I was the one who first talked about it on-wiki. Other editors, admins even, raised the same issue with you. If you stop the disruption, the constant ANI threads over your identity, etc. I don't think this need go any further. Otherwise, I'm willing to take it as far as it needs to go. I only re-entered this issue with you once you started the thread to have MichaelMoore.com removed from Wikipedia, you may note. --David Shankbone 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Isarig

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.

This is not a vote to see who gets banned or who is allowed to stay. You can discuss whether or not he should be allowed to edit, but not treat it as a democratic lynching.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

---

• Isarig (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

User:Isarig has been a notable revert warrior here on Israel-related articles for two years. When not at WP:AN/3RR as an offender, he is there reporting editors who have mutually violated 3RR alongside him in edit wars (a sort of kamikaze edit warring followed by quickly 3RR reporting his opponent). He was recently blocked for one week for extensive warring at House demolition, but un-blocked two days early for promising to cease his perpetual edit warring. Despite the aforementioned leniency in his most recent block, it was discovered via CheckUser that Isarig has moved from edit-warring on his main account to edit-warring with the assistance of sockpuppets. Isarig unapologetically continues his edit war here on Wikipedia, treating Israel-Palestine and Arab-Israeli conflict related articles as a battleground (going so far as to accuse other editors of participating in Hamas' kidnappings amongst other incivility and personal attacks), and has now moved to evasive means of disruption (sockpuppetry) after promising administrators he would cease his edit wars. I used the phrase "moved on to sockpuppetry" loosely, as he has been using socks to revert to his preferred versions long before this most recent incident.

Warning users against gaming 3RR using a sockpuppet you yourself are using to game 3RR goes beyond "bad behavior"; this is active and concerted disruption. This is also deliberate deception and a malevolent use of Wikipedia as a battleground. I hold that Isarig has exhausted the community's patience, and should be community banned. If not completely community banned, I propose a topic ban on Isarig (and any accounts operated by Isarig) against editing any articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and greater Arab-Israeli conflict. Submitted by Italia^vivi 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

• Support full ban. If no community consensus for a full ban, a topic ban from articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts. Italia^vivi 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban. Were it not for the sockpuppetry, I would more strongly support a topic ban; as it is, I will support either but IMO a full ban is indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's evident that other policy measures have failed here and other editors are being affected outwith the topic space by 3RR bans brought about due to Isarig. Chris Cunningham 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this is not "Wikipedia users for deletion"; I ask the preceding users to consider striking out their pseudo-votes elaborating on their reasoning. Has anyone considered the idea of mentorship? Might Isarig be willing to be mentored voluntarily? Eleland 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, and are not used unless there is no other way to stop disruptive behavior. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first. Isarig agreed to cease his edit warring, then immediately resumed his edit warring with a sockpuppet account. I don't see how mentorship solves this kind of willful disruption; he has shown a willingness to be deceptive and evasive in continuing his edit warring. Since blocks are only preventative and not punitive, this is the only measure for those exhausted by Isarig's prolonged campaign here. I do, truly, believe the community to be exhausted with his war and have raised the issue in this (appropriate) venue. Italia^vivi 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ban. I've never seen a chronic 3RR violator and sockpuppet abuser turn into a productive editor. Wikipedia is not therapy. —Ruud 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would support a topic ban (first choice) or a siteban (second choice), given what appears to be the total absence of any sort of learning curve here. Articles dealing with Arab-Israeli issues are highly contentious in the best of hands - having one less incorrigible edit-warrior/POV-pusher/sockpuppeteer at work on them will be a plus for the encyclopedia. If we really believe that Wikipedia is not a battleground, then we need to be willing to take action against editors who insist on treating it as one. Isarig has had plenty of chances and abused whatever slack he's been cut, complete with false promises to reform. I would favor a topic ban initially, though given his track record I would not oppose a siteban. If Isarig is willing to consider mentorship, then the topic ban could be revisited after 6-12 months. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• As someone who's touched bases with Isarig periodically since last fall, I'm very disappointed to see that he was abusing my good faith and others' by abusing sockpuppets the whole time. This was someone who had impressed me as intelligent and reasonable, yet locked in a nearly insoluble edit conflict because the surrounding issues themselves are so intractable. I may not know how to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, but I do know what to do when an editor games Wikipedia's policies as long as this. Isarig, please respect the community's decision and e-mail me in half a year to ask for reinstatement. I'm supporting this proposal. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment - i've been working on Battle of Jenin for quite some time trying to promote the article despite hightened sensitivity and i can only attest that on said article, Isarig's edits (of recent) were on the same level as that of other involved editors such as User:Eleland or User:PalestineRemembered who decided to participate here (i believe PR should not make block votes on such issues considering he was just nominated for one and was assigned a mentor that was userchecked as a sock). anyways, at least accoring to the statments made here, it seems that Isarig has crossed a few lines, esp. if he has been war editing after a one week ban. i think that at least he should be given a chance to respond before any sanction is given and i suggest, perhaps, that a single mentor could be assigned both to him and to PR (who's CSN case should be reopened)... for the sake of neutrality. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is actionable evidence against someone else participating in this discussion, by all means act on it. I will be the very first to come support you if you have evidence against any editor as damning and blatant as what Isarig has been doing. This is not about any single incident or conflict, whether it is Isarig's most recent conflict or conflicts from two years ago. There is an unabashed pattern of eagerness to battleground on Isarig's part, topped off with false promises of reform followed by sockpuppetry. Italia^vivi 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am recusing myself from expressing an opinion here. But I would invite people to read any part of Talk:Battle of Jenin to see huge problems with this article and how it's been impossible to improve it. I don't recall ever seeing an article so poor (though in this example, Isarig may not be the worst culprit). PalestineRemembered 08:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban They had agreed to stop edit warring on 04:02, 7 November 2006. Since then they have been doing just the opposite. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at minimum; will support full ban if such is the community consensus. A one-week block is clearly not sufficient punishment under these circumstances. CJCurrie 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The intent is not to "punish" Isarig, but to free the project from a disruptive influence. Raymond Arritt 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban per User:MastCell, User:Durova, and User:FayssalF. Raymond Arritt 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse full ban, per the Puppy. This kind of disruption would usually merit only a topic ban by itself. But when you use a sock to engage in gross edit-warring on a very sensitive topic, you're effectively telling the community the rules don't apply to you. Fine then--he can't play at all. Blueboy96 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Full Ban Disruptive editor and has given little to the project. The Use of sockpuppets to further disruption and edit waring gives me great pause.Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Mentorship prior to ban. As I suggested with regards to PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) I think that before we ban anyone, even from topics, we need to try mentorship. This particular subject is extremely prone to being a tinderbox, and unless we are going to start getting equally draconian with all involved editors, I think that allowing for mentorship, and the possibility, however remote, of allowing for gainful contributions to the project needs to be investigated and implemented. Should the mentorship fail, it is very easy to bring user:Isarig or user:PalestineRemembered or anyone back here to the noticeboard. Everyone should get a chance to be helped with how to handle the strong emotions that this (and similar) topics engender. Only failing another's guidance and help should we be breaking out the banhammer. -- Avi 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig has actively deceived administrators who have given him chances for help or leniency in the past. I do not support mentorship for him at all, he has exhausted good-faith leniency already and abused it to the fullest extent (sockpuppetry). If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you. Italia^vivi 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, perhaps I am misreading you, but the tone of your edits seem to be becoming less and less interested in protecting the project, and more and more reminiscent of a personal grudge against this editor. “If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you.” is the type of statement someone with an axe to grind would make, not someone who is truly interested in the continuance and betterment of wikipedia. WP:CSN is neither meant to be a witchhunt nor a venue for personal schadenfreude. It is where editors, including adminsitrators, arbtors, etc., come together to decide on the best option for protecting the project. Your, mine, Jimbo's, or Willy on Wheel's personal opinions on user:Isarig are, for the most part, irrelevant. If the project feels that the possibility of mentorship is warranted, it will be applied, and if not not. You, in particular, should not have much to worry about, as if you are so convinced that Israig is incapable of correcting his recidivism, he will be brough back here soon enough. And if Isarig CAN prevent himself from being brought back here, and edits constrcutively, then your opinion will in hindsight be incorrect, and wouldn't you want not to be responsible for the improper banning of any editor? I see you in a win-win situation should mentorship be extended, except if you have a personal vendetta in mind, which I hope neither you nor anyone has. -- Avi 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I will support of ban of anyone who has done the following: 1) edit warred extensively, reaching the point of multiple one-week blocks 2) who then agrees to reform 3) and then immediately resumes their edit warring through the abusive use of socks. I don't appreciate the wholly unwarranted impugning of my participation ("axe to grind," "personal vendetta," etc). If PalestineRemembered or any other editor undertakes the type of war Isarig has, I will support their ban wholeheartedly regardless of the editor. Italia^vivi 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't support the ban in this instance. I agree that Isarig can be a disruptive editor, but there's been no form of dispute resolution here. I would like to see a user conduct RfC on the matter before I would even consider endorsing a ban. Some form of mentorship would most probably be a good idea here, if it doesn't work we can always re-evaluate the situation and ban him at a later date - attempts at taming a problematic editor are better than outcasting them. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I totally agree with your principles here: mentorship would be ideal. However, skilled mentors are a limited resource; mentoring a problem user consumes quite a bit of volunteer and community resources. Yes, if an experienced user steps forward willing to mentor Isarig, that would be best. But if we can't find a good mentor, then I think a ban (at least a 6-12 month topic ban) is appropriate. A user-conduct RfC is designed to solicit the feedback of uninvovled editors - here, that feedback has generally supported sanctions. User-conduct RfC's are only effective if there's reason to believe that the editor in question is open to feedback. In this case, it's clear that Isarig knows the rules and is repeatedly and intentionally ignoring them. I don't see how collecting a bunch of editors to tell him something he already knows will change things. But then I tend toward cynicism. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • A topic ban in this case would probably be a very good idea. I think a six month Israeli related article ban should be enforced with blocks of upto one week each time he edits them. Community 1RR should also be applied, again enforcable with blocks of 1 week each time it is broken. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ban, either full, or at the very least topic ban, for not less than 6 months. This is not about dispute resolution; it is about constant and unapologetic contempt for the rules. This user has been extremely disruptive for years now, and his use of sockpuppets has shown clearly that his constant wikilawyering and harping on the rules has been little more than hypocritical trolling. He is always the first to file 3RR reports against users whom he is engaged in edit wars with, even though his own fourth revert comes within an hour or two after the 24hr deadline. Now we learn that he'd been circumventing that deadline anyway with sockpuppets! In addition, something another user mentioned bears repeating here -- Isarig's contributions to Wikipedia in general have been disruptive rather than productive. Over 80% of his edits in article space is a revert, usually accompanied with a snide edit summary. Rarely does he make an edit that is not politically charged and tendentious -- he never corrects spelling/grammar errors or adds information to articles that is purely factual or descriptive. He constantly deletes well-sourced information from articles. In the talk space, over 80% of his contributions include personal attacks and threats to escalate each content dispute into a WP/ANI report. Again this becomes even more objectionable when accompanied by the hypocrisy of acting like the rules apply to everyone else but not to him. We should not be too surprised about all this in any case. About a year ago I got into a conflict with Isarig because I had the audacity to suggest that paid meatpuppets (i.e. people paid by an agent specifically to make certain edits to Wikipedia) presented a conflict of interest problem and should identify themselves; Isarig's position in the ensuing discussion is quite telling. Basically, he defended the practice, suggesting that paid meatpuppetry presented no greater COI problem than editors with ideological perspectives that influence their editing. Now that I know he was operating sockpuppet accounts specifically for the purpose of violating WP rules that entire time, the vehemence and rudeness of his defense of the equivalent of bribery makes a lot more sense. csloat 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I am immensely dismayed by this circus wherein all those people who have traditionally opposed Isarig on Israel-related articles have converged to propose a ban on him. Isarigais a good-faith and prolific editor, and it is apparent that he is being persecuted for POV rather than behavior. This witchhunt must stop now. Beit Or 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editors don't use sockpuppets for edit-warring and committing 3RR violations. Italia^vivi 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting Isarig is being "persecuted" for his POV, or calling this a "witchhunt", is convenient but utterly inaccurate. Isarig has a worse block log than many topic-banned or sitebanned editors, he's abused the trust extended to him by neutral editors, he's shown no signs of improving his behavior despite multiple blocks and warnings, and he's most recently abused sockpuppets to edit-war. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mentorship I used to edit the Israeli-Palestinian articles extensively. Although I admit having little experience with Isarig, I can attest to the fact that there is an infuriating sense of lawlessness that permeates every single article in the subject. Good behavior never goes unpunished and activity that would be considered negative and harmful elsewhere is consistently rewarded. It is clear that Isarig has more or less fallen into the same hole many other editors have, but let us not pretend his behavior is abnormal or even out of the ordinary. I hope we not only support mentorship for Isarig, but also for countless other editors who frequent the same articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I do not support a ban for this editor. I would second the suggestion for some kind of mentorship above. I would also call for Isarig to admit his mistake and publically apologize and promise not to do it again. Clearly, Isarig he has done wrong things such as the sockpuppets and he should be punished in some way for this. He should certainly be blocked for a time for that behavior, and certainly for longer than any previous blocks. In my experience with Isarig and the editor who left the comment above, CSLOAT, Isarig took some very strong personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and did not give it back as badly as he got it. He did not edit war any more than others. Clearly he could have been more civil, but unfortunately this is a highly highly uncivil environment. We should NOT put the blame only on Isarig here for that incivility. Others have been uncivil, others have been blocked for reverting and edit warring, others may have used sock puppets, etc. This should be a wake up call to everyone involved that the ends do not justify the means, that wikipedia policies are here for a reason, they apply equally to all of us, and if we want to produce good articles here we have to tolerate opposing views and allow the encyclopedia to express them. Bigglove 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and support mentorship. The one-week ban that was already imposed seems sufficient, per the banning admin's statement on AN/I. Then if mentorship is imposed in similar kinds of cases, that would be reasonable as well. I agree with some of the comments above, that at least some of the calls for harsher measures seem to be related to content and/or personal disputes. 6SJ7 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By way of extension, I can't help but wonder if some of the calls for lenience are related to ongoing content disputes. CJCurrie 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Such wondering should be done mentally, unless you have evidence of bad faith. -- Avi 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that mentorship cannot really be "imposed". It requires a credible, experienced volunteer mentor to step forward and agree to mentor Isarig (see the case of NCdave above). MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - sockpuppetry is wrong, but I don't think indefban is warranted. Clearly, some of the calls for harsh measures are coming from Isarig's opponents in content disputes and/or usual conspiracy mongerers. Unfortunately, articles related to Jewish history and religion are not the best example of collaboration in WP. Isarig is far from being the worst offender there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  This is a two-way street; clearly, some of the calls for leniency are coming from those who share a similar position and ideology with Isarig. Tarc 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting. For what it's worth, I see that people who share Isarig's POV are opposing the ban, while those who differ with his POV are supporting it. To be expected. But it's pretty clear, contrary to this being a case of Isarig's opponents or "the usual conspiracy mongers" (?) ganging up on Isarig, most of the really neutral editors (and I would include KillerChihuahua, Durova, Raymond arritt, Aeon1006, Ruud, Thumperward, and Blueboy96 among them - correct me if I'm wrong) have supported the topic ban. I don't think this can be blown off as people re-enacting a POV or content dispute. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • However, has mentorship ever been tried? I am loathe to jump to a ban without giving this, or any user, an opportunity to ask for, and receive, guidance. A topic ban during the initial stages of mentorship may be appropriate, but being able to be rescided earlier at the mentor's discretion. It is very easy to bring people back here, so I fail to see the downside. -- Avi 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with you - mentorship would be ideal, assuming Isarig is interested and a suitable mentor is willing to take him on. If he is mentored, it would probably still be appropriate to have a temporary topic ban (3-6 months?) which could be revisited after that time with input from the mentor (it looks like something similar is going to be tried with NCdave from the above thread). MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It looked to me like Durova, from what she was saying above, had been informally keeping an eye on Isarig. If so, an experienced admin, whose opinion on these matters I would trust, has spoken out against mentorship. If that impression was inaccurate, then I would change my suggestion below to be morein line with MastCell's, above. Hornplease 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• IMO, a Topic Ban would be the best way to go. (For the record, I've had quite negative dealings with Isarig, but not for several months or so now). Anyways, if a user has been brought to a point where gaming 3RR to the point where sock-puppets are being utilized, then that's a pretty serious problem. Try a removal from all Israeli-Palestinian, Middle East, etc...articles, as these are the focus of the rule-breaking. See if he can redeem himself by editing in another field of interest/hobby/study. If the attitude and corresponding bad actions crop up again, then the idea of a further ban could be brought up. Tarc 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'd suppose a topic ban for a set period is worth a try. I would have supported mentorship, but Durova's points above seem to indicate that that is simply inappropriate in this case. Let Isarig demonstrate his willingness to improve the encyclopaedia in areas where he does not feel the need to oppose( what he presumably sees as) trolling, and then the community might feel a measure of trust that he does indeed have WP's interests in mind, and intends to pay more than lip service to its policies and guidelines. (Frankly, all the people arguing that "everyone is bad" in these cases miss the point. Some people are worse, and those that simultaneously abuse the system and use it to their advantage, like several editors have established Isarig has done in this area, are the worst.) For the record, Israel-Palestine articles occupy a tiny fraction of my time here, and do not recall running into this particular editor. Its a pity that this sort of disclaimer is required. Hornplease 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose total ban. I would support a block more limited in temporal and topical scope. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Topic ban for a set period along Hornplease's reasoning. Mentorship could well be a waste of time, as there's hardly anyone on Israel related articles that wouldn't need one. --tickle me 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban for now Assuming all the evidence is accurate (and apologies for my tone if it is not), I want to say that I am deeply disappointed in Isarig. However, Isarig has been a valuable editor; many editors have contributed almost nothing to WP, and what they contribute is mostly trolling and disruption, and they are usually given the option to be mentored. So I would propose a temporary topic ban, to be lifted when/if a suitable mentor can be found. If any violations of WP:SOCK continue, it would be a matter to reconsider here. IronDuke 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support strict conditions & mentorship; something like 0RR on any Middle East topics would be nice to start with. Evading 3RR with socks is a serious violation, especially for an editor who is so prolific in 3RR reporting of others and so eager to play the "electric fence" game with 4th reverts at 24h:1m. Furthermore, it is clear that pro-Arab editors are held to far higher standards when it comes to revert warring, incivility, et cetera. Yet two wrongs don't make a right; there's something in Canadian law called the faint hope clause and I think it ought to apply even to such disruptive editors. This being said, we need a very sharp mentor indeed, preferably someone who comes from the opposite POV, and there needs to be effective follow-up. If this is not psosible, than reluctantly I have to say community ban. Eleland 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support total indefinite ban Let's not forget that Isarig was a sockpuppeteer, conducted disrupted edited, wikilawyered, and used wikpedia as a battleground. I can post diffs on request. Other sockpuppeteers have been indefinitely banned for doing far less. For example user:Rovoam, user:Buffadren, User:Mark_us_street, user:Bonaparte, user:LIGerasimova, user:Artaxiad. Note that my interaction with Isarig has been minimal although his shotgun reverts of sourced material of other users has kept me away from the Arab-Israeli topics due to the fact that I didn't want to waste time researching and posting something in case Isarig reverts it. I believe he is a serious detriment to the project, not only for his revert waring but preventing other editors from participating in topics for which they may have an interest. Pocopocopocopoco 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Given that all of the examples you list here were banned for multiple sock accounts, almost all of which were used to vandalize and/or violate copyright and/or harass, what you appear to be arguing is that leniency should be shown to Isarig, since his infraction, serious though it was, pales in comparison to your examples. IronDuke 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• The examples that I have listed were users that were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry that were far less aggressive with their reverts than Isarig. For exmple, above user:Buffadren wasn't even a major revert warrior but was banned on a suspicion of a conflict of interest. user:Commodore Sloat may have also raised a suspicion of a conflict of interest with Isarig. Pocopocopocopoco 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, every single example you listed was guilty of using multiple socks over multiple articles for long periods of time, and I think all of them were vandals. If you had investigated the matter before you posted, you would have seen that user:Buffadren was shown to be User:Mark_us_street, whom you list as a separate user. It looks very like you have a personal grudge here, and I urge the community to take that into consideration. I also respectfully urge you to be more careful with your accusations. IronDuke 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• First off, I want to make it clear that I'm frankly pissed off with the guy for running socks. This is really not acceptable and he needs some sort of a time out in order to reflect on his participation here. On the pages I've with him, I've never had any reason to believe he was doing this so it has appeared out of the blue. Very disappointing. That being said, I think there are are couple points about this discussion which I think need to be addressed.

1) Complaining about Isarig's 3RR reports is bogus self pity. Nobody forces anyone to 3RR, and if you do, and you get blocked for it -too bad. That's not disruption. Look in the mirror, and improve yourself.

The problem is that Isarig deliberately escalates edit wars in hopes of filing reports. I'm not defending those who have genuinely broken 3RR and been reported by Isarig, but I absolutely condemn his practice of edit-warring with the apparent intent of escalating 3RR violations. Italia^vivi 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

2) Isarig has been called a disruptive editor. I don't think that's entirely true. I think he's argumentative, and I think he sometimes engages in debate farther than he should and he needs to be more civil. OTOH, the ME topics on WP are a mud pit and he's generally much more civil that the people he's arguing with. Here's a recent example, look at Talk:House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where he's referred to as a "troglodyte".

If an editor who wages frequently wages edit wars (sometimes utilizing sockpuppets) isn't "disruptive," I have no idea what is. Italia^vivi 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3) I also don't see him stonewalling the inclusion of properly sourced material, or injecting poorly sourced material, as is seemingly routine on these topics. I think it's safe to say he has a pro-Israeli POV, but when he abides by policy, I think he's an asset to the project. The trick it to make sure he does, so I support mentorship, but I don't support a indefinite ban at this point. <<-armon->> 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on #1 -- nobody here is reporting this for "bogus self pity" reasons; the problem is that Isarig was using illegal sockpuppets for the specific reason of circumventing Wikipedia's 3RR policy, while at the same time using the 3RR as a license and as a battering ram against other users. The issue is not who violated 3RR but rather Isarig's totally hypocritical attitude towards Wikipedia rules. He'd use the 3RR as a license to revert three times every day, with the fourth revert at 24:01 or some such. When he made a mistake and got blocked he'd come back and promise not to do it again. Meanwhile he'd use the 3RR and other rules to get his way on content disputes, reporting and threatening to report anyone who disagreed with him to ANI. All the time he was flagrantly violating these rules, using a sock to evade the 3RR while trying to get others in trouble for it. It really shows his complete contempt for the rules - few have been more self-righteous than Isarig about the Wikipedia rules, yet at the same time, few have been more flagrant in violating them. I think that's the crux of the issue on #1. On #2 and 3 I respectfully disagree, but a debate over those matters is not necessary at this time -- he is not being sanctioned for those particular abuses. csloat 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose ban and support mentorship. Banning is a last resort, why not try positive approaches (like mentorship) first? --MPerel 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

Archival

Why was this archived above? Ryulong, I don't think anyone is treating this as a lynching. Certainly there are some flared emotions surrounding Isarig, but I don't think anyone in the above discussion is trying to "lynch" him. I think there are a lot of frustrated users who are upset because Isarig's complete contempt for the rules around here has so far gone unsanctioned. I also don't see how this has been resolved, so I don't think the archiving of the discussion is helpful at this time. But everyone should be clear that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish Isarig or get revenge on him but rather to protect Wikipedia from his abuses. csloat 05:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an AFD for banning a user. Start it over without the support and oppose.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point, I'm sorry. There have been several sanctions suggested above -- total ban, time bound ban, topic ban, time bound topic ban, mentorship.. the above discussion appears to point to various levels of support for various options and some support for a combination of options. csloat 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone should be banned is not something people should type "*'''Support'''" and "*'''Oppose'''" for. I don't care what sanctions are listed above. They need to be discussed and not voted on like WP:RFA or WP:AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that AFD is not a vote either. In any case, this is a discussion in that people are responding to each other's points and attempting a consensus. Asking each person to repeat his or her argument, but without bolding any text, seems a little absurd to me. Hornplease 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of processes on this website that are called "not a vote" but in actuality often are. This page is returning to its old ways of driveby bannings, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly most AFDs do not meet the most perfect standards of discussion. That being said, the above discussion does not appear to be a driveby banning at all. A great number of people have objected to an outright permanent ban, and some have called for mentorship; its quite clear that there is engagement and evolution of positions going on. Nobody is likely to claim that the sheer number of votes matter here. What is a drive-by, I'm afraid, is your archiving. Hornplease 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of bolded suggestions here either, however, I don't think the archival in this case is helpful either, those positions appear to be supported by rationales. Thanks, Navou ^banter 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's being treated like AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So if we go through and un-bold statements of "support" and "oppose" can we keep the discussion? It seems like you're arbitrarily throwing up an obstacle to what appears to be a meaningful discussion about the issues raised and about possible sanctions. csloat 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a reasonable solution to be to simply un-bold the text? Something more drastic could be to remove all instances of "support" or "oppose" and judging each comment by its rationale. But asking users to "start it over" is being neither productive, nor considerate of other people's time and efforts.Bless sins 08:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? Or is it like i could do edit war for 2 years + use abusive socks and after that come here where people would use bold text and then comes an admin closing like leave him alone guys, you are lynching him. What's particular about this User? All files here use the same bold system. Any rationale? - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above, there were dissenting voices raised against a total ban, but the case for a topic ban was not refuted. Some mentioned mentorship but I'm not sure what good this would be for a long-established editor who should be aware of our community standards. Catchpole 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was clear that no consensus to total ban but the question is what is the outcome now? He'd get back in a few days and say hello. Can we guarantee that no use of socks would be accepted? How would you know? Go phishing and being accused of wikistalking? Can we guarantee he'd not use the 3RR as a tactical tool? We haven't arrived to that point and yet the thread has been archived. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying not to interfere with the decision-making side of this discussion, but I am startled to see that User:Isarig has apparently never been asked to list the sock-puppets he has created and used. There is a credible sounding allegation that he is operating yet another one, see here. Perhaps disturbingly, this User:Bigglove has come here and contributed to this CSN. (It is also pushing this RfC against CSloat on what appear to me to be trivial grounds, for something CSloat has apologised for). I urge the community to get to the bottom of the serious allegations in this case. PalestineRemembered 08:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here to remove my comments from this discussion, only to find the discussion archived. On another page, a user had taken exception to my posting them as I am accused of being the sockpuppet of Isarig. I am not Isarig, but anyone reading my comments in the discussion above should feel free to disregard them given the concern raised by csloat and PalestineRemembered. One would do well to note, however, that in my remarks I did not flinch from condemming Isarig for his policy infractions and calling for his punishment. I will not comment on points CSloat raises concerning the user conduct RFC that I brought regarding CSloat. That discussion is appropriately kept on that project page. Bigglove 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have recused myself from the banning discussion, as I have had a number of feisty exchanges with Isarig. This brief post is only a response to to Armon's above (in the archived discussion), wherein he describes how Isarig is often more civil than his talk-page interlocutors, one of whom recently called him a "troglodyte." I was the author of the post in question, which Armon has badly misunderstood. There was a dispute about whether Isarig had rightly deleted a sentence about Rachel Corrie's death having raised international awareness of Israel's demolition policy on the grounds that it was unsourced. Another editor argued that "only someone living in a cave would not know that Rachel Corrie's death brought world attention to the house demolition issue", therefore it would have been more appropriate for Isarig to add a fact tag to the sentence than to delete it. I came in at that point, offered a source for the "disputed" material (after the seven seconds or so it took me to find one), and invited the "troglodytes" to inspect it "once their pupils have adjusted" to the light. "Troglodyte" literally and etymologically means "cave-dweller" (Latin troglodytae, plural, from Greek trOglodytai, from trOglE hole, cave (akin to Greek trOgein to gnaw, Armenian aracem I lead to pasture, graze) + dyein to enter). Armon presumably did not understand the play on words.--G-Dett 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Does anyone disagree that there is a consensus for a combination topic-ban and mentorship? My sugggestion:

• A six-month topic ban from Israeli-Palestinian articles combined with mentorship as to how to handle some of the passions it engenders.
  • During the duration of the ban, a violation may be reverted on sight and a block (length variable 24 hours to one week - most likely at the discretion of the mentor) applied.
  • The ban can be reduced by the mentor should the mentor feel Isarig has shown significant improvement.
• Indefinite limitation to solely the user:Isarig account, even for legitimate reasons. Any violation of this provision should result in a community ban.

Thoughts? -- Avi 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A little harsh, but basically fair. IronDuke 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with IronDuke, harsh but basically fair, we need a good mentor though; and Isarig's agreement to listen to the mentor. Arnoutf 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, stating, "As the underlying dispute has been satisfactorily resolved by the community, and as no evidence of bad-faith actions by any party has been presented, this case is closed with no further actions being taken." This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing dismissed

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to dismiss the Arbitration case entitled "Vision Thing". This has been passed with the rationale that there is a lack of usable evidence. For the arbitration committe, Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

The above named arbitration case has closed. The remedy is as follows:

The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

The full case decision is here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives

Community sanction noticeboard has no jurisdiction here and is not able to accomplish this. I do not support such an extreme step.--Jimbo Wales 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a political topic ban on the United States House of Representatives congressional offices (IP range 143.231.241.0-255.255 / 143.228.0.0-248.255) to expire November 5, 2008 – one day after the next general election. Editors who use this range would be banned from editing Wikipedia articles that relate to politics. They may post suggested changes to article talk pages. Editors who use this range via registered accounts are strongly urged to disclose their affiliation and refrain from direct edits to political articles.

This organization has been in persistent violation of fundamental site policies. Particularly troublesome are habitual attempts to remove sourced information from political biographies. Due to the IT configuration of the House congressional offices, all representatives and their staffs share the same IP addresses. This ban proposal is nonpartisan: policy violations have stemmed from both major parties.

Problem edits from this IP range became national news in early 2006. Although some useful edits have also occurred, the rate of vandalism is unacceptable by any standard. 22 user blocks have accumulated since November 2005. Wikipedians have attempted dispute resolution, posted dozens of warnings, and the WikiScanner has attracted international attention - yet problems continue unabated.

Recent examples

1. On 27 August 2007 someone from a congressional office computer altered the military service history of Bill Clinton from “none” to “draft dodger”.[30]

2. 24 August 2007 - Rep. Bobby Rush (Democrat, Illinois)[31]

Deleted the following:

In March 2006, Rush was co-author, along with conservative congressman Joe Barton, of the controversial Barton-Rush Bill. The bill would significantly benefit telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Qwest — a bill that generated some controversy after it was revealed that the charitable arm of major telephone company SBC (now AT&T) paid over $1 million to an Englewood charity Rush and his wife founded to create the Bobby L. Rush Community Technology Center [32].

3. 24 August 2007 - Rep. Jerry Moran (Republican, Kansas)[33]

Deleted the following:

Environmental groups have criticized Moran for what they see as a consistently anti-environment voting record. The nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters gave him a score of eight out of 100 on environmental issues, citing among other things his support for oil drilling both offshore and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and his opposition to low-income energy assistance and public right-to-know legislation regarding the Toxics Release Inventory.League of Conservation Voters Republicans for Environmental Protection gave Moran a score of 13 for the 109th Congress, noting that he voted anti-environment on 3 out of 4 issues deemed critical by the group. REP criticized Moran for supporting salvage logging, the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to build logging roads in the Tongass National Forest, and expanded drilling, as well as for voting to weaken the Toxics Release Inventory system and to undermine provisions of the Clean Water Act.Republicans for Environmental Protection 2006 Scorecard

4. 25 August 2007 - Rep. David Davis (Republican, Tennessee) tells the press Nobody pays any attention to Wikipedia and points to inappropriate edits at other congressional biographies in response to a scandal about repeated blanking vandalism that his press secretary Timothy Hill admitted to having performed.[34] (Proposing editor's disclosure.[35])

Blocks, warnings, and dispute resolution

Block history.[36]

Warnings:

• User_talk:143.231.249.141
• User_talk:143.231.249.137
• User_talk:143.231.249.138

Dispute resolution:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress

Applicable policies and guidelines

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Vandalism
• Wikipedia:Editing policy
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Autobiography
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Background

• Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits
• Congressional staff actions prompt Wikipedia investigation

Principle

The "edit" button is not an invitation to censor verified information. For most of the last two years the government of China has blocked Wikipedia behind a firewall. It would be inconsistent to countenance censorship from one source while opposing it from another since the fundamental aim is identical: to pretend before the public that governance is better than it is. Wikipedia is not censored.

The principle is the same whether we're dealing with Joe's Barbershop or Capitol Hill. People wouldn't visit a library to rip pages from Encyclopedia Britannica and they shouldn't mar this encyclopedia either. This is a nonprofit project run by volunteers that attempts to provide well sourced information at no cost to the public; its patience cannot be infinite in the face of persistent abuse. Durova^Charge! 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses

• This is certainly a convincing case... but should we really topic ban the United States government? -Amarkov moo! 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What else can we do? We've been patient and reasonable and tried the usual solutions. The public has a legitimate interest in getting neutral sourced information when they access our articles. If Joe's Barbershop had acted this way it would have been banned without fanfare long ago. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If Congressional offices are going to try to sanitize Wikipedia entries, wouldn't we prefer for them to do it from their Congressional IPs where they can be caught and embarrassed if they do something wrong than to encourage them to create outside accounts from the nearby Kinkos or Library of Congress (or home computer)? This is always going to be a problem so long as Wikipedia permits anonymous editing. Logistically, how are we going to notify every IP of a topic ban? THF 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Similar arguments have been attempted and have failed in other ban discussions. No, we do not permit open violation of policies because abusive editors might try covert violation. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Besides, it is in these individuals' best interest not to try sneaky manipulation. Editors who head down that path typically leave a trail of mistakes and the negative PR would be considerably worse than actions that could be explainable as goofs from a summer intern. Durova^Charge! 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Democracy and censorship are incompatible, therefore if a bastion and symbol of the democratic free world is proven to be censoring (by removing referenced material) then it behoves us that restrictions be placed on the ability to edit from that institution. Note that we will not be censoring, but placing a system of checks and balances so that it can be seen that WP is acting transparently in allowing encyclopedic material is added, and disallowing improper deletions. I see no reason why such a system in these instances should not be permanent. LessHeard vanU 13:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Editors who use this range via registered accounts are strongly urged to disclose their affiliation and refrain from direct edits to political articles." Given they way things work in practice, the strong urge is to set up accounts and deny their affiliation, and demand we assume good faith. THF makes a good point about the ip edit record at least providing some public accountability. On the other hand, Durova made a solid case based on policy. A topic ban for congressional ips is likely to be the de facto result as they vandalize and get blocked for it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Question How would this be enforced? Are we going to block violators? Since they all use the same range, we might just as well anon-block the whole range and force them to use accounts. (Of course, this way, only checkusers could tell if this range is editing.) Or do we authorize any user to revert without limit edits from this range regardless of quality? That could lead to partisan edit warring by registered editors (whether or not to revert "good" edits from this range). Thatcher131 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Enforcement would be through blocks, same as with any other topic ban, and if that fails we can raise it to a full siteban. Regarding the block method, I like the question and actually I had originally drafted a long term soft block on the IP range. Decided not to go with that for three reasons: there's more precedent for community topic banning, problem edits were concentrated on the topic of politics with more useful edits to other subjects, and in case some staffers try to evade this ban, the investigation would be simpler if the underlying IP isn't blocked. Seasoned wikisleuths will know what I mean. Durova^Charge! 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A case is there in principle as this has been a recurring problem, however, taking such an extreme move will almost certainly attract (possibly unwanted) media attention and will set a precedent for this course of action during other elections, not just in the USA and not just general elections. Besides this, there are easy shortcuts around a sanction in this case and it won't ultimately stop the problem. The articles in question are patrolled frequently anyway and so any erroneous changes are likely to be caught out within a matter of hours or days. I'm not convinced a sanction in this case will save us any work or improve the quality of the wiki. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The only precedent in question is whether this organization can set itself above this site's policies. If it can, then who else can? I propose this in the hope that decisive action will have a deterrent effect. Certainly, given the recent news, more organizations ought to be deterred from damaging Wikipedia articles. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is not our decision to make. See our policy on the blocking of sensitive IP addresses; this kind of decision is expressly not to be made by the community, for good reason. The policy states: "These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations and blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications that must be managed by the Foundation's press relations team. Avoid long blocks of these addresses and be especially careful in formulating your block messages because your block message will be seen and commented on by the press". This kind of blocking decision must be made by the m:Communications_committee. Neil ム 14:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect for what appears to be a very sincere response, that mischaracterizes policy: our responsibility is to inform them promptly after implementing a block. Blocking decisions on this IP range have already been made 22 times. My approach has been very conservative: I informed Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales days in advance and sent them an early draft of the proposal. Durova^Charge! 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But it says "avoid long term blocks" - how is this anything other than a long-term block? Have Cary or Jimbo responded at all to this proposal? I think editing restrictions are also a poor idea. Has there been any comparison done on how many good edits on political articles come from HoR addresses? To take action assuming all their edits are COI and/or vandalism is naïve - people from those IPs would probablyt be some of our most potentially knowlegable contributors to Wikipedia's political articles, particularly the older ones. Incidentally, even if Jimbo / Bastique do leave it to the community to decide,and are happy to abjure responsibility at this time, my reccomendation is not to block all House of Representative IPs for a lengthy period of time. Reasons include that it sets a dangerous precedent (would we therefore then preemptively block all government IPs for a set period of time before elections?), it's unnecessary (has there really been that much vandalism? 22 blocks on a huge IP range is not very much, at all), it's almost intended to create an unnecessary fuss (I dread to think what the media reaction would be), and it's assuming bad faith on a particularly high profile range of addresses, when, if anything, we should be assuming good faith more than ever. Neil ム 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• E kala mai, but this would be a terrible decision. Why punish somebody for something they might do in the future? Does the benefit outweigh the PR (and openness) implications? While it would be nice if they didn't vandalize, the editors can still make useful contributions. No need to kill this albatross just yet. It's not the kind of weight we want around our necks. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Another issue, you would be blocking the most expert editor (albeit possibly biased) on the topics involved there are. I think and hope the self-cleansing potential of Wiki is strong enough to cover this. When in doubt why not set up a kind of "guard dog project" that closely monitors the vulnerable articles to prevent and revert this behaviour. I know it is a pain, but some valuable information may well be provided from Capitol Hill once in a while, and we would not like to lock ourselves away from that, do we? Arnoutf 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave (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.

NCDave is banned from Steven Milloy and related articles including Advancement of Sound Science Center, Junk Science, and Sound science Raul654 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

---

NCdave (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focused on Steven Milloy. He has evinced most or all of the characteristics of a tendentious editor: he's been blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, although he argues that he was not reverting but was "un-reverting". After the release of one 3RR block, he immediately returned to edit-war over the same issue, resulting in another block. He labels edits he disagrees with as "vandalism". He repeats the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone (see the entire Talk:Steven Milloy). He simultaneously runs 5 or 6 redundant talk page threads, and if other editors fail to respond to one of them, he declares "consensus". His first activity, on arriving at Talk:Steven Milloy, was to systematically append his Last Word to a series of thread which were 6 months to over 1 year old ([37]). He then accused me of malfeasance for archiving these "active" threads. He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent ([38]), defamation, lying ([39], [40]), etc. Recently he's gone in for full-on personal attacks and implicit legal threats ([41]) and attacking uninvolved admins ([42]). These are not new problems: before Milloy, NCdave was a single-purpose POV warrior on Terri Schiavo, where his consensus-building approach of charging other editors with a desire to murder Schiavo led to this RfC.

Bottom line: NCdave is a highly tendentious, disruptive editor with a single purpose at present, a long history and multiple blocks for 3RR and edit-warring, for which he is utterly unrepentant. He persists in disrupting Steven Milloy. I propose that he be banned from the article and talk pages of Steven Milloy and closely related subjects. I will notify NCdave and involved users from the Milloy article of this thread. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban Raul654 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with User:Mastcell, and I have been involved with the dispute over at Steven Milloy. Yilloslime 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. As the Schiavo material shows, this is a repetitive pattern.JQ 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban One is struck by the similarity of his behavior on Steven Milloy to his actions on Terri Schiavo as detailed in the previous RfC. A broader concern is that even if he is banned from Milloy-related articles, he may simply move on to demonstrate the same disruptive behavior in some other topic. Raymond Arritt 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban on Steven Milloy and closely related subjects. Is it possible to list these "closely related subjects" here so we are up front on which articles the ban extends to?--Alabamaboy 23:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Closely related articles would at least include: Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Center and Junk Science, possibly Sound science and perhaps others.Yilloslime 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Alabamaboy 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• When I have a strong POV on a subject I tread lightly, so my opinion here is prefaced by the following: I am not neutral about Terri Schaivo. My views on that case formed from firsthand experience as a caregiver who, while I was speaking on behalf of a terminally ill relative who could not advocate for himself, had the unsettling experience of being interrupted on two separate occasions by a health care professional who presumed the patient's wishes were DNR. Actually his desires were the reverse and he had the foresight to have expressed them in a legal document; I stood over that nurse and that (ahem) "patient advocate" while I insisted they read his real desires. I hope those individuals never made such an abhorrent mistake again. That said, I support the ban proposal. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy. If one's views are so strong that they demand attention then seek another venue, preferably one that satisfies WP:RS so the opinion can then enter an article legitimately as a regular citation. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for bringing up Terri Schiavo in a manner which doesn't do justice to the complexities of her particular situation. My intention in doing so was only to provide the context that NCdave's current issues are not isolated, but part of a pattern of behavior. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but really no need for the apology. Sometimes editors worry that bans are about politics rather than policies. I hope NCdave and others see how that isn't so. Durova^Charge! 12:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban He does not seem to able to give ground, even when his position is untenable. --TimLambert 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban. To my knowledge I have never contributed to the Milloy page, but it's on my watch list (can't remember why). A topic ban strikes me as a very restrained measure to take. I base this from what I've seen on that travesty and confusing mess of a talk page, as well as the edit-warring in general (both S.Milloy pages). Additionally, it should come with a warning that future similar behavior on the next article would result in a long term and complete ban. R. Baley 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Having just reverted-and-blocked a SPA who'd turned up here on their very first edit, after a careful review of this editor's contributions I endorse the topic ban. This fellow is clearly quite the troll, and further problems must clearly lead to a siteban. One thing, though - his first edit, with the summary - "Corrected numerous factual errors and severe POV bias; added additional information, photo, and links" - and this third - "revert JonGwynne's POV vandalism; however, Dale Arnett's subsequent minor correction was retained" - hello, anyone? Do I hear quacking in the foot-clothing drawer, or is there something perfectly legitimate here that I've missed? Moreschi ^Talk 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting. He started editing during the Terri Schiavo controversy, when there was extensive off-wiki canvassing to enlist editors to "correct" the POV of the Wikipedia article (some of this is alluded to in his prior RfC). I assumed that perhaps he had some familiarity with Wikipedia-speak via these off-wiki organizational efforts, but who knows. For the record, I'm not aware of any evidence that he's involved in sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you suspect me of sockpuppetry, Moreschi? Well, you're wrong. I've complained to many people about misbehavior of certain editors on Wikipedia, in the Steven Milloy article and elsewhere, but I didn't ask that person to create his account, and I didn't write that tome of his that you reverted. Every new Wikipedian has a first contribution. I am grateful that his first contribution was here. NCdave 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but I would be fascinated to know how you were using such sophisticated edit summaries, using acronyms for official policy, on your very first edit. BTW, someone is socking here, because the troll who I reverted-and-blocked was quite clearly an experienced user. Moreschi ^Talk 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, WP User 29 opposes banning me. (read his comments, which Moreschi deleted, here) NCdave 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. While the block log speaks volumes, the pattern of disruption on the pages is tendentious in the extreme. NCdave has soapboxed, edit-warred and is now probably sock-puppetted to block-evade - a topic ban in this situation is lenient. This pattern of disruption is one I'm familiar with and one that is far too common on controversial (or simply political) articles - we should have no tolerance for this behaviour in an encyclopedia. That said, I would suggest that the ban be reviewed after a year if NCdave joins WP:ADOPT now. We should try giving them a second chance if they earn it by becoming a constructive editor, however, if they blow that second chance then they have nobody to blame but themselves--Cailil ^talk 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree with topic ban and ban. NCdave is a thoughtful editor who is willing to make changes based on consensus. While working on the Steve Milloy article I saw him jump through a number of hoops to please other editors (read the talk page, it has pages upon pages of his discussion which is more civil than most others). Most editors would rather ignore him than answer his questions and I saw this time and time again at the Steve Milloy article, instead of answering direct questions posed by NCdave, he was ignored and reverted without comment (by many supporting this ban)- then you accuse him of not following a consensus? Please. The fact that he focuses on one topic at a time is irrelevant. --Theblog 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone involved in those discussions: The first one or two times NCDave would ask a particular question or make an argument, he would always get a reply. But when he simply repeats the same questions and lines of reasoning time after time, yes, editors--myself included--stop taking the bait. There's a huge difference between this--a reluctance to re-argue debates that we've already been through--and what you describe as "editors [who] would rather ignore him than answer his questions." OTOH, there are numerous questions and points made on the talk page that were posed to NCDave and were completely ignored by him. Yilloslime 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting that NCdave has been ignored is, I would argue, incorrect. The talk page shows extensive efforts to address his objections. However, our responses to him were generally ignored, and his objections repeated endlessly, aggressively, and tendentiously, regardless of how many outside editors have come in to disagree with them. It is exhausting to deal with someone whose sole focus is Milloy, who makes dozens of argumentative edits to 5 or 6 different talk pages threads per day, who takes any lapse in response as evidence of consensus, and who edit-wars relentlessly for good measure. I would argue that the talk page and NCdave's history are a testament to a reasonable degree of patience and restraint on the part of editors dealing with him. Although that patience, on my part at least, is officially exhausted. Theblog himself has been a thoughtful, collegial, and constructive contributor to the discussion on Steven Milloy, and has advanced positions similar to NCdave's without the associated tendentiousness. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with topic ban and ban. The Steven Milloy page seems to be pretty relentlessly POV. It reads more like a hit job. From what I see, NCdave is trying to make the article more NPOV and that should be applauded. It's clear that some people feel that Milloy is a stooge for tobacco companies, or oil companies, but that feeling gives the whole article a flavor of "Milloy shouldn't be taken seriously". I don't think that's appropriate, and I think efforts to make it more balanced are not necessarily wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearCase Guy (talk • contribs)
  • User's second edit. Moreschi ^Talk 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It isn't an acceptable solution to an article WP:NPOV issue to allow one editor to consistently circumvent policies. The issue here is whether NCdave can operate within site standards, not whether his POV is correct in an abstract sense. Durova^Charge! 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban - talk page abuse, revert warring and based on his block log, no signs of improvement. Addhoc 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Given the evident violations of WP:SOCK (or, less probably but just as bad, outside canvassing) noted by Moreschi, we should be considering a complete and permanent ban, rather than a topic ban. JQ 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I had initially considered proposing a full siteban, because NCdave has two very serious strikes against him in his behavior at Terri Schiavo and now at Steven Milloy. I proposed the topic ban instead to provide him with one last chance to demonstrate that he can edit collaboratively on other topics. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - NCdave has conacted me by email (I'm presuming others have also been contacted like this). He seems to be seriously considering the mentorship programme. I have very strong feelings about the kind of editing NCdave was engaged in as there are a number of editors like this in most so-called "controversial" articles which makes editing in them very difficult. But I'm willing to give NCdave a chance if he proves he is willing to resolve this issue constructively. If he enters WP:ADOPT I think the community should consider a topic ban of limited duration (6-12 months) to be reviewed here at WP:CSN with the in-put of his mentor. Any thoughts?--Cailil ^talk 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have seen no on-wiki evidence anywhere that NCdave has ever acknowledged a problem of any sort with any aspect of his approach to Wikipedia, going all the way back to his RfC through his recent 3RR blocks and this very thread. The difficulties he's encountered have uniformly been blamed entirely on the bias, unfairness, and dishonesty of others. In fact, just today he added a rebuttal to a month-old archived 3RR report - a rebuttal consisting mainly of personal attacks, as has his defense below and his various unblock requests. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of revisiting the topic ban in a year if he enters WP:ADOPT, if the community feels that's the best approach, but is it too much to ask that he acknowledge that there's a problem, or at the very least, make a post or two without unsupported personal attacks? MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell I 100% agree with you. NCdave has made a number of attacks and uncivil remarks that must be withdrawn immediately. I'm only suggesting that he enter the programme so that he can learn how to behave properly on wikipedia. I'm in absolute solidarity with you MastCell in your position that behaviour of this sort is not only tendentious, but incompatible with building an encyclopedia. If NCdave does not withdraw his attacks and work to become a constructive wikipedian then a permanent topic ban or site ban are the only alternatives--Cailil ^talk 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've always thought forever was a long time, and probably all bans should be open to review after 6 months or a year, so I wouldn't object to that - particularly if he's willing to sign on with an experienced mentor. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

---

• Oppose ban (of course). Sorry I've been slow responding, folks; you caught me at a busy time at work.

First let me say that if I believed the things that MastCell said about me, I'd ban me, too. However, he was not truthful. I don't have time to address all of his accusations tonight, but I'll make a start, and resume later. I have to earn a living. NCdave 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Accusation #1: "NCdave is a single-purpose account focused on Steven Milloy." (This was MastCell's first accusation.) Untrue.

Reply #1: I've been contributing on Wikipedia for 2.5 years, with over 1200 contributions, including contributions to about 50 different articles (~30 of them this year), in addition to contributions to numerous other Talk pages & meta-discussion pages. The vast majority of my contributions had nothing at all to do with Steven Milloy. Most of those articles had nothing at all to do with Steven Milloy. At most articles, my edits have been well-received. In fact, less than 13 hours before MastCell filed his complaint here I had made several contributions to the George Foreman article,[43] which obviously has nothing to do with Steven Milloy.

It would be nice to be able to dismiss MastCell's false accusation as an honest error. Maybe he didn't know about my other contributions? Perhaps he got clicked on the wrong user's User Contributions link, and thereby didn't notice all my other work? Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Less than an hour before MastCell filed his complaint here, I had posted a comment in another "meta discussion" page, one where I'd never contributed before, yet MastCell found it and replied there just minutes before filing his complaint against me here![44]

Obviously, MastCell knew when he made his SPA accusation that it was untrue. So why should you believe any of his other complaints? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

NCdave 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (more coming soon...)

---

• Please note: NCdave came to Steven Milloy about 2 months ago, and has made >200 edits to the article and talk pages during that time (see count) with very few on any other topics. Hence WP:SPA. NCdave seems to be citing his participation in this AfD as evidence he's not an SPA. I find that interesting, because a) that is his first and only foray into AfD's and b) it just happens to be an AfD I nominated. One might be tempted to conclude he's following me around. I won't address the accusations of dishonesty, because I think the diffs I've cited speak for themselves there. I will note, though, that today NCdave looked up his month-old 3RR report in the archives and added a lengthy rebuttal consisting mainly of attacks on me. That's right - to a month-old 3RR report from the archives. I honestly could not provide a more convincing example of the issues with tendentiousness, Wikilawyering, personal attacks, and Last-Wordiness that led me to file this proposal. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Along similar lines: After being notified about this CSN, NCDave's first order of business (beyond finishing up an edit to Steven Milloy) was to report me to to WP:AN3 for a month old 3RR violation that I had already dealt with by self reverting when it was pointed out to me. (Obviously, the reviewing admin took no action against me.) Only 1+ days later did he get around to posting his response this CSN here. Yilloslime 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban. Reviewing this user's recent history demonstrates an inability to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia on a number of fronts. I agree with R. Baley that a topic ban (vs. an outright ban) is a gentle application of the guidelines and, while I hope that MastCell is right in thinking NCdave can change his ways, I'm not going to hold my breath. -- MarcoTolo 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

NCdave (talk · contribs) -- follow-up

Hey, come on, Raul654! I wrote that I've been very busy in the real world, and I wrote that my comments were incomplete, but that I would revisit them soon. In the meantime I (obviously) was not editing the Steven Milloy article, so why the rush? Why ban me before I get a chance to answer the accusations against me?

I don't know what the procedures are for it, but I would appreciate this discussion being reopened.

Note: In response to Cailil's suggestion, I have requested that an experienced mentor adopt me per WP:Adopt. (If I get adopted, I guess my first question for my mentor should be what the procedure is for getting this discussion reopened.) NCdave 06:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Raul654 edits the page in question, I do not think he is neutral on the subject- in fact he removed a tag that NCDave argued strongly for on multiple occassions. This is the second time I know of that Raul654 has banned or blocked a user he is in conflict with. I think an immediate unblock is in order on this basis. You can reopen the original discussion, but the block by Raul654 is clearly inappropriate. --Theblog 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Raul654 was summarizing the consensus of uninvolved editors, which was clearly in favor of the topic ban, rather than exercising any particular administrative powers himself. As to whether the thread should be re-opened, or should have been left open longer, I'll defer that to the uninvolved editors and those with more experience on the workings of this page than I have. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that what is supposed to decide such matters? "The consensus of uninvolved editors?" I note that most of the editors who supported the ban are very much involved. How big of a majority does it take to make a "consensus?"

For what it is worth, I wish I'd been allowed the opportunity to address the accusations made against me. Raul654 shut this down less than 24 hours after I said my comments were incomplete but I'd be back soon. Why the rush?

Note that I wasn't editing the article in the meantime. NCdave 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, do you actually think it is appropriate for an admin in conflict with an editor to decide when to close the thread and to ban the editor? It violates WP:block, but WP:BAN does not have a similar rule spelled out. You have obviously taken quite a bit of time to escalate and go through the process and procedures concerning NCDave- which is how it should be if you feel he is breaking rules. But when an admin in conflict with NCDave come in and bans him before he has even given his side of the story makes a mockery of the whole process.--Theblog 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good news: I have been adopted by a mentor! I hope he can help me avoid tripping over Wikipedia's confusing (to me) rules and procedures in the future, and give me good advice for how to better work with some of the other Wikipedia editors. NCdave 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it worth trying to evaluate some of the claims in this ban, proposed by MastCell.

NCdave (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focused on Steven Milloy.

a quick perusal of NCDave's contributions shows edits on a large number of subjects from June 2005, through May 2007. The interest in Milloy seems restricted to after June 2007, no doubt due to the habit of a number of editors for making rapid reversions. The charge of WP:SPA seems difficult to justify.

He labels edits he disagrees with as "vandalism".[[45]]

While this is true for this example quoted, it is noteworthy that NCDave explicitly justifies why he has called it vandalism, and that this is a single example. It is not true that NCDave labels all edits as "vandalism".

He repeats the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone (see the entire Talk:Steven Milloy).

TheBlog, EdPoor, myself and others have shared a common viewpoint with NCDave, e.g. [[46]], [[47]], [[48]].

He then accused me of malfeasance for archiving these "active" threads.[[49]]

interestingly, reading the talk section quoted does not show the word malfeasance. As I read it, NCDave disagrees with your action, sets out why he disagrees, and asks you to revert. He does not call you names. Neither does what he alleges have anything to do with the legal definition of wp:malfeasance. This accusation is simply untrue.

He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent [[50]]

Formally, the text complains (non-specifically) about Milloy-bashers, and is merely one comment. That isn't an explicit accusation of malicious intent. Moreover, Raul654, an admin, reverted one of NCDave's changes with the terse comment that he was reverting the "whitewash". [[51]] Surely we should have similar standards of behaviour expected from all users ?

He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent ([2]), defamation

this is an extremely serious charge, and is unreferenced. There is a distinction between saying that the text someone writes is potentially defamatory, and saying that the person who wrote it is a defamer. I do not recall NCDave directly accusing people of being defamers.

He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent..., defamation, lying [[52]], [[53]]

The first reference [[54]] does not accuse anyone at Wiki, or any editor thereof, of lying. It says that an advocacy group has published what NCDave holds to be lies. They certainly are claims that are not obviously supported.

The second reference [[55]] contains no use of the word "lie", "liar", "lying" in the section quoted.

MastCell did undo one of NCDave's edits to introduce a potentially damaging quote by the Tittabawassee River Watch [[56]]. I agree with NCDave that it is unconscionable that an experienced wikipedian could not fail to realise that this was not a reliable source (breach of WP:V, that the charges were not justified and could not fail to realise that the material was extremely damaging, and should have been removed as per WP:BLP.

The first reference does not support the claim that NCDave accuses anyone on wikipedia of lying. I believe NCDave's second charge, that Mast cell did insert an abusive reference recklessly, is true.

Recently he's gone in for full-on personal attacks and implicit legal threats [[57]]

there are no legal threats in the passage cited. To state that a page has a defamatory meaning is not a threat. As regards to NCDave's "full-on personal attacks", Mastcell is making a "full-on personal attack" against me in the cited passage. I agree with NCDave's comments. Specifically, MastCell has not made any reliable reference to justify the charge that I have made legal threats on wikipedia.

MastCell has made numerous serious charges. I find that at least four of these explicit claims are without foundation. I find several to be misleading, and several to be entirely justifiable behaviour on NCDave's part.

I believe this ban is without foundation, and it is extremely unfortunate that Raul654 implemented the ban so soon after reverting NCDave's edit. Peroxisome 13:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Peroxisome

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.

Consensus is that an indefinite block is not appropriate and the checkuser request has not produced evidence of sockpuppetry. Accordingly, I am lifting the block to take into account the five days this editor has already been blocked. Sandstein 11:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Peroxisome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely by Raul654 (talk · contribs) for trolling an article talk page. Peroxisome has requested to be unblocked, arguing that what he did was merely presenting his arguments. The unblock request has gone unreviewed for nearly 24 hours. This seems to indicate that deciding whether or not this block was appropriate is a somewhat complicated matter that requires the attention of more editors. This board seems to be a good place to gather consensus on this. Please also read the blocked user's talk page for any arguments he may offer in his defence. This is a procedural post; I have no opinion (yet) on the merits of the block. Sandstein 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: like the above thread, this involves the article Steven Milloy. Sandstein 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dang. What is it about Milloy that brings out such love in people. I've never even heard of the guy (guess I need to watch more TV). Anyway, while Peroxisome focuses almost exclusively upon the Steven Milloy and John Brignell pages, I am not seeing enough strong evidence to convince me that Peroxisome is a troll. In fact, I see where issues raised by Peroxisome with regards to the article have been addressed by editors who disagree with him (such as Mastcell at [58]) and that Peroxisome appears to be part of a edit dispute over this article. While Peroxisome has made borderline legal threats[59], I'm not sure there's enough there for an indefinite block. In addition, since Raul654 has edited the Milloy article a few times, I wish he'd let someone else block Peroxisome because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. So I'd say lift the block.--Alabamaboy 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from a non-neutral editor: While Peroxisome (like NCdave) has occasionally raised very valid issues about the article, they are drowned out (particularly recently) by accusations of defamation and plain argumentativeness. This thread comes to mind; when it became clear that he hadn't actually read the source he was arguing endlessly about, he changed the subject and kept arguing. His posts and edit summaries tend to contain legal threats and accusations of dishonesty ([60], [61], [62]), and he consistently accuses editors of defamation ([63], [64]), without troubling himself to bring it up at WP:BLP/N as has been repeatedly suggested. He has the de rigeur 3RR blocks (though none recently, I should note). Would I have blocked him for his behavior, were I an uninvolved admin? Probably not. Am I sorry to see him blocked? Not at all; he seems to revel in provoking a reaction and his constructive input is far outweighed by his approach, in my opinion. Let me be clear: I welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, because without them the article tends to drift too far in one direction. But NCdave, and to a lesser extent Peroxisome, are not hapless editors being persecuted for holding a minority viewpoint. Their behavior in advancing that viewpoint is at issue. That's my 2 cents as an involved and obviously non-neutral editor; I'm glad that this is up here, though, because I would prefer to see some objective feedback about this block. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, MastCell's accusation that I have been pushing my POV is untrue. I have always sought to make the Milloy page (and every other article to which I've contributed) balanced and neutral. MastCell does not welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, he routinely deletes information that does not support his POV. In contrast, I rarely delete anything, I just try to make the article factual and balanced, and include both sides of each issue. NCdave 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unblock, I reviewed his comments on the talk page in question and it does not appear to be trolling to me, I honestly think those are his thoughts, regardless, it is a pure judgement call. Additionally, the fact that admin who blocked him was actively engaged in the discussion and editting of the article is I believe a clear violation of the rules and calls for an immediate unblock. Don't they de-admin people for that? --Theblog 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block. Like the above two editors, I am involved in the dispute and non-neutral. I was a bit surprised to see an indefinite block dropped on him (though I'm still a newbie, and maybe this is standard practice in cases like these). I support a temporary block to allow him another chance, but I do think that it should be some sort of longish block. I agree that in the past he made some useful contributions to the article, but as of late he's been nothing but tendentious. Arguing ad nauseum that 1 + 1 does not, in fact, equal 2—as he was doing in this thread—is not useful, doesn't help the project, and is only disruptive. Action against such behaviour is called for, though perhaps not as strong the one that was doled out. Yilloslime 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. While Peroxisome's behavior over at Steven Milloy has been less than helpful, NCdave's conduct was much worse. The fact that NCdave only got a topic ban for his bad behavior, reinforces my view that Peroxisome's full-site-forever ban is too harsh. I favor instead a topic ban like that issued for NCdave, or a shorter site-wide block. If, however, the suspicion of sockpuppetry on part of peroxisome turns out to be founded, then I would favor the indefinite site-wide ban.Yilloslime 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block. I'm also involved. I don't find Peroxisome at all helpful, and he's clearly a single-purpose campaigner (I've also encountered him on these topics outside Wikipedia). Still, I'd prefer to reserve permanent blocks as a last resort, for cases like that of NCDave.JQ 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support changing to temporary block per Yilloslime and JQ. Unlike the case of NCDave, there is a non-negligible possibility that Peroxisome could become a constructive editor. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• I almost unblock this fellow earlier, but I couldn't get a good enough handle on the contentious article in question. I'd support making it a shorter block. --Haemo 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support indef on the basis of this post.[65] Would agree with shortening it if the editor withdraws it and pledges to stop posting legalistic arguments. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I did ask him to stop with the charges of defamation (or go to WP:BLP/N), and this was his response. Of course, maybe the community will have better luck. MastCell ^Talk 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What is your complaint about this post by Perosisome, Durova? It is a very gentle and polite explanation of one of the reasons for his article contributions. The warning tag about WP:BLP says, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Are you suggesting that it is some kind of offense to allude to that policy in polite Talk page comments? Peroxisome's measured comments are well-taken and reasonable. NCdave 08:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Given how often and opportunistically the BLP card has been played, I feel compelled to point out that WP:BLP also says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • And if it isn't it doesn't. NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Peroxisome has commented on this thread on his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note regarding abusive sockpuppetry: I asked Peroxisome directly whether he had any connection to the two brand-new accounts which commented on NCdave's proposed ban above. This was his (non-)answer. I asked him again and got another evasive response. I have filed a checkuser request. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I banned Peroxisome from commenting at my blog, and he returned using several sock puppets, so he has form here. --TimLambert 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, were I a betting man, I would bet serious money that Peroxisome has not engaged in sockpuppetry. I, too, have been falsely accused of sockpuppetry, which I've never done. It is wrong to voice mere suspicions as outright accusations. Your buddy. MastCell, is an admin, and has the ability to track down IP addresses and determine which ones are sock puppets. You should do such checks before you make potentially erroneous accusations.

MastCell says that he is doing a "checkuser request," which I presume is a check of IP addresses and user names, to identify sock puppets. I don't know how long that takes, or how it works, but I hope you will encourage him to share the results here.

Also, I note that one of of the two accounts that MastCell calls "brand-new accounts" has actually been around since 2006. How is that brand-new? NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of admins can't do a checkuser. Because of privacy concerns (among other reasons), checkuser tools are authorized for only a very small number of people. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave, I don't have the ability to check IP addresses. The check will be performed by an outside editor. I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peroxisome, where the results will be visible to anyone who cares to look. Those accounts belong to an experienced user; few people are directly involved in this issue enough to care to use socks to comment; Peroxisome just happens to be blocked at the moment; and he's persistently evaded and danced around a direct question regarding the accounts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there are clearly grounds to look into the issue of sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for that information. I look forward to the answer when it arrives. Will you post it here? NCdave 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The checkuser report indicates that Peroxisome is unrelated to the two new accounts which commented on the above thread. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lift the block. Peroxisome is a careful and uniformly reasonable editor, certainly never a troll. He raised very legitimate issues about the article in question, but was routinely reverted and insulted by MastCell and others. MastCell has an axe to grind, because when MastCell did six reverts of the article on the same day, Peroxisome filed a 3RR complaint against MastCell. NCdave 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Me again? I didn't block Peroxisome, I didn't discuss his block on- or off-wiki with Raul654, and I made it explicit, in my comment here, that I am not neutral on the subject of Peroxisome. I realize that you've relied on singling me out and attacking me in your 3RR violations, your unblock requests, and your topic-ban discussion. People might give more credence to your position that Peroxisome should be unblocked if you tried a different approach here. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Action? This thread appears to be circling the drain. In the interest of a speedy and fair resolution for Peroxisome, I'll note that checkuser did not indicate he's engaged in sockpuppetry, and there appears to be a consensus, even among editors in conflict with him, to lift or shorten his block. As a side note: I'm asking any uninvolved admin who is watching this thread or considering unblocking Peroxisome to please keep an eye on the situation after doing so. There are real issues here, though an indefinite block may not be the appropriate response at this time, and I'd like some outside, uninvolved eyes on the situation going forward. MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. WHEELER is banned for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

THF

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

This case fits the bill of complex. Try requests for comment or requests for arbitration. Navou ^banter 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

User:THF has a known and acknowledged conflict of interest in respect of Michael Moore. As far as I can tell he has voluntarily undertaken to step back from these articles. In order to damp down the dispute and put an end to the endless discussion threads I propose that we formally record that THF should not directly edit articles relating to Michael Moore or his films, that he is welcome to contribute suggestions on the relevant Talk pages, but that he should not propose links to his own writing on the subject, or discuss such links without noting that he is the author. This restriction will solve the substantive issue with THF's involvement with these topics and make it unnecessary for others to note his real identity, a technical infringement of the harassment policy even if the source of the information is THF himself.

If this is endorsed by the community and accepted by THF, I will undertake to contact the webmasters of michaelmoore.com and ask them to remove their attacks on Wikipedia editor THF. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this resolution, which gives in to intimidation tactics, and implies that Moore's initial criticism had any basis in fact. I make no requests regarding whether WP should take any sanctions against Moore, other than that Wikipedia enforce whatever policy it has evenly, and treat this situation precisely the same way one would treat it if an anti-global-warming website were to start attacking Wikipedia editors it disagreed with. With respect to WP:HARASS, I've stated my position at WP:VPP#THF, and won't repeat it here. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for THF, but as far as I know I don't believe he's volunteered to step back from the Michael Moore articles. There is an active discussion at COI/N, and there seems to be some consensus that while THF may have a POV on Moore, his POV does not necessarily translate into COI, and in fact there have been no abusive edits presented that would indicate a problem. It's still an open case though, so see the discussion for details. ATren 08:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be easier to evaluate your proposal here if you provide differential edits. Also, is THF willing to do this without the community's intervention? Navou ^banter 08:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• This issue focuses solely on the Michael Moore issues, which appear to the Achilles tendon of THF. There are two issues that have gotten THF into trouble, where he has caused massive disruption to the Wikipedia project: 1. His effort to insert into 25 Wikipedia film pages a hit piece on Michael Moore that he authored and his employer published.; and 2. his effort to have MichaelMoore.com labeled an attack site and removed from Wikipedia because it did what THF did for the last year, which was reveal who he is, that he is an outspoken public critic of Michael Moore, and that he edits all of the Michael Moore pages. This public feud THF has with Michael Moore has been brought to Wikipedia, and it has become very disruptive to the project, with talk of throwing Moore "to the dogs" not to "reward" Michael Moore by including links to his pertinent website, et. al. During the film fiasco, THF actually argued that it would be against policy not to include his hit piece. THF does not want us to talk about who he is, so he WP:GAME's the policies and guidelines. On one hand, he links to Moore's website that "outs" him and he tries to get work authored by himself and published by his employer into multiple articles; he then follows that with arguments we can't say who he is. How are we supposed to discuss THF's edits and their context when he is trying to put his own material into the project and his outside feud with Moore is relevant (relevant enough for Moore to acknowledge it)? I do not see how THF can expect WP:HARASS to apply to him when he himself continually outs himself. THF becomes the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is not what our policies and guidelines were drawn up for: we are here to protect private individuals who want to contribute, not public individuals who work for employers whose very nature is public policy disputes and issues, who go out and speak publicly on national airwaves and television programs about the issues he edits, etc. If THF is willing to speak publicly on Fox News, NPR, the Washington Post and internationally on the BBC, why are his edits on Wikipedia over the same topics supposed to conceal his identity? So that he doesn't suffer harassment off-wiki? Then why does he speak publicly with his identity revealed over those very same topics? Does anyone else see how silly this is. It would be a different story if most of us made the same edits, since our careers don't revolve around the very topics that we edit; but THF's career does. He presents himself to the public countless times on these topics, and the public has the ability to contact him about the issues he talks about in the Wall Street Journal, so why is Wikipedia a special animal for him, where we are concealing his identity? This is his job, and I don't see where any of our internal policies regarding protecting the identities of average people apply when a person is already public, exposing them to public comment and scrutiny, over the exact same issues. If User:MessedRocker edits the Rush Limbaugh pages or the Al Franken pages, it's a different case, because MessedRocker isn't writing editorials in the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek over the same issues, and his career and actions outside of Wikipedia, where he essentially remains anonymous, are irrelevant. THF's career and life outside of Wikipedia are synonymous with the edits he makes. Michael Moore was right in pointing out who THF is, since THF is already a public critic of Moore and he is simply using Wikipedia as another public platform for his criticisms. If what Moore did, which was state facts, is considered an "attack" then by logical analogy, so is what THF does to the Moore's articles. Nobody contends that either individual is reporting anything but facts, and THF is already public about his feelings on Moore and his work. So why are we concealing something that THF does not already conceal in both national and international press mediums? --David Shankbone 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what you claim? I'd like to investigate for myself the edits that are considered controversial, but I'm not about to go searching through thousands of edits to find them. ATren 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I supplied I think three or four diffs. If you want more, please let me know which issue and I will hunt them down. --David Shankbone 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David: none of those diffs are article edits (most seem to be civil talk page debates), and none raises any red flag for me. If this were an anonymous editor, there would be no problem with those diffs. Are there others? ATren 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And after all this acrimony and disruption, THF now says he has "nothing to hide." Huh? That might come as news to many of his supporters.--David Shankbone 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have nothing to hide. I have done nothing wrong. I was asking for WP:CIVILity in an effort to stem harassment. This seems to have backfired, so I am shrugging my shoulders.

This is now the ninth forum where David has raised these COI complaints about a content dispute, which are wildly misleading. Every single edit he is complaining about occurred on a talk page. WP:COI expressly permits an editor with a COI to disclose the COI and request a proposed edit. In good faith, I suggested that my published point of view was notable, and thus merited inclusion under NPOV. David (who has elsewhere argued that opinions by THF are notable point of view that merit Wiki-inclusion) objected strenuously, making 17 talk-page comments with a variety of libelous personal attacks. I made 9 talk-page comments responding and defending my proposed edit. After an RFC, consensus was not to include the cite to my writing. It was never added to the main page. That dispute ended more than two weeks ago. Multiple complaints by David to COIN and ANI found I had done nothing wrong other than possibly overreact to some trolling. Where is the problem? THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• You can keep counting all you want, I don't know how this helps your argument; I was asked to comment here on my Talk page. I also dare you bring a libel suit - we've been both been to law school, and if you are going to use such strong terminology then follow it up with action. I take extreme exception to your Wikilawyering and use of legal terms that have no bearing. So bring your suit for libel. Let's see how meritorious it is. Otherwise, please refrain from making scurrilous accusations just because I've "called your number".--David Shankbone 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COOL, David, I never suggested that I was going to sue you, just that you made false statements about me that necessitated a response. I further note that if one of Chip Berlet's or WMC's political opponents went after them with hundreds of edits that were personal attacks forum-shopped over a dozen pages over a two-week-old content dispute on a talk page that never once entered mainspace they would have been blocked three or four times by now. You've made your lengthy case repeatedly, now let others discuss it. THF 17:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We are both trained as attorneys, THF, so do not use legal terms that have no legal bearing. The diff you provided applies to your commentary regarding liability reform, etc., not to how you rank documentaries and what qualifies as a documentary. You have no notability in this regard. If you continue to raise new arguments I will continue to respond to them, and asking me not to do so is a bit WP:KETTLE.

David: it is clear that several editors were insistent on revealing THF's identity against his wishes, and there was a minor edit war on that template. So it seems THF's action to quell that dispute (by adding the link himself) is a gracious concession on his part. If you consider me "one of his supporters", well you might like to know I support the decision he made. (Though, in fact, I am in no way a "supporter" of THF - only of Wikipedia policy). ATren 16:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

THF should be banned from any political (or politicized) articles on which his employer, the American Enterprise Institute, has taken a stand. It's a clear conflict of interest for him to be editing these articles. Raul654 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My employer takes no stands. It is nonpartisan think tank with a collection of scholars who frequently disagree with one another. Fred Thompson and Michael Greve and I have three different opinions about federalism and tort reform, for example. Sally Satel and I disagree with Leon Kass about many bioethics issues. I disagree with John Yoo on a number of legal issues. Norm Ornstein has published articles on the Roberts Court that are 180 degrees opposite of what I've published on the subject. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Sicko, (1) I don't have a COI; and (2) even if I did have a COI, my edits are consistent with WP:SCOIC, because I discuss them on the talk page first several hours in advance.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he doesn't like Moore," or "THF has a conflict of interest because he is right-wing," then I ask that COI guidelines be applied consistently and that every editor on the page who likes Moore or is left-wing be barred from editing the page, and the page be turned over to a set of people who have no opinions about Moore whatsoever. A look at the page's edit history (and at edits I have made) show that it's not the editors of the page who don't like Moore who are POV-pushing.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he has written about Moore," then this is a misreading of the COI guideline. So long as I don't edit the mainspace article to include my writing on Moore, I am not violating COI guidelines. Any other interpretation of the COI policy would demand that people with expertise in the subject cannot edit Wikipedia simply because they have published. Perhaps that's the rule Wikipedia wants, but then it should be enforced evenly, and all of the other academics should be kicked off the project also. Chip Berlet and William Connolley regularly edit (often self-promotionally) in the fields of their expertise, and when trolls repeatedly accuse them of the "appearance of COI," the trolls are blocked. I should not be treated any differently, so long as my mainspace edits are good-faith efforts to comply with Wikipedia policy. I have ~7000 edits on Wikipedia: if I am a POV-pusher, surely someone can find a mainspace diff of something I have done wrong. David's diffs are all to talk-page discussion in an effort to generate consensus--exactly what collaborative editing is all about.

If the argument is "THF's former employer was hired in 2004 by a pharmaceutical company all because the pharmaceutical company hoped that, three years later, THF, when he worked for a completely different employer, would make Wikipedia-policy-compliant edits to an article about a movie about health care, all because he performed some legal work on a completely different unrelated subject for the pharmaceutical company," I suggest that that is a self-refuting argument, and that anyone who makes it got it from an attack site that demonstrates their own COI under even application of the policy. THF 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First I think THF has been fair in being known for the person he is. If he had wanted to, he could have been an anonymous editor on Wiki, and much of the arguments in this discussion would be invalidated.

On the other hand, I doubt whether it is wise for him to engage in Wiki articles on which he has an obvious point of view, which may not be neutral. Perhaps it may indeed be wise to have this voluntary "no-edit" policy, but I don't think that is something that needs enforcement. Arnoutf 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not COI, the issue is disruption

The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering. I've outlined this case in my above comment. Our policies and guidelines protecting user anonymity are there to protect the NYPD police officer who makes a factual but unflattering edit to the Michael Bloomberg page, and should his identity be found out, may have ramifications for him with his job. However, if Fernando Ferrer, a Bloomberg opponent, began editing the Mayor's page, his identity would be pertinent to the discussion, and our guidelines and policies would not protect Ferrer. The situation with THF is analogous to the Ferrer situation, not the police officer. THF's career is to criticize public figures that disagree with his ideological point of view, and in the situation at hand, with Michael Moore in particular. Our guidelines and policies are there to protect those of us who are not public figures so that we may edit with knowledge we possess without fear of negative consequences in our waking life. Harassment, death threats, stalking, job problems. THF, who now says he has nothing to hide, so I am guessing he does not mind being called Ted Frank, has none of these issues and if he does, they are probably more a problem when he goes on Fox News than when he edits Wikipedia. Therein lies the rub: Ted has wanted to protect his identity against "unseen forces" on Wikipedia that he curiously is not concerned about when he goes on national television, with his face, employer and identity for a much larger audience to see. The problems I see for sanctioning, since this is the sanction board, are as follows:

1. THF's WP:Wikilawyering - using and abusing the letter of policies and guidelines with no concern for the spirit of why these were intended. This has caused a massive amount of disruption on the Wikipedia Project. He argues he should be protected by rules that are not there to protect Fernando Ferrer or Ted Frank when they bring their public disputes onto Wikipedia.
2. THF's Disruptive editing - He has consumed the ANI board over the last week asking to have pertinent content removed from articles, in this case Michael Moore and his sub pages, because Moore fingered a known, notable public critic of his as one of his main Wikipedia editors. THF has instigated disruptive edits and made them himself by gaming our policies and guidelines.
3. THF's WP:COI - when a person authors an unnotable piece as THF did, and then argues strenuously to have it included, going so far as saying it is a violation of policy not to include it, they are violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines. When a person who has a public feud with another public person, such as Michael Moore, and then efforts to have that person's content removed from Wikipedia, it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines.

Those are my arguments for sanctioning.
--David Shankbone 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that your argument currently contradicts itself, as you say in the very first sentence that "The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering," yet your very last point at the bottom of your post says COI. —Kurykh 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing and inclusion were on purpose. The COI argument is the least of the problems with THF, yet above it is the only argument framed. The other two issues are the more serious and go to the heart of the matter. Although I am of the opinion that there are COI issues at stake, reasonable minds have differed on all three of the COI incidents that involved THF. The main problems are #1 and #2. --David Shankbone 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here it is... the ban proposal suggests a mainspace ban... I'm asking for some WP:DIFF to mainspace. And if we could correlate those to disruptive editing it would be helpful. Additionally, precedent at this board is to close proposals that are complex... the arbitration committee is more suited for complex cases, so if it turns out research needs to be done, and a straightforward case cannot be presented, I'll probably close this thread provided an absense of substantial objection to that. With regards, Navou ^banter 17:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't feel that THF's behavior needs to only apply to mainspace, since he has used our policies and guidelines to tie everyone up in what is a public feud with Michael Moore. I feel the diffs I have provided above point to this problem. A person can work behind the scenes and cause as much disruption as when they edit the mainspace. --David Shankbone 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I responded to the claims of disruption in an apology on WP:VPP#THF before I knew this thread existed. I won't repeat them here, though I note that David is violating WP:MULTI once again by repeating false accusations on multiple pages instead of directing people to one talk page.

If we're going to talk about disruption, then this needs to go to arb, because out of the two of me and David, it's quite clear who is being more disruptive. I have repeatedly acted to end disputes by conceding issues where I had good-faith arguments for continuing to stand for consistent enforcement of wikipedia policy, and David has refused to relent on anything or assume good faith, even in areas where his arguments were repeatedly rejected, and has repeatedly acted to throw fuel on the fire. And that's just on-wiki: off-wiki, we get to David's use of Wikipedia email servers to send off-wiki threats in an effort to intimidate me to yield on a content dispute. As I discussed off-wiki with several admins, I had been willing to bury the hatchet on that, and let bygones be bygones in the hopes that David would stop WP:STALKing me, but it seems that nothing is going to end David's vendetta against me without an express command from the arbitrators that he should leave me alone. His conduct is extraordinarily disruptive and not acceptable. THF 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. As the top of this page says: Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. This is becoming disruptive all by itself, I would suggest an RFC or ArbCom. RxS 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• For all of the arguments THF raises against me, my Talk page carries no admonishments. Curious that, considering how public this issue is. THF posts different responses all over the place, instead of directing people to one place, and then when I respond to those, I am WP:MULTI. THF, I e-mailed to raise to your attention that you edit Wikipedia a lot during the work day, and asked if you were concerned someone might raise this to the attention of your employer. I never said I would, and trust me, THF, I have a pretty full life and have no desire to try and harm your employ. If I really wanted to make it a threat, I wouldn't have e-mailed via Wikimedia servers, which I used b/c I didn't want to use your AEI address to ask the question - duh. I assumed (correctly) you had a different address assigned to your Wikipedia account than your employer's. I apologized, however, because the question was asked in a heated moment. Like there was no "attack" on you by Michael Moore, there was no "threat" by me in that e-mail. I've encouraged you to bring this up at ArbCom, and I was the one who first talked about it on-wiki. Other editors, admins even, raised the same issue with you. If you stop the disruption, the constant ANI threads over your identity, etc. I don't think this need go any further. Otherwise, I'm willing to take it as far as it needs to go. I only re-entered this issue with you once you started the thread to have MichaelMoore.com removed from Wikipedia, you may note. --David Shankbone 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Isarig

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.

This is not a vote to see who gets banned or who is allowed to stay. You can discuss whether or not he should be allowed to edit, but not treat it as a democratic lynching.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

---

• Isarig (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

User:Isarig has been a notable revert warrior here on Israel-related articles for two years. When not at WP:AN/3RR as an offender, he is there reporting editors who have mutually violated 3RR alongside him in edit wars (a sort of kamikaze edit warring followed by quickly 3RR reporting his opponent). He was recently blocked for one week for extensive warring at House demolition, but un-blocked two days early for promising to cease his perpetual edit warring. Despite the aforementioned leniency in his most recent block, it was discovered via CheckUser that Isarig has moved from edit-warring on his main account to edit-warring with the assistance of sockpuppets. Isarig unapologetically continues his edit war here on Wikipedia, treating Israel-Palestine and Arab-Israeli conflict related articles as a battleground (going so far as to accuse other editors of participating in Hamas' kidnappings amongst other incivility and personal attacks), and has now moved to evasive means of disruption (sockpuppetry) after promising administrators he would cease his edit wars. I used the phrase "moved on to sockpuppetry" loosely, as he has been using socks to revert to his preferred versions long before this most recent incident.

Warning users against gaming 3RR using a sockpuppet you yourself are using to game 3RR goes beyond "bad behavior"; this is active and concerted disruption. This is also deliberate deception and a malevolent use of Wikipedia as a battleground. I hold that Isarig has exhausted the community's patience, and should be community banned. If not completely community banned, I propose a topic ban on Isarig (and any accounts operated by Isarig) against editing any articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and greater Arab-Israeli conflict. Submitted by Italia^vivi 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

• Support full ban. If no community consensus for a full ban, a topic ban from articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts. Italia^vivi 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support ban. Were it not for the sockpuppetry, I would more strongly support a topic ban; as it is, I will support either but IMO a full ban is indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's evident that other policy measures have failed here and other editors are being affected outwith the topic space by 3RR bans brought about due to Isarig. Chris Cunningham 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this is not "Wikipedia users for deletion"; I ask the preceding users to consider striking out their pseudo-votes elaborating on their reasoning. Has anyone considered the idea of mentorship? Might Isarig be willing to be mentored voluntarily? Eleland 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, and are not used unless there is no other way to stop disruptive behavior. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first. Isarig agreed to cease his edit warring, then immediately resumed his edit warring with a sockpuppet account. I don't see how mentorship solves this kind of willful disruption; he has shown a willingness to be deceptive and evasive in continuing his edit warring. Since blocks are only preventative and not punitive, this is the only measure for those exhausted by Isarig's prolonged campaign here. I do, truly, believe the community to be exhausted with his war and have raised the issue in this (appropriate) venue. Italia^vivi 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ban. I've never seen a chronic 3RR violator and sockpuppet abuser turn into a productive editor. Wikipedia is not therapy. —Ruud 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would support a topic ban (first choice) or a siteban (second choice), given what appears to be the total absence of any sort of learning curve here. Articles dealing with Arab-Israeli issues are highly contentious in the best of hands - having one less incorrigible edit-warrior/POV-pusher/sockpuppeteer at work on them will be a plus for the encyclopedia. If we really believe that Wikipedia is not a battleground, then we need to be willing to take action against editors who insist on treating it as one. Isarig has had plenty of chances and abused whatever slack he's been cut, complete with false promises to reform. I would favor a topic ban initially, though given his track record I would not oppose a siteban. If Isarig is willing to consider mentorship, then the topic ban could be revisited after 6-12 months. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• As someone who's touched bases with Isarig periodically since last fall, I'm very disappointed to see that he was abusing my good faith and others' by abusing sockpuppets the whole time. This was someone who had impressed me as intelligent and reasonable, yet locked in a nearly insoluble edit conflict because the surrounding issues themselves are so intractable. I may not know how to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, but I do know what to do when an editor games Wikipedia's policies as long as this. Isarig, please respect the community's decision and e-mail me in half a year to ask for reinstatement. I'm supporting this proposal. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment - i've been working on Battle of Jenin for quite some time trying to promote the article despite hightened sensitivity and i can only attest that on said article, Isarig's edits (of recent) were on the same level as that of other involved editors such as User:Eleland or User:PalestineRemembered who decided to participate here (i believe PR should not make block votes on such issues considering he was just nominated for one and was assigned a mentor that was userchecked as a sock). anyways, at least accoring to the statments made here, it seems that Isarig has crossed a few lines, esp. if he has been war editing after a one week ban. i think that at least he should be given a chance to respond before any sanction is given and i suggest, perhaps, that a single mentor could be assigned both to him and to PR (who's CSN case should be reopened)... for the sake of neutrality. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is actionable evidence against someone else participating in this discussion, by all means act on it. I will be the very first to come support you if you have evidence against any editor as damning and blatant as what Isarig has been doing. This is not about any single incident or conflict, whether it is Isarig's most recent conflict or conflicts from two years ago. There is an unabashed pattern of eagerness to battleground on Isarig's part, topped off with false promises of reform followed by sockpuppetry. Italia^vivi 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am recusing myself from expressing an opinion here. But I would invite people to read any part of Talk:Battle of Jenin to see huge problems with this article and how it's been impossible to improve it. I don't recall ever seeing an article so poor (though in this example, Isarig may not be the worst culprit). PalestineRemembered 08:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban They had agreed to stop edit warring on 04:02, 7 November 2006. Since then they have been doing just the opposite. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at minimum; will support full ban if such is the community consensus. A one-week block is clearly not sufficient punishment under these circumstances. CJCurrie 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The intent is not to "punish" Isarig, but to free the project from a disruptive influence. Raymond Arritt 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban per User:MastCell, User:Durova, and User:FayssalF. Raymond Arritt 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse full ban, per the Puppy. This kind of disruption would usually merit only a topic ban by itself. But when you use a sock to engage in gross edit-warring on a very sensitive topic, you're effectively telling the community the rules don't apply to you. Fine then--he can't play at all. Blueboy96 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Full Ban Disruptive editor and has given little to the project. The Use of sockpuppets to further disruption and edit waring gives me great pause.Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Mentorship prior to ban. As I suggested with regards to PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) I think that before we ban anyone, even from topics, we need to try mentorship. This particular subject is extremely prone to being a tinderbox, and unless we are going to start getting equally draconian with all involved editors, I think that allowing for mentorship, and the possibility, however remote, of allowing for gainful contributions to the project needs to be investigated and implemented. Should the mentorship fail, it is very easy to bring user:Isarig or user:PalestineRemembered or anyone back here to the noticeboard. Everyone should get a chance to be helped with how to handle the strong emotions that this (and similar) topics engender. Only failing another's guidance and help should we be breaking out the banhammer. -- Avi 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig has actively deceived administrators who have given him chances for help or leniency in the past. I do not support mentorship for him at all, he has exhausted good-faith leniency already and abused it to the fullest extent (sockpuppetry). If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you. Italia^vivi 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, perhaps I am misreading you, but the tone of your edits seem to be becoming less and less interested in protecting the project, and more and more reminiscent of a personal grudge against this editor. “If you have evidence that any other user has engaged in the type of battleground/sockwarring/deception Isarig has, please present it here and I will come support you.” is the type of statement someone with an axe to grind would make, not someone who is truly interested in the continuance and betterment of wikipedia. WP:CSN is neither meant to be a witchhunt nor a venue for personal schadenfreude. It is where editors, including adminsitrators, arbtors, etc., come together to decide on the best option for protecting the project. Your, mine, Jimbo's, or Willy on Wheel's personal opinions on user:Isarig are, for the most part, irrelevant. If the project feels that the possibility of mentorship is warranted, it will be applied, and if not not. You, in particular, should not have much to worry about, as if you are so convinced that Israig is incapable of correcting his recidivism, he will be brough back here soon enough. And if Isarig CAN prevent himself from being brought back here, and edits constrcutively, then your opinion will in hindsight be incorrect, and wouldn't you want not to be responsible for the improper banning of any editor? I see you in a win-win situation should mentorship be extended, except if you have a personal vendetta in mind, which I hope neither you nor anyone has. -- Avi 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I will support of ban of anyone who has done the following: 1) edit warred extensively, reaching the point of multiple one-week blocks 2) who then agrees to reform 3) and then immediately resumes their edit warring through the abusive use of socks. I don't appreciate the wholly unwarranted impugning of my participation ("axe to grind," "personal vendetta," etc). If PalestineRemembered or any other editor undertakes the type of war Isarig has, I will support their ban wholeheartedly regardless of the editor. Italia^vivi 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't support the ban in this instance. I agree that Isarig can be a disruptive editor, but there's been no form of dispute resolution here. I would like to see a user conduct RfC on the matter before I would even consider endorsing a ban. Some form of mentorship would most probably be a good idea here, if it doesn't work we can always re-evaluate the situation and ban him at a later date - attempts at taming a problematic editor are better than outcasting them. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I totally agree with your principles here: mentorship would be ideal. However, skilled mentors are a limited resource; mentoring a problem user consumes quite a bit of volunteer and community resources. Yes, if an experienced user steps forward willing to mentor Isarig, that would be best. But if we can't find a good mentor, then I think a ban (at least a 6-12 month topic ban) is appropriate. A user-conduct RfC is designed to solicit the feedback of uninvovled editors - here, that feedback has generally supported sanctions. User-conduct RfC's are only effective if there's reason to believe that the editor in question is open to feedback. In this case, it's clear that Isarig knows the rules and is repeatedly and intentionally ignoring them. I don't see how collecting a bunch of editors to tell him something he already knows will change things. But then I tend toward cynicism. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • A topic ban in this case would probably be a very good idea. I think a six month Israeli related article ban should be enforced with blocks of upto one week each time he edits them. Community 1RR should also be applied, again enforcable with blocks of 1 week each time it is broken. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ban, either full, or at the very least topic ban, for not less than 6 months. This is not about dispute resolution; it is about constant and unapologetic contempt for the rules. This user has been extremely disruptive for years now, and his use of sockpuppets has shown clearly that his constant wikilawyering and harping on the rules has been little more than hypocritical trolling. He is always the first to file 3RR reports against users whom he is engaged in edit wars with, even though his own fourth revert comes within an hour or two after the 24hr deadline. Now we learn that he'd been circumventing that deadline anyway with sockpuppets! In addition, something another user mentioned bears repeating here -- Isarig's contributions to Wikipedia in general have been disruptive rather than productive. Over 80% of his edits in article space is a revert, usually accompanied with a snide edit summary. Rarely does he make an edit that is not politically charged and tendentious -- he never corrects spelling/grammar errors or adds information to articles that is purely factual or descriptive. He constantly deletes well-sourced information from articles. In the talk space, over 80% of his contributions include personal attacks and threats to escalate each content dispute into a WP/ANI report. Again this becomes even more objectionable when accompanied by the hypocrisy of acting like the rules apply to everyone else but not to him. We should not be too surprised about all this in any case. About a year ago I got into a conflict with Isarig because I had the audacity to suggest that paid meatpuppets (i.e. people paid by an agent specifically to make certain edits to Wikipedia) presented a conflict of interest problem and should identify themselves; Isarig's position in the ensuing discussion is quite telling. Basically, he defended the practice, suggesting that paid meatpuppetry presented no greater COI problem than editors with ideological perspectives that influence their editing. Now that I know he was operating sockpuppet accounts specifically for the purpose of violating WP rules that entire time, the vehemence and rudeness of his defense of the equivalent of bribery makes a lot more sense. csloat 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I am immensely dismayed by this circus wherein all those people who have traditionally opposed Isarig on Israel-related articles have converged to propose a ban on him. Isarigais a good-faith and prolific editor, and it is apparent that he is being persecuted for POV rather than behavior. This witchhunt must stop now. Beit Or 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editors don't use sockpuppets for edit-warring and committing 3RR violations. Italia^vivi 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting Isarig is being "persecuted" for his POV, or calling this a "witchhunt", is convenient but utterly inaccurate. Isarig has a worse block log than many topic-banned or sitebanned editors, he's abused the trust extended to him by neutral editors, he's shown no signs of improving his behavior despite multiple blocks and warnings, and he's most recently abused sockpuppets to edit-war. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mentorship I used to edit the Israeli-Palestinian articles extensively. Although I admit having little experience with Isarig, I can attest to the fact that there is an infuriating sense of lawlessness that permeates every single article in the subject. Good behavior never goes unpunished and activity that would be considered negative and harmful elsewhere is consistently rewarded. It is clear that Isarig has more or less fallen into the same hole many other editors have, but let us not pretend his behavior is abnormal or even out of the ordinary. I hope we not only support mentorship for Isarig, but also for countless other editors who frequent the same articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I do not support a ban for this editor. I would second the suggestion for some kind of mentorship above. I would also call for Isarig to admit his mistake and publically apologize and promise not to do it again. Clearly, Isarig he has done wrong things such as the sockpuppets and he should be punished in some way for this. He should certainly be blocked for a time for that behavior, and certainly for longer than any previous blocks. In my experience with Isarig and the editor who left the comment above, CSLOAT, Isarig took some very strong personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and did not give it back as badly as he got it. He did not edit war any more than others. Clearly he could have been more civil, but unfortunately this is a highly highly uncivil environment. We should NOT put the blame only on Isarig here for that incivility. Others have been uncivil, others have been blocked for reverting and edit warring, others may have used sock puppets, etc. This should be a wake up call to everyone involved that the ends do not justify the means, that wikipedia policies are here for a reason, they apply equally to all of us, and if we want to produce good articles here we have to tolerate opposing views and allow the encyclopedia to express them. Bigglove 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and support mentorship. The one-week ban that was already imposed seems sufficient, per the banning admin's statement on AN/I. Then if mentorship is imposed in similar kinds of cases, that would be reasonable as well. I agree with some of the comments above, that at least some of the calls for harsher measures seem to be related to content and/or personal disputes. 6SJ7 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By way of extension, I can't help but wonder if some of the calls for lenience are related to ongoing content disputes. CJCurrie 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Such wondering should be done mentally, unless you have evidence of bad faith. -- Avi 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that mentorship cannot really be "imposed". It requires a credible, experienced volunteer mentor to step forward and agree to mentor Isarig (see the case of NCdave above). MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - sockpuppetry is wrong, but I don't think indefban is warranted. Clearly, some of the calls for harsh measures are coming from Isarig's opponents in content disputes and/or usual conspiracy mongerers. Unfortunately, articles related to Jewish history and religion are not the best example of collaboration in WP. Isarig is far from being the worst offender there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  This is a two-way street; clearly, some of the calls for leniency are coming from those who share a similar position and ideology with Isarig. Tarc 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting. For what it's worth, I see that people who share Isarig's POV are opposing the ban, while those who differ with his POV are supporting it. To be expected. But it's pretty clear, contrary to this being a case of Isarig's opponents or "the usual conspiracy mongers" (?) ganging up on Isarig, most of the really neutral editors (and I would include KillerChihuahua, Durova, Raymond arritt, Aeon1006, Ruud, Thumperward, and Blueboy96 among them - correct me if I'm wrong) have supported the topic ban. I don't think this can be blown off as people re-enacting a POV or content dispute. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • However, has mentorship ever been tried? I am loathe to jump to a ban without giving this, or any user, an opportunity to ask for, and receive, guidance. A topic ban during the initial stages of mentorship may be appropriate, but being able to be rescided earlier at the mentor's discretion. It is very easy to bring people back here, so I fail to see the downside. -- Avi 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with you - mentorship would be ideal, assuming Isarig is interested and a suitable mentor is willing to take him on. If he is mentored, it would probably still be appropriate to have a temporary topic ban (3-6 months?) which could be revisited after that time with input from the mentor (it looks like something similar is going to be tried with NCdave from the above thread). MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It looked to me like Durova, from what she was saying above, had been informally keeping an eye on Isarig. If so, an experienced admin, whose opinion on these matters I would trust, has spoken out against mentorship. If that impression was inaccurate, then I would change my suggestion below to be morein line with MastCell's, above. Hornplease 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• IMO, a Topic Ban would be the best way to go. (For the record, I've had quite negative dealings with Isarig, but not for several months or so now). Anyways, if a user has been brought to a point where gaming 3RR to the point where sock-puppets are being utilized, then that's a pretty serious problem. Try a removal from all Israeli-Palestinian, Middle East, etc...articles, as these are the focus of the rule-breaking. See if he can redeem himself by editing in another field of interest/hobby/study. If the attitude and corresponding bad actions crop up again, then the idea of a further ban could be brought up. Tarc 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'd suppose a topic ban for a set period is worth a try. I would have supported mentorship, but Durova's points above seem to indicate that that is simply inappropriate in this case. Let Isarig demonstrate his willingness to improve the encyclopaedia in areas where he does not feel the need to oppose( what he presumably sees as) trolling, and then the community might feel a measure of trust that he does indeed have WP's interests in mind, and intends to pay more than lip service to its policies and guidelines. (Frankly, all the people arguing that "everyone is bad" in these cases miss the point. Some people are worse, and those that simultaneously abuse the system and use it to their advantage, like several editors have established Isarig has done in this area, are the worst.) For the record, Israel-Palestine articles occupy a tiny fraction of my time here, and do not recall running into this particular editor. Its a pity that this sort of disclaimer is required. Hornplease 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose total ban. I would support a block more limited in temporal and topical scope. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Topic ban for a set period along Hornplease's reasoning. Mentorship could well be a waste of time, as there's hardly anyone on Israel related articles that wouldn't need one. --tickle me 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban for now Assuming all the evidence is accurate (and apologies for my tone if it is not), I want to say that I am deeply disappointed in Isarig. However, Isarig has been a valuable editor; many editors have contributed almost nothing to WP, and what they contribute is mostly trolling and disruption, and they are usually given the option to be mentored. So I would propose a temporary topic ban, to be lifted when/if a suitable mentor can be found. If any violations of WP:SOCK continue, it would be a matter to reconsider here. IronDuke 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support strict conditions & mentorship; something like 0RR on any Middle East topics would be nice to start with. Evading 3RR with socks is a serious violation, especially for an editor who is so prolific in 3RR reporting of others and so eager to play the "electric fence" game with 4th reverts at 24h:1m. Furthermore, it is clear that pro-Arab editors are held to far higher standards when it comes to revert warring, incivility, et cetera. Yet two wrongs don't make a right; there's something in Canadian law called the faint hope clause and I think it ought to apply even to such disruptive editors. This being said, we need a very sharp mentor indeed, preferably someone who comes from the opposite POV, and there needs to be effective follow-up. If this is not psosible, than reluctantly I have to say community ban. Eleland 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support total indefinite ban Let's not forget that Isarig was a sockpuppeteer, conducted disrupted edited, wikilawyered, and used wikpedia as a battleground. I can post diffs on request. Other sockpuppeteers have been indefinitely banned for doing far less. For example user:Rovoam, user:Buffadren, User:Mark_us_street, user:Bonaparte, user:LIGerasimova, user:Artaxiad. Note that my interaction with Isarig has been minimal although his shotgun reverts of sourced material of other users has kept me away from the Arab-Israeli topics due to the fact that I didn't want to waste time researching and posting something in case Isarig reverts it. I believe he is a serious detriment to the project, not only for his revert waring but preventing other editors from participating in topics for which they may have an interest. Pocopocopocopoco 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Given that all of the examples you list here were banned for multiple sock accounts, almost all of which were used to vandalize and/or violate copyright and/or harass, what you appear to be arguing is that leniency should be shown to Isarig, since his infraction, serious though it was, pales in comparison to your examples. IronDuke 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• The examples that I have listed were users that were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry that were far less aggressive with their reverts than Isarig. For exmple, above user:Buffadren wasn't even a major revert warrior but was banned on a suspicion of a conflict of interest. user:Commodore Sloat may have also raised a suspicion of a conflict of interest with Isarig. Pocopocopocopoco 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, every single example you listed was guilty of using multiple socks over multiple articles for long periods of time, and I think all of them were vandals. If you had investigated the matter before you posted, you would have seen that user:Buffadren was shown to be User:Mark_us_street, whom you list as a separate user. It looks very like you have a personal grudge here, and I urge the community to take that into consideration. I also respectfully urge you to be more careful with your accusations. IronDuke 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• First off, I want to make it clear that I'm frankly pissed off with the guy for running socks. This is really not acceptable and he needs some sort of a time out in order to reflect on his participation here. On the pages I've with him, I've never had any reason to believe he was doing this so it has appeared out of the blue. Very disappointing. That being said, I think there are are couple points about this discussion which I think need to be addressed.

1) Complaining about Isarig's 3RR reports is bogus self pity. Nobody forces anyone to 3RR, and if you do, and you get blocked for it -too bad. That's not disruption. Look in the mirror, and improve yourself.

The problem is that Isarig deliberately escalates edit wars in hopes of filing reports. I'm not defending those who have genuinely broken 3RR and been reported by Isarig, but I absolutely condemn his practice of edit-warring with the apparent intent of escalating 3RR violations. Italia^vivi 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

2) Isarig has been called a disruptive editor. I don't think that's entirely true. I think he's argumentative, and I think he sometimes engages in debate farther than he should and he needs to be more civil. OTOH, the ME topics on WP are a mud pit and he's generally much more civil that the people he's arguing with. Here's a recent example, look at Talk:House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where he's referred to as a "troglodyte".

If an editor who wages frequently wages edit wars (sometimes utilizing sockpuppets) isn't "disruptive," I have no idea what is. Italia^vivi 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3) I also don't see him stonewalling the inclusion of properly sourced material, or injecting poorly sourced material, as is seemingly routine on these topics. I think it's safe to say he has a pro-Israeli POV, but when he abides by policy, I think he's an asset to the project. The trick it to make sure he does, so I support mentorship, but I don't support a indefinite ban at this point. <<-armon->> 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on #1 -- nobody here is reporting this for "bogus self pity" reasons; the problem is that Isarig was using illegal sockpuppets for the specific reason of circumventing Wikipedia's 3RR policy, while at the same time using the 3RR as a license and as a battering ram against other users. The issue is not who violated 3RR but rather Isarig's totally hypocritical attitude towards Wikipedia rules. He'd use the 3RR as a license to revert three times every day, with the fourth revert at 24:01 or some such. When he made a mistake and got blocked he'd come back and promise not to do it again. Meanwhile he'd use the 3RR and other rules to get his way on content disputes, reporting and threatening to report anyone who disagreed with him to ANI. All the time he was flagrantly violating these rules, using a sock to evade the 3RR while trying to get others in trouble for it. It really shows his complete contempt for the rules - few have been more self-righteous than Isarig about the Wikipedia rules, yet at the same time, few have been more flagrant in violating them. I think that's the crux of the issue on #1. On #2 and 3 I respectfully disagree, but a debate over those matters is not necessary at this time -- he is not being sanctioned for those particular abuses. csloat 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose ban and support mentorship. Banning is a last resort, why not try positive approaches (like mentorship) first? --MPerel 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

Archival

Why was this archived above? Ryulong, I don't think anyone is treating this as a lynching. Certainly there are some flared emotions surrounding Isarig, but I don't think anyone in the above discussion is trying to "lynch" him. I think there are a lot of frustrated users who are upset because Isarig's complete contempt for the rules around here has so far gone unsanctioned. I also don't see how this has been resolved, so I don't think the archiving of the discussion is helpful at this time. But everyone should be clear that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish Isarig or get revenge on him but rather to protect Wikipedia from his abuses. csloat 05:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an AFD for banning a user. Start it over without the support and oppose.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point, I'm sorry. There have been several sanctions suggested above -- total ban, time bound ban, topic ban, time bound topic ban, mentorship.. the above discussion appears to point to various levels of support for various options and some support for a combination of options. csloat 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone should be banned is not something people should type "*'''Support'''" and "*'''Oppose'''" for. I don't care what sanctions are listed above. They need to be discussed and not voted on like WP:RFA or WP:AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that AFD is not a vote either. In any case, this is a discussion in that people are responding to each other's points and attempting a consensus. Asking each person to repeat his or her argument, but without bolding any text, seems a little absurd to me. Hornplease 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of processes on this website that are called "not a vote" but in actuality often are. This page is returning to its old ways of driveby bannings, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly most AFDs do not meet the most perfect standards of discussion. That being said, the above discussion does not appear to be a driveby banning at all. A great number of people have objected to an outright permanent ban, and some have called for mentorship; its quite clear that there is engagement and evolution of positions going on. Nobody is likely to claim that the sheer number of votes matter here. What is a drive-by, I'm afraid, is your archiving. Hornplease 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of bolded suggestions here either, however, I don't think the archival in this case is helpful either, those positions appear to be supported by rationales. Thanks, Navou ^banter 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's being treated like AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So if we go through and un-bold statements of "support" and "oppose" can we keep the discussion? It seems like you're arbitrarily throwing up an obstacle to what appears to be a meaningful discussion about the issues raised and about possible sanctions. csloat 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a reasonable solution to be to simply un-bold the text? Something more drastic could be to remove all instances of "support" or "oppose" and judging each comment by its rationale. But asking users to "start it over" is being neither productive, nor considerate of other people's time and efforts.Bless sins 08:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? Or is it like i could do edit war for 2 years + use abusive socks and after that come here where people would use bold text and then comes an admin closing like leave him alone guys, you are lynching him. What's particular about this User? All files here use the same bold system. Any rationale? - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above, there were dissenting voices raised against a total ban, but the case for a topic ban was not refuted. Some mentioned mentorship but I'm not sure what good this would be for a long-established editor who should be aware of our community standards. Catchpole 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was clear that no consensus to total ban but the question is what is the outcome now? He'd get back in a few days and say hello. Can we guarantee that no use of socks would be accepted? How would you know? Go phishing and being accused of wikistalking? Can we guarantee he'd not use the 3RR as a tactical tool? We haven't arrived to that point and yet the thread has been archived. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying not to interfere with the decision-making side of this discussion, but I am startled to see that User:Isarig has apparently never been asked to list the sock-puppets he has created and used. There is a credible sounding allegation that he is operating yet another one, see here. Perhaps disturbingly, this User:Bigglove has come here and contributed to this CSN. (It is also pushing this RfC against CSloat on what appear to me to be trivial grounds, for something CSloat has apologised for). I urge the community to get to the bottom of the serious allegations in this case. PalestineRemembered 08:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here to remove my comments from this discussion, only to find the discussion archived. On another page, a user had taken exception to my posting them as I am accused of being the sockpuppet of Isarig. I am not Isarig, but anyone reading my comments in the discussion above should feel free to disregard them given the concern raised by csloat and PalestineRemembered. One would do well to note, however, that in my remarks I did not flinch from condemming Isarig for his policy infractions and calling for his punishment. I will not comment on points CSloat raises concerning the user conduct RFC that I brought regarding CSloat. That discussion is appropriately kept on that project page. Bigglove 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have recused myself from the banning discussion, as I have had a number of feisty exchanges with Isarig. This brief post is only a response to to Armon's above (in the archived discussion), wherein he describes how Isarig is often more civil than his talk-page interlocutors, one of whom recently called him a "troglodyte." I was the author of the post in question, which Armon has badly misunderstood. There was a dispute about whether Isarig had rightly deleted a sentence about Rachel Corrie's death having raised international awareness of Israel's demolition policy on the grounds that it was unsourced. Another editor argued that "only someone living in a cave would not know that Rachel Corrie's death brought world attention to the house demolition issue", therefore it would have been more appropriate for Isarig to add a fact tag to the sentence than to delete it. I came in at that point, offered a source for the "disputed" material (after the seven seconds or so it took me to find one), and invited the "troglodytes" to inspect it "once their pupils have adjusted" to the light. "Troglodyte" literally and etymologically means "cave-dweller" (Latin troglodytae, plural, from Greek trOglodytai, from trOglE hole, cave (akin to Greek trOgein to gnaw, Armenian aracem I lead to pasture, graze) + dyein to enter). Armon presumably did not understand the play on words.--G-Dett 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Does anyone disagree that there is a consensus for a combination topic-ban and mentorship? My sugggestion:

• A six-month topic ban from Israeli-Palestinian articles combined with mentorship as to how to handle some of the passions it engenders.
  • During the duration of the ban, a violation may be reverted on sight and a block (length variable 24 hours to one week - most likely at the discretion of the mentor) applied.
  • The ban can be reduced by the mentor should the mentor feel Isarig has shown significant improvement.
• Indefinite limitation to solely the user:Isarig account, even for legitimate reasons. Any violation of this provision should result in a community ban.

Thoughts? -- Avi 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A little harsh, but basically fair. IronDuke 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with IronDuke, harsh but basically fair, we need a good mentor though; and Isarig's agreement to listen to the mentor. Arnoutf 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, stating, "As the underlying dispute has been satisfactorily resolved by the community, and as no evidence of bad-faith actions by any party has been presented, this case is closed with no further actions being taken." This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing dismissed

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to dismiss the Arbitration case entitled "Vision Thing". This has been passed with the rationale that there is a lack of usable evidence. For the arbitration committe, Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

The above named arbitration case has closed. The remedy is as follows:

The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

The full case decision is here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives

Community sanction noticeboard has no jurisdiction here and is not able to accomplish this. I do not support such an extreme step.--Jimbo Wales 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a political topic ban on the United States House of Representatives congressional offices (IP range 143.231.241.0-255.255 / 143.228.0.0-248.255) to expire November 5, 2008 – one day after the next general election. Editors who use this range would be banned from editing Wikipedia articles that relate to politics. They may post suggested changes to article talk pages. Editors who use this range via registered accounts are strongly urged to disclose their affiliation and refrain from direct edits to political articles.

This organization has been in persistent violation of fundamental site policies. Particularly troublesome are habitual attempts to remove sourced information from political biographies. Due to the IT configuration of the House congressional offices, all representatives and their staffs share the same IP addresses. This ban proposal is nonpartisan: policy violations have stemmed from both major parties.

Problem edits from this IP range became national news in early 2006. Although some useful edits have also occurred, the rate of vandalism is unacceptable by any standard. 22 user blocks have accumulated since November 2005. Wikipedians have attempted dispute resolution, posted dozens of warnings, and the WikiScanner has attracted international attention - yet problems continue unabated.

Recent examples

1. On 27 August 2007 someone from a congressional office computer altered the military service history of Bill Clinton from “none” to “draft dodger”.[66]

2. 24 August 2007 - Rep. Bobby Rush (Democrat, Illinois)[67]

Deleted the following:

In March 2006, Rush was co-author, along with conservative congressman Joe Barton, of the controversial Barton-Rush Bill. The bill would significantly benefit telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Qwest — a bill that generated some controversy after it was revealed that the charitable arm of major telephone company SBC (now AT&T) paid over $1 million to an Englewood charity Rush and his wife founded to create the Bobby L. Rush Community Technology Center [68].

3. 24 August 2007 - Rep. Jerry Moran (Republican, Kansas)[69]

Deleted the following:

Environmental groups have criticized Moran for what they see as a consistently anti-environment voting record. The nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters gave him a score of eight out of 100 on environmental issues, citing among other things his support for oil drilling both offshore and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and his opposition to low-income energy assistance and public right-to-know legislation regarding the Toxics Release Inventory.League of Conservation Voters Republicans for Environmental Protection gave Moran a score of 13 for the 109th Congress, noting that he voted anti-environment on 3 out of 4 issues deemed critical by the group. REP criticized Moran for supporting salvage logging, the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to build logging roads in the Tongass National Forest, and expanded drilling, as well as for voting to weaken the Toxics Release Inventory system and to undermine provisions of the Clean Water Act.Republicans for Environmental Protection 2006 Scorecard

4. 25 August 2007 - Rep. David Davis (Republican, Tennessee) tells the press Nobody pays any attention to Wikipedia and points to inappropriate edits at other congressional biographies in response to a scandal about repeated blanking vandalism that his press secretary Timothy Hill admitted to having performed.[70] (Proposing editor's disclosure.[71])

Blocks, warnings, and dispute resolution

Block history.[72]

Warnings:

• User_talk:143.231.249.141
• User_talk:143.231.249.137
• User_talk:143.231.249.138

Dispute resolution:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress

Applicable policies and guidelines

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Vandalism
• Wikipedia:Editing policy
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Autobiography
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Background

• Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits
• Congressional staff actions prompt Wikipedia investigation

Principle

The "edit" button is not an invitation to censor verified information. For most of the last two years the government of China has blocked Wikipedia behind a firewall. It would be inconsistent to countenance censorship from one source while opposing it from another since the fundamental aim is identical: to pretend before the public that governance is better than it is. Wikipedia is not censored.

The principle is the same whether we're dealing with Joe's Barbershop or Capitol Hill. People wouldn't visit a library to rip pages from Encyclopedia Britannica and they shouldn't mar this encyclopedia either. This is a nonprofit project run by volunteers that attempts to provide well sourced information at no cost to the public; its patience cannot be infinite in the face of persistent abuse. Durova^Charge! 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses

• This is certainly a convincing case... but should we really topic ban the United States government? -Amarkov moo! 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What else can we do? We've been patient and reasonable and tried the usual solutions. The public has a legitimate interest in getting neutral sourced information when they access our articles. If Joe's Barbershop had acted this way it would have been banned without fanfare long ago. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If Congressional offices are going to try to sanitize Wikipedia entries, wouldn't we prefer for them to do it from their Congressional IPs where they can be caught and embarrassed if they do something wrong than to encourage them to create outside accounts from the nearby Kinkos or Library of Congress (or home computer)? This is always going to be a problem so long as Wikipedia permits anonymous editing. Logistically, how are we going to notify every IP of a topic ban? THF 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Similar arguments have been attempted and have failed in other ban discussions. No, we do not permit open violation of policies because abusive editors might try covert violation. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Besides, it is in these individuals' best interest not to try sneaky manipulation. Editors who head down that path typically leave a trail of mistakes and the negative PR would be considerably worse than actions that could be explainable as goofs from a summer intern. Durova^Charge! 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Democracy and censorship are incompatible, therefore if a bastion and symbol of the democratic free world is proven to be censoring (by removing referenced material) then it behoves us that restrictions be placed on the ability to edit from that institution. Note that we will not be censoring, but placing a system of checks and balances so that it can be seen that WP is acting transparently in allowing encyclopedic material is added, and disallowing improper deletions. I see no reason why such a system in these instances should not be permanent. LessHeard vanU 13:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Editors who use this range via registered accounts are strongly urged to disclose their affiliation and refrain from direct edits to political articles." Given they way things work in practice, the strong urge is to set up accounts and deny their affiliation, and demand we assume good faith. THF makes a good point about the ip edit record at least providing some public accountability. On the other hand, Durova made a solid case based on policy. A topic ban for congressional ips is likely to be the de facto result as they vandalize and get blocked for it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Question How would this be enforced? Are we going to block violators? Since they all use the same range, we might just as well anon-block the whole range and force them to use accounts. (Of course, this way, only checkusers could tell if this range is editing.) Or do we authorize any user to revert without limit edits from this range regardless of quality? That could lead to partisan edit warring by registered editors (whether or not to revert "good" edits from this range). Thatcher131 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Enforcement would be through blocks, same as with any other topic ban, and if that fails we can raise it to a full siteban. Regarding the block method, I like the question and actually I had originally drafted a long term soft block on the IP range. Decided not to go with that for three reasons: there's more precedent for community topic banning, problem edits were concentrated on the topic of politics with more useful edits to other subjects, and in case some staffers try to evade this ban, the investigation would be simpler if the underlying IP isn't blocked. Seasoned wikisleuths will know what I mean. Durova^Charge! 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A case is there in principle as this has been a recurring problem, however, taking such an extreme move will almost certainly attract (possibly unwanted) media attention and will set a precedent for this course of action during other elections, not just in the USA and not just general elections. Besides this, there are easy shortcuts around a sanction in this case and it won't ultimately stop the problem. The articles in question are patrolled frequently anyway and so any erroneous changes are likely to be caught out within a matter of hours or days. I'm not convinced a sanction in this case will save us any work or improve the quality of the wiki. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The only precedent in question is whether this organization can set itself above this site's policies. If it can, then who else can? I propose this in the hope that decisive action will have a deterrent effect. Certainly, given the recent news, more organizations ought to be deterred from damaging Wikipedia articles. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is not our decision to make. See our policy on the blocking of sensitive IP addresses; this kind of decision is expressly not to be made by the community, for good reason. The policy states: "These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations and blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications that must be managed by the Foundation's press relations team. Avoid long blocks of these addresses and be especially careful in formulating your block messages because your block message will be seen and commented on by the press". This kind of blocking decision must be made by the m:Communications_committee. Neil ム 14:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect for what appears to be a very sincere response, that mischaracterizes policy: our responsibility is to inform them promptly after implementing a block. Blocking decisions on this IP range have already been made 22 times. My approach has been very conservative: I informed Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales days in advance and sent them an early draft of the proposal. Durova^Charge! 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But it says "avoid long term blocks" - how is this anything other than a long-term block? Have Cary or Jimbo responded at all to this proposal? I think editing restrictions are also a poor idea. Has there been any comparison done on how many good edits on political articles come from HoR addresses? To take action assuming all their edits are COI and/or vandalism is naïve - people from those IPs would probablyt be some of our most potentially knowlegable contributors to Wikipedia's political articles, particularly the older ones. Incidentally, even if Jimbo / Bastique do leave it to the community to decide,and are happy to abjure responsibility at this time, my reccomendation is not to block all House of Representative IPs for a lengthy period of time. Reasons include that it sets a dangerous precedent (would we therefore then preemptively block all government IPs for a set period of time before elections?), it's unnecessary (has there really been that much vandalism? 22 blocks on a huge IP range is not very much, at all), it's almost intended to create an unnecessary fuss (I dread to think what the media reaction would be), and it's assuming bad faith on a particularly high profile range of addresses, when, if anything, we should be assuming good faith more than ever. Neil ム 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• E kala mai, but this would be a terrible decision. Why punish somebody for something they might do in the future? Does the benefit outweigh the PR (and openness) implications? While it would be nice if they didn't vandalize, the editors can still make useful contributions. No need to kill this albatross just yet. It's not the kind of weight we want around our necks. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Another issue, you would be blocking the most expert editor (albeit possibly biased) on the topics involved there are. I think and hope the self-cleansing potential of Wiki is strong enough to cover this. When in doubt why not set up a kind of "guard dog project" that closely monitors the vulnerable articles to prevent and revert this behaviour. I know it is a pain, but some valuable information may well be provided from Capitol Hill once in a while, and we would not like to lock ourselves away from that, do we? Arnoutf 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)