Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Sock puppet accusations on Homeopathy article probation page

User:Jehochman is repeating unproven sock puppet accusations [1] and anon users have been seeking to out a real name on the same page [2]. Oversight may be needed. —Whig (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also see this thread on H/AP/I and RfCU. —Whig (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't see the problem here. User:Jehochman appears to be faithfully reporting the checkuser results, while the attempted "outing" of User:The Tutor appears to be an (unnecessary) attempt to connect two accounts in the notification section, not an attempt to out anybody. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but the checkuser was brought for the purpose of outing someone, and attempted to tie a new user to a known sockpuppeteer of opposing POV along with the real named user that the accuser was trying to verify as the same as the new user. The real named user is attempting to exercise his right to vanish, the new user denies being the same person, and no evidence has proven this connection. Hence the tying of these accounts defeats the real named user's desire to vanish, and tarnishes the new user as an alleged sock puppet. Please note that neither the named user nor the new user have ever been accused of misconduct, so this whole exercise is really nothing but a disruption and likely to chase away a valuable new contributor if not addressed promptly. —Whig (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are really only two possibilities here:

1. The named user and the new user are different people. In this case, the sock puppet accusation should be removed.
2. The named user and the new user are the same person. In this case, the named user wants to vanish and edit pseudonymously. As an editor in good standing without any accusations of misconduct, the sock puppet accusation should be removed. —Whig (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He has apparently exercised his rtv. That means no further editing in any form. Continuing under another user name is acceptable, but that means his previous user talk page should be preserved, or at least move the contents to The Tutor's talk page and clean up all uses of his real name. -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I must keep reminding you, there is no proof that these are the same person. —Whig (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be naive. The Tutor can provide evidence that he is not MC, if he wishes to defend himself. You're just muddying the waters and if he is tempted to adopt your defense, you may end up an accessory and get him in more trouble. Better to stay out of it. -- Fyslee / talk 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Even if they are the same, there is no prohibition on users abandoning one account and using another one. MC was not under any kind of restriction, he was an editor in good standing. Why should you disrespect someone's desire to have pseudonymity if that is what happened? And why should The Tutor have to respond to these accusations when there was no abuse of sock puppets alleged. —Whig (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Drop the sock puppet thing. That's not an issue here. It's the avoidance of scrutiny (nothing to do with real name or ID) that's the main problem:

"Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" "Avoiding scrutiny" "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. [...] It is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

It's the deception and deletion of MC's user talk page (a talk page is not owned by the user) with the reasoning that he would vanish, but then reappeared as The Tutor, that's the problem. This has been explained numerous times now, so I give up. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making an unwarranted assumption of bad faith that there was some intention to "confuse or deceive editors". And what is your "legitimate interest" in reviewing these contributions? There was no allegation of bad behavior by either user that would require your review. —Whig (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't the best template to use since its rather general, but it contains the essentials. As to deception, regardless of intent confusion is the result, and TT's denial is the first deception, minor as it may be. He apparently didn't realize that a later check user would place MC and TT pretty close. (He's not that experienced yet.) BTW, checkuser isn't absolute, but when added to other evidence it makes a much stronger case. You can believe him if you wish, but The Tutor is obviously not a new user and he shares the rather unique interests, knowledge, and mindset of MC closer than a mother is related to their own child. Please don't be naive here. Fighting for a principle is one thing, but ignoring the obvious isn't smart. You and TT need to read these pages:

• Wikipedia:Right to vanish
• Wikipedia:Changing username

Keep in mind that I'll support his choice to continue as TT, provided he admits that MC's RTV wasn't used to vanish, and that his change of username is done properly. MC's edit history needs to follow him, and the contents of MC's user talk page needs to as well. That talk page (which is not owned by MC) was deleted under apparently false pretenses. If he wishes anonymity (I don't recall him asking for it), then I'll certainly do all I can to help him in that regard. Please do not respond before you have thoroughly digested those two pages. -- Fyslee / talk 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this is absurd. I think you should not be allowed to Wikilawyer people like this. —Whig (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you should be sanctioned for harassment, in fact. You are asserting that a new user lied, without proof, and demanding that he admit he lied in order for you to graciously allow him to abandon the identity which you assert is his. —Whig (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you haven't read those pages. Bad boy. My objections are based on wikipolicies and there's no wikilawyering going on here, only an insistance that an obviously-NOT-new user (only new username) follow policies. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. (Did that sink in?) Read TT's edit history. Drop this. Your insistance on pressing this issue is beginning to feel like I caught dysentery and the diarrhea is trailing behind me. I can't get rid of you, and your pressing the issue is feeling like harassment. Keep in mind, this doesn't involve you. You aren't TT's mom. Let TT speak for himself. I see from his immediate edit history that he hasn't vanished yet, but is even resuming MC's battles where MC left off, and is keeping you informed. That's not vanishing. -- Fyslee / talk 07:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming arguendo all of your assertions, he has done nothing wrong and your rigid insistence on procedure would still be harassment and wikilawyering. You are failing to assume good faith. You have not been honest in your own statements, but have refactored yourself, I will not say more about it here, please stop treating a new user (even MC was a new user, remember) with such hostility and accusation. You should be ashamed of yourself. All of you who are hounding this person should be ashamed. Given the worst implications of everything, he'd just be a person who wanted to protect his private identity. Leave him alone or this should escalate to ArbCom ASAP. —Whig (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even were all accusations correct the basis of the checkuser was defective, and no information should have been given in this case or would have been most likely if the named user and new user had not been identified as possible sock puppets of Unprovoked, a totally unbelievable claim for anyone to have made who paid even the slightest attention to the respective POVs of participants. Accusations of sock puppetry are accusations of bad faith, and unfounded accusations of bad faith against new users are a bad thing. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's rather odd for Whig to start this thread by talking about me, and not provide any notice to me whatsoever. (The notice got lost in the shuffle. Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)) I just stumbled upon this. Whig has been running around acting as an advocate for User:The Tutor. This is not helpful, and hopefully will stop soon. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking part of this, but I would appreciate if you would also withdraw your attempt to ban me and your claim of bad faith. —Whig (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Pay better attention, please. You are really causing problems by failing to pay attention, in my opinion, which was the original reason that I brought this matter here in the first place as dispute resolution with you. I insist that you strike or remove your personal attack or we may continue to have dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Real named users if they break our policies will be hung out by their underwear the same as any other user, full stop. They are entitled to no special protections that any other user does not enjoy. I see no violation there. If you have a "beef" you will bring it up on that page or via an RFAR request. Stop pestering Jehochman with unfounded accusations. He's reporting checkuser evidence is what I see. If a troll, or the Tutor, or whomever that is wanted to leave Wikipedia, he should have left. Picking up the same destructive behaviors under a new name to avoid scrutity is his own failure, not Jehochman's for reporting him. Please go to the proper channels on this. If you do, and lack support, perhaps that would illuminate you as to the value of your stance. Lawrence § t/e 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this friendly. Whig, go ask Thatcher what needs to be done here. He's the checkuser who redacted some content from that RFCU. I removed content in parallel with what he did. Okay, thanks, bye. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig, please point directly to the personal attack you mentioned. I've looked and looked and can't see one. Thanks. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for evidence via diffs on my talk page and still also have yet to see this alleged evidence. It seems without that like an unfortunate effort to harm Jehochman's good name. Lawrence § t/e 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right here. On this very thread. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is absolutely not any sort of violation as you have described it. It is a factually correct observation of your behavior, and a statement of Jehochman's personal wishes for the future of your behavior. Your behavior here is growing disruptive. Do you have any other evidence to warrant your unsourced attacks on another editor? Provide them now while you have time. Lawrence § t/e 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a factually correct observation of my behavior. It is factually false as a matter of fact in that I did notice him and provided the link in the immediately following comment. Please stop repeating falsehoods about me. —Whig (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

<--The checkuser case asked to check between a number of editors including [omitted as a courtesy] and The Tutor. Since they were unrelated, no specific allegations of wrongdoing were alleged against them (other than that they were socks, which they aren't) and since this seems to be a case of an editor discontinuing one account and opening another, I see no reason to press forward with the matter. If an editor realizes that he would rather not use his real name, dropping one account and assuming another is just as valid a way of protecting his identity (perhaps even more so) than doing a name change. The history of the original account (active for 3 weeks, 157 edits, no blocks) is not significant enough that we need to force The Tutor to maintain links to the account. RTV is about being kind and humane, and as long as The Tutor is not evading a long block log or something, I see no reason to force him to maintain the linkage. Thatcher 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed short topic ban for Whig

<RI> (Crossposted from Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents) Whig has an extensive history of disruption on homeopathy-related talk pages. This incident is but one of many that editors of these pages have had to endure. I will restrict the following collection of diffs to those posted in the last four days, in the interest of freshness, but please realize that this behavior has gone on for months.

• Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return:[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
• Meatpuppetry:[10][11][12][13]
• Wikilawyering:[14][15]
• Personal attacks:[16][17][18]
• Canvassing:[19]
• Arbcom threats:[20][21][22][23]
• Other disciplinary threats:[24]
• Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation:[25]
• Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom:[26][27]

This needs to stop. This behavior is poisoning good faith attempts by both pro- and anti-factions to improve coverage of homeopathic topics on Wikipedia. Whig has been the subject of two recent user conduct RFCs (here and here), which have had no effect in changing his tendentious and needlessly argumentative approach. I recommend a broadly defined topic ban (if not a full siteban) that covers all articles and talk pages related to homeopathy, as well as any user page/AN/ANI discussions related to homeopathy. Skinwalker (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support A 31 day 6 month (see below section) topic ban, broad defined, as suggested. If Whig is here for the encyclopedia, and not POV ends, this shouldn't be a problem for him. Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support The diffs above, and linked RFCs, show that Whig continues their longstanding pattern of disruptive editing, in spite of mentorship attempts and second chances.[28] As User: Bishonen stated, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This RFC already has enough proof in it that Whig is a disruptive editor who adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia, and who wastes the time and energy of productive editors. The most important function of the arbitration committee is to protect productive editors from the timewaste and attrition caused by disruptive editors. Take Whig to arbitration."[29] Before we do that, I would move for a 30 day community ban. A topic ban will not work because the disruption will simply migrate to other places. If we are unanimous, we can end this disruption here and now. Otherwise, an arbitration case may be necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have found little sign of AGF from many of the editors involved who do not seem to be trying to get a NPOV for the articles , just pressing their own POV hard. The Tutor (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as initiator. I would prefer a community ban - limited topic bans have been placed on Whig in the past, which has led him to increase disruption elsewhere. The main purpose of my proposal is to stop him from further inflaming the situation at Homeopathy, which a broad topic ban would accomplish, but I don't think he's really here to write an encyclopedia. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the incredibly thin ice he's already on, if he causes trouble elsewhere while on this (or the next after) topic ban, he won't be long for the site anyway. Lawrence § t/e 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  I've been here a whole lot longer than you, it seems. Skinwalker brought these false charges which I have refuted below. No response is needed to the regular crowd of people who have been trying to ban me for five months. —Whig (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse — I trust the judgments here and the diffs provided. --Haemo (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please read my response below, regarding the diffs provided. —Whig (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm more inclinded towards a full, indefinite ban. Whig is already under a community-imposed topic ban that lasts until April 15, but it seems to have no effect The terms of the ban were:
  • A 1RR restriction
  • A broadly defined civility and profanity parole
  • No editing homeopathy except for reverting simple vandalism
  • All of the above is enforceable by blocks.
• The only reason that Whig got his indefinite block overturned was because he agreed to the above restrictions, but that's failed. It's obvious that Whig contributes to a poisonous atmosphere in an already troubled area; it's time to kick him out of the boat. east.718 at 23:31, March 8, 2008

  I would encourage you to please read my response below, and I have not violated any of those terms. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support / Moral support I endorse the intent to do something about Whig. However a limited topic ban will have no long-term effect. He was under sanctions before which fizzled out with Whig eventually returning to this type of behavior. Past experience suggests that we will have the same conversation every three months or so (maybe one of the devs can write a script to automate the process). Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then why not just ban him from discussing, participating in, or working on anything homeopathy/science related, at all? That would include editing the articles, discussing issues surrounding them here on Project space, user space, etc.--it's a big encyclopedia. Lawrence § t/e 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, if sufficiently airtight to avoid the possibility of circumvention that might be a workable alternative to an indefinite ban. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure it is broad enough to cover movies that pretend to be about science as well. I would hate to see him get bored and join that battle over at What the Bleep Do We Know.Kww (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Whig is one of several who hang around homeopathy and similar topics, agitating and not contributing much except irritation. His very presence impedes progress and contributes to a foul atmosphere. I have had private communications from people on both sides of the homeopathy debate who have become discouraged with the ugly attitudes on the homeopathy pages and related pages, and Whig is a major contributor to these unpleasant behaviors, I am sorry to say. Restricting Whig's actions on the mainspace pages is a pointless exercise because Whig is not really here to build an encyclopedia, but to get into fights with other editors over ridiculous issues, in my opinion.--Filll (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  One of the charges against me involves the fact that I have informed this editor that WP:AGF does not apply in his case when he makes statements without providing sources. I can provide the reason if that is requested. —Whig (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• support/endorse mainly Jehochman's remarks. The Tutor is correct that there have been serious AGF and other problems with some related articles on all sides; however, this is in no way mitigates the incredible disruptiveness that Whig has demonstrated. Indeed, I'd be inclined to guess that much of the failure to assume AGF comes from people exhausted with having to deal with Whig. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or greater. Whig is a consistently obstructive presence whose modest useful inputs have been consistently overshadowed by tendentious traits, obfuscation, baiting, rules-lawyering, and a general unwillingness to compromise. — Scientizzle 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support 6 mo. ban. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please read my response below, and explain your reasoning. —Whig (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The vast majority of the above editors are the usual suspects who have content issues with Whig and with homeopathy. Whig has shown great civility. Because he is knowledgeable about wiki-rules, he is more of a threat to the above editors who have frequently sought to silence him and who make up or exaggerate problems. Let's AGF even when we disagree with editors. DanaUllman^Talk 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Comments from Lawrence suggest that Whig's edits outside the broadly-defined areas of science, alternative medicine, and pseudoscience is unproblematic - and as such, the community ban which Whig would otherwise richly deserve may not yet be totally justified. I have read Whig's response below, and do not believe it even begins to address his disruptive behaviour. His constant refusals to listen - amply demonstrated in his declarations in previous AN/I discussions and at the RfC that he would continue to act as he has previously - his continuing wikilawyering, and the obnoxious schadenfreude make these further sanctions over and above the now-failed editing restrictions (which, I might add, he has wikilawyered about being described as a probation) long overdue. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've watched Whig for several months. He attacks other editors without remorse, and has not been a useful member of this community. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support a long vacation. I have posted further diff's for this case on the Incidents page. I did not want to clutter everything up here. I would also like to note that the two opposes greatly reinforce some of the comments I made in my evidence. In short, Whig willingly broke the terms of his editing restrictions (and even claimed he was never under any restrictions) and should be held accountable. Baegis (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite ban. Why indefinite? Because he has consistently revealed a pattern that shows he can't understand basic science, and even if he does, refuses to learn from it. This leads to an attitude problem where his energy seems to be focused on what he sees as "The Truth", and then, as Fill so aptly puts it: "Whig is not really here to build an encyclopedia, but to get into fights with other editors over ridiculous issues." I share his opinion. Many things have been tried, but nothing has worked, and a short ban has no hope of working. Nothing useful has come from Whig's presence here. Few users here are so successful at wasting vast amounts of our time. It's time to get rid of one of the major thorns under our saddles. -- Fyslee / talk 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month community ban, for continuing tendentious editing. .. dave souza, talk 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support 6 month ban / block. Addhoc (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban from WP for 6months. After looking at his edits, the diffs above, and reading his response below, this action seems to be supported and sustainable. Whig could maybe become a good editor, but at the moment he is causing WP more problems. A vacation from WP, and then maybe a tutoring might help. And in the meantime perhaps WPs big problems with pseudo-sciences can be fixed so he comes back to a better ship. I have no "axe to grind" and have not been involved much with Whig, and I do not think that is what is driving this ban. --Partyoffive (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Fine by me. Really, Whig should have been banned a while back - he is the classic tendentious editor - but this works as well. Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Curiously the above seems to be what the Community stated in Whig's various RfCs. So this is what the Community needs to do in order to encourage a tendentious but O so civil editor, not to be so disruptive. 3 RfCs, hours of edits, lots of posts on AN. But he is so civil, surely that counts for everything in Wikipedia? Shot info (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has commented above I'd like to point out that I've not been involved in any of the RFCs. Looking at the evidence, Whig is a problem editor who refuses to acknowledge that he has had restrictions placed on him. Some (only a few) people who have acted against him in the past have probably had too thin a skin where Whig is involved, but he has brought this on himself with his superficial civility and intentional misdirection and intentional misunderstanding. I want to make WP better, and having Whig removed for a while to hopefully cool down, while the rest of us get on with improving articles without his stonewalling, would do this. Hopefully when he comes back the articles will be in such a good state he'll have to contribute positively as any other actions would easily be identified as vandalism. However, I'm guessing you're being sarcastic with the civil and everything comments?? --Partyoffive (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very unsure how to understand the term 'superficial civility'. This seems to be a far worse crime here than incivility. Whig has strived to ensure that the articles are balanced has not disrupted on the main page(s). He has 'Talked'; often against a relay team in opposition who often showing incivility and lack of AGF. In the unfortunate case involving me, he was trying to uphold my rights against the same relay team, as he thought (rightly) that it might be difficult for me to support myself. If editors did not wish to Talk with Whig then they should have simply stopped, but they continued to goad him, and now complain that he remained 'civil'. The Tutor (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Above probation, what it would entail

Rather than lose Whig indefinitely, the probation will be a 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to Whig, so that we don't lose him completely. He seems to be fine except with these articles. Lawrence § t/e 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The diffs above comport a false record of my activity and reflect a one sided presentation. As such, I protest any such ban or restriction. —Whig (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your history here is well known, per above supports. Lawrence § t/e 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any point in my providing diffs in opposition? —Whig (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide diffs completely refuting your disruptive nature on science and homeopathy articles, and refuting point by point all the Supports, it would be in your best interests. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Will I be given sufficient time and opportunity to do so? —Whig (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's an important decision and your perspective is essential. I've added a topic heading below -- please respond at whatever length and in whatever manner you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well.. If the community decides to place the sanction on you, it can always be removed later if you convince the community to do so with evidence. The participation of any one editor "now" on any one topic area is never so crucial that Wikipedia will suffer for their absence for a short while. You should completely not touch these articles in any capacity except for this thread for now, probably. Lawrence § t/e 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence against me (refuted utterly below), what more would you like? —Whig (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You really need to try harder. Did you read the support comments? You are being put forward for probation for a long history of these issues. You still have yet to provide a satisfactory diff even once of these so-called attacks others have made on you today in violation of WP:NPA. Lawrence § t/e 00:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will obviously receive no fair hearing here. I have made my response. Should I wait to request arbitration? —Whig (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this should be case closed. —Whig (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Whig

Charge 1: "Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return". To respond to this I must demonstrate bad faith by other editors. Is it appropriate for me to do so here? —Whig (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 2: "Meatpuppetry". This is why we're here, I did not do anything that can be characterized as meat puppetry. I saw a new user who may or may not be a named person trying to protect his private identity, and sought to help. This is not meat puppetry. This is being a good Wikipedian. —Whig (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 3: "Wikilawyering". More of the same. I am not "wikilawyering" by trying to be helpful to a new user. —Whig (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 4: "Personal attacks". I was responding to personal attacks by Jehochman in one. The others aren't personal attacks either. —Whig (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 5: "Canvassing". I went to User:Dreadstar's talk page to discuss the attempted outing of the real named user. This is not canvassing. —Whig (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 6: "Arbcom threats". I have made no secret that I think the arbitration committee should probably be involved in this dispute. So what? —Whig (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 7: "Other disciplinary threats". I threatened nothing at all. —Whig (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 8: "Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation". This refers to me having a dispute with Jehochman. This dispute. —Whig (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 9: "Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom". This one is just bizarre. I think the Matthew Hoffman arbcom case was handled as well as it could be under the circumstances. That isn't Schadenfreude. —Whig (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Observation from a non-involved nonadministrator: If you look at all the diffs involved above, it really doesn't seem like Whig is being uncivil. Most of them are almost silly - "personal attacks" in particular. It really does seem like a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him. While I obviously don't know the entire situation and there is likely some merit to the whole case, I really hope that a "mob mentality" doesn't coalesce and go overboard on the sanctions. There should be no "punishment" involved, merely an upholding of Wikipedia policy. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about Whig are probably well-documented enough; I'm surprised he wasn't topic-banned following his RfC. He seems to have taken the message that he needs to be civil, and his civility has improved substantially; however, there has not been a corresponding improvement in the more fundamental problem of tendentiousness. It's just become civil tendentiousness, which I would submit is not a satisfactory solution. But community-based sanctions will probably not be effective here - no matter how many previously uninvolved admins get to know Whig and find him tendentious and topic-ban-worthy (I count Haemo, Jehochman, and East718 among them based on their comments above), he and his defenders will always paint this as a lynch mob or suppression of minority views - and that sort of tactic tends to be successful on Wikipedia. In that light, I would certainly support the proposed community-based sanction, but realistically it may be a better use of time to simply start preparing evidence for ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Without responding to the other points you make and which I disagree with, I do agree that nothing short of ArbCom is likely to resolve the differences here. It would be nice if we could find common consent to ask them to take up the matter. I would in any event appeal any block or ban resulting from this proceeding based upon the refuted evidence submitted. —Whig (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What we need here is dispute resolution, not dispute escalation and increased disruption. In this circumstance, an Arbcom would be extremely disruptive and in the face of community support for a ban such a move is unnecessary. We need to cut down on the disruption, not wallow in it and expand it. That's what an Arbcom would do. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am neither a defender or prosecuter of Whig. I merely saw a lot of fishy, frivilous evidence submitted, and wanted to post a general note that people should be wary of making this a personal matter instead of a policy matter. That's all. I heartily agree with Fyslee and the wallow/expand comment, and that's obliquely the point I was driving at. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Tanthalas39, let's think about this a bit. Why is Whig still on a form of probation or editing restriction following a previous Arbcomm case? Why were 3 RfCs against Whig filed in the last few months? Why did Whig's RfC where he tried to get sanctions levied against an admin for violating WP:CIVIL by calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" get soundly rejected by the community and result in a call for a community ban? Is this evidence of someone productive and working well with others? How many others do you know that in 6 months have been involved in so much drama (3 RfCs and an Arbcomm case and several calls for a community ban, all from different editors)? I have had private emails, not just from pro-science editors but from pro-homeopathy editors, who state in graphic terms that Whig has contributed to such a poisonous atmosphere in the homeopathy articles that they no longer choose to participate. And for all this disruption, what has Whig produced? He has a handful of edits a year or two back on an article or two about marijuana and an article about Pope Benedict XVI. That is it. In the last few months, Whig has devoted his time and energy to fighting, not productive activities. When invited repeatedly to produce something, he always demurs. He would rather fight instead. When can the community just state that it has had enough?--Filll (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What previous Arbcomm case do you propose that I am on probation or editing restriction as a consequence of? —Whig (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Whig ALWAYS claims he is under no editing restriction. But he is, and this is just another of his tactics for muddying the waters and trying to avoid accountability. For example, see here and here and here. --Filll (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For more information, please see RFC#3, RFC#2 and RFC#1 and previous administrative noticeboard threads about Whig:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#User:Whig
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig--Filll (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are a bunch of links which do not support your statement. —Whig (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which part do you think it does not support? I am guessing you are referring to my mention above that the editing restrictions were placed on you as the result of an Arbcomm proceeding, when it appears that they are the result of an AN/I proceeding. Is this what you believe is inaccurate? If so, this appears to be hair-splitting to me, and is simply the result of me not being an expert on every aspect of your highly turbulent recent career here. Who could be expected to know every detail of your bad behavior and sanctions, given that there is so much of it? I am not here to engage in battles like Whig seems to be; I am here to write an encyclopedia so I apologize if my original statement was slightly inaccurate. It does not excuse the fact that Whig is disruptive and has a long rich history of being disruptive and is under a form of administrative probation or editing restriction which he continues to deny in the face of evidence to the contrary, and this denial is a common tactic of his, as are his other assorted disruptive behaviors.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the editing restrictions in question were re-stated to Whig in December by FT2 [30], who emphasised that the community was likely to be intolerant of further problems. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Result

The above discussion seems to result in a consensus for a 6 month community ban. Various options were discussed, and the 6 month ban seems to be the one that would have the widest acceptance. Is there any administrator who would oppose this? If so, speak now. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence against me. So go ahead and ban me and we'll see what happens. —Whig (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note the threat above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be more explicit because I do not intend to be vague. I will appeal any such ban. —Whig (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. This has been open for barely 18 hours and Jehochman seems very involved. The Tutor (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman is involved because he is one of the admins enforcing probation on these topics, which is what Whig seems to be repeatedly violating. How is that undue or inappropriate involvement?--Filll (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He has been in a contentious dispute with Whig over the past few days. Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea for an editor to pick a fight with an admin who is administering probation on articles on which this same editor is disruptive.--Filll (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no editorial disputes with Whig. Troublemakers do not get to veto the administrators that respond to their disruptions by attacking those administrators. Sorry, no, that doesn't work. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This dispute began as a behavioral dispute with you in regards to your carelessness in repeating a false accusation about a real named person and has escalated to this point. —Whig (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also will note that the 18 hours is a bit of a red herring, since there have been repeated administrative actions involving Whig going back for months and months. It is not like this is something new that just popped up.--Filll (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but an actual community ban discussion should start with a clean state and last for at least a full day (maybe longer) or as long as needed, not as long as needed to get the "correct" result. Arbitrarily ending something like this gives the impression that the system can be gamed (ie. picking the right moment to end the discussion). I think all discussions like this should have an end point decided at the start, to avoid precisely this sort of dispute over when to end the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I can believe that this is how WP functions. I'm sorry but it seems like a lynch mob. Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. This seems like a mob rule. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, lynching is an example of a hate crime. Speaking as an editor who is subjected to hate speech here on WP, and to a group that is regularly targetted for hate crimes, I find your description of the people contributing to this discussion as a "lynch mob" to be personally offensive, and I ask that you refactor your comment immediately. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I am at no risk of bodily harm whatsoever. —Whig (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, the victim personality that you are using is offensive and degrading to someone who's people have been subjected to "lynch mobs" that ended in 6 million deaths. Odd language choice..OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When I see people talking about lynch mobs, I immediately think about the US Deep South, rather than the Holocaust. But not everyone reacts in the same way to the use of such language. The use of "lynch mob" as a rhetorical device is fairly common in day-to-day conversation for some people, and it is often used without any intended offence. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't cause offence, but that is on the part of the person being offended, not the person using the phrase. When I'm offended by something, I do try and step back and think "Did they mean it that way? Will me registering my offence actually help here or not?". Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to point out when a word gives offense if it is likely to offend others as well, or even if you are not personally offended certain words are best avoided unless you really mean them. This is not a lynching. —Whig (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>This is pointless nitpicking. An admin raised the question if another admin objected to closing at that point. One admin did object at closing before 24 hours is up, and so it probably will not close before 24 hours is up. So what? Let's not get all worked up over nothing. The bottom line is we have several editors on alternative medicine articles, and Whig is one of them, who do not appear to be here to write an encyclopedia, but to impede others who are trying to do so. That is the main issue. And so we will see what happens.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lynching is the wrong term. I didn't mean it literally. My apologies to you all. This just doesn't seem right. I'm not sure how to best characterize it, but something doesn't seem right here. Anthon01 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is disruptive and unfair, personally. The "evidence" has all been refuted away and Jehochman still wants to ban me. So be it. —Whig (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of support for the proposal and the discussion seemed to have been winding down. Everything that could be said has been said, especially since there have been multiple RFCs and noticeboard threads on Whig's conduct. Carcharoth suggested that 18 hours was not enough time. Very well, let's wait a full 48 hours before imposing the remedy, if no administrator objects by then. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Anthon01 for striking that word "lynching." Although this wasn't the right word, what is true is that the vast majority of the editors above who are supporting the muting of Whig have content disputes with him. We should look at those observations from uninvolved editors, such as [Tanthales], who saw no significant problems with Whig. Also, it is important to note that no one has responded to Whig's response, where he effectively responds to each point and even shows that the allegations are inaccurate (anyone who reviews these allegations can confirm this). The bottomline is that Whig has shown impressive civility despite editing in a "war zone." Clearly, his work is so effective that many people who have content disputes with him are now seeking to stop him through other means. To me, this effort to mute him for 6 months or indefinitely is a tad ironic, when several of the above editors who seek serious penalties against him are not supporting serious penalties for [Randy Blackamoor] who has shown continual uncivility, hatred, and wishing death (!) of some pro-homeopathy editors (me).[31] The anti-homeopathy forces show a patable bias on who they wish to punish for minor and for major crimes against wikipedia policies. DanaUllman^Talk 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I never said that there weren't significant problems. I keep repeating my stance, I don't wish to be painted as a Whig supporter (I keep thinking we're involved in early 1800 politics here). I was just trying to keep things in perspective. Consider my comments mild and from a "way-outsider". Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a war zone. You, and your perceived allies, and your perceived opponents need to urgently stop looking at it that way. Wikipedia is not for ideological struggle. If you have seen an editor wishing death on somebody else, post the diff to my talk page and I will block them indefinitely, without any 48 hours discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a public forum for free speech. Editors who come here for reasons other than to collaboratively build a high quality encyclopedia are routinely prohibited from editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Better said, you, your allies and your opponents. I for one don't see it as such. Anthon01 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my comment accordingly. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be curious if you act upon your words above to block Randy B indefinately. I provided the link to his message of hate above (twice). My reference to the article on [homeopathy] being a war zone was in the light of the fact that this article and its related articles have been under probation. Believe me, I would rather that editors would do less edit warring, and my role here is to provide V, RS, and notable information so that wikipedia can maintain good and high standards of informatin. My point above was that Whig has shown great civility despite the dramas around him. Editors that have had content disputes with him are not objective observers on the issue, and they should identify themselves as such so that uninvolved editors can assess the situation. As someone who appreciates Whig's content contributions, I simply want him to be given a fair analysis (which I do not think he is getting by a vast majority of the editors above)DanaUllman^Talk 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a direct link to the diff in which this took place? The link above just leads to another complaint of yours about this, which seems to link to yet another complaint... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether Randy B. made a death threat or not, I am afraid that Randy B. is on a fairly negative trajectory at the moment. Unless he can reform himself, he will find himself in the same sort of hot water that Whig is in at the moment. I hope Randy B. can learn to collaborate cooperatively with others. Whig unfortunately does not seem to have been able to do that. All I have seen out of Whig is tendentious argumentation and wikilawyering, and absolutely no contributions that are of any positive value for the encyclopedia. Just fighting and we do not need more of that.--Filll (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support has been established for a 6-month Whig topic ban on Whig

Based on the support established at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed short topic ban for Whig, and the fact that the only "opposes" come from individuals on the same side of the general homeopathy battles as Whig, but with all the additional uninvolved Supports, there appears to be a clear and balanced support of enforcing a 6-month total topic ban on Whig from homeopathy/science articles. There may or may not be support for an outright 6 month ban. At the very least, Whig will be banned from editing, or posting about any homeopathy as detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Above probation.2C what it would_entail:

A 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to User:Whig under any username.

It appears this is enabled now per community consensus of uninvolved users. Lawrence § t/e 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you define "uninvolved" users? Could you explicitly spell out who you considered to be involved and uninvolved, as not everyone can tell that at a glance. Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig notified. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have logged this at User:Whig/Community sanction and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I request that an administrator who did not comment above confirm this result. Lawrence Cohen is not an administrator, and while the result of the discussion is clear, our process for creating community sanctions does not specify whether an administrator or editor should record the result, nor whether an administrator participating in the discussion should close. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should change a thing that Lawrence closed it and notified Whig, but for what its worth, I concur. Consensus was clear support for the 6 month topic ban. Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(to no-one in particular) My reading of #Proposed short topic ban for Whig is that there is considerably more support for a full ban of 6 months than a mere topic ban. Several supporters of the full ban detailed why a topic ban would be a worse solution than a full ban. The same cannot be said of those supporting the topic ban, who said little actually against a full ban. – Steel 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I supported a full ban, but would accept the topic ban on a trial basis. If problems continue or shift to other venues, we can discuss upgrading to a full ban. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, there may or may not be support to fully ban him. There was clear topic ban consensus, though, so I closed that bit out. Either way, it's final straw time. Whig is a smart guy, he may end up doing good work the next 6 months on the rest of the site. If not, he'll be gone soon, unfortunately. Lawrence § t/e 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I would prefer that someone present a concrete reason why, given a clear (IMO) consensus for a full ban and good reasons against a topic ban, we should favour the topic ban. Doing things on a trial basis is good sometimes but not when it will create avoidable extra work for the same end result. – Steel 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Because consensus can be wrong. I prefer that arbcom decide on cases of indefinite banning. Rump opinion in the community (especially one as large as this) is a bad way to call for indefinite bannings in non-obvious cases (and yes, I realise it might seem obvious to you). Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But we're not talking about an indefinite ban, and Whig can get the ArbCom involved if he feels consensus was wrong. – Steel 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy that so many editors that are involved in editing in the topic area supported the ban - it would have been better if more uninvolved editors had commented (would I have been considered uninvolved?) - but I can confirm that the above process does represent a consensus - a consensus of whom though, is not entirely clear yet. I'm also unhappy that the ban length started off as 31 days, and then became 6 months, and that there was no clear process of starting and finishing the discussion. It all seemed to come together ad-hoc and on-the-fly in response to Whig's initial posting. The appearance (at first glance) is that the AN posting by Whig prompted the following community ban discussion. We should try and avoid appearances like that, as we don't want to discourage people from posting here. I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points; (2) People declaring their interest and article involvement (or uninvolvement) up front; (3) Clear presentation of evidence (that did happen here); (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves (that also happened here); (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment". Carcharoth (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page probably isn't the best for that sort of thing (the CSN page mentioned elsewhere could be dedicated to that) and something this severe should be structured better. But if people try to push that, the anti-process wonks will descend. :( Lawrence § t/e 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It should avoid becoming mini-arbcom, but equally I don't think the above haphazard process really works. People say a dedicated noticeboard turned into "Votes for banning", but the above process looked like "votes for banning" as well. I remain unconvinced that the community is coherent enough to deal with cases like this (by which I mean that coherency is found in subsets of the community, and this can lead to bias in decisions), and that the community shouldn't be afraid of passing such cases to arbcom. Well, what I really mean is that indefinite bans (which didn't happen here) should not be handed out by a sometimes capricious community, when arbcom doesn't presume to hand out indefinite bans. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to define the process by contributing to Wikipedia:Community sanction. It would be good set expectations. Anybody is free to request arbitration at any time if they dislike the result or process. Likewise, any decision here can be appealed here and if there is substantial support to change the result, so be it. Additionally, you criticize lack of participation by the uninvolved, and at the same time criticize "votes for banning." Which will it be? If we encourage lots of participation, it looks like votes for banning. If we post a result and ask "does anybody object" we do not have votes for banning, but we have decidedly less participation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig has stated he intends to appeal, as is his right. The problem with going through yet another administrative procedure is that they are extremely disruptive and involved, eating up hundreds of hours of time and essentially wasting precious volunteer effort and goodwill. How many hours have been devoted to Whig's situation already in 3 RfCs (4 if you count the one he brought) plus assorted AN/I proceedings plus endless negotiation and fighting on the talk pages? And how many productive edits from Whig did the community get in return? We might easily be spending 500 or 1000 man hours per productive edit or more. At what point will the community realize that the methods that were developed when WP was smaller and a different sort of place do not work any longer? So in this sense, I agree with User: Carcharoth. All the methods we have for dealing with this sort of situation, including what just transpired above, basically stink. We need to think creatively about what we want out of procedures to deal with these cases, and how best to implement them, using some sort of cost-benefit analysis.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Would you agree with the five points I raised above? Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I too support Carcharoth's concerns that the vast majority of people who have commented here (including me) have voted in a predictable fashion. We need more outsiders' POV. The one outsider to date who has expressed thoughts here, [Tanthales39], saw "fishy" allegations. This editor made it clear that he is not a "Whig supporter" and yet, he seemed to wonder where the beef is...and so do I. I hope that there is NO 6-month ban until some more outsiders weigh-in. DanaUllman^Talk 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I agree somewhat. Let's examine them one by one: (1) Clear start and end points; Yes clearly useful and obviously not so well done in this case. (2) People declaring their interest and article involvement (or uninvolvement) up front; This would be better for outsiders to be able to identify who is who. Those of us involved know, but outsiders do not. (3) Clear presentation of evidence (that did happen here); Yes we have some evidence, although to be honest this is just a tiny fraction of all the evidence that exists in this case. It would take a tremendous amount of time to compile an exhaustive record, or even a crude summary. Clear evidence is valuable to help outsiders evaluate the situation. Those of us who have lived with this for 6 months or more are very familiar with the particulars and do not really need to look at much more evidence; we lived it. (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves (that also happened here); He has had an opportunity to defend himself; he has not always taken these opportunities and I think his defense so far has been somewhat underwhelming, although some might argue that he did not have enough time for a good defense. He will get another chance or two or more when he appeals however, and then his case can be made at his leisure. (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment". I understand and partially agree. However, in this case, there have been several votes for a community ban already over the last few months which were overwhelmingly in favor of more editing restrictions if not a total ban. However, the community has given him "one more chance" several times, and not much happened. Unfortunately, this tends to create a situation where the subject does not believe that WP is serious in these cases, since they have escaped punishment over and over and over. This is not a "heat of the moment" situation here, but just the case of someone who has had maybe three or more "last chances" and has failed to take advantage of them, and continued to figuratively spit in the face of his fellow editors (and I have been told in private communications by both proscience and proalternative medicine proponents that the atmosphere on these pages is so foul that they do not want to contribute). Also, our failure to ever act on these "threats" and "last chances" sends a powerful signal to other malcontents and warriors on these pages, on both sides of the issue, and gives them tacit permission to escalate their disputes and engage in bad behavior themselves. We could wait another week, but would it change anything after 6 months or more of "last chances"? Maybe this should be codified in some sort of standard procedure, but I do not think it was unfair in this case, at all.--Filll (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There actually was a significant amount of uninvolved input, though it was perhaps drowned out by involved editors. A series of uninvolved admins and editors felt that Whig's conduct justified a full or topic ban; perhaps most significant was User:East718, who was formerly Whig's mentor and now supports a ban. I agree with several of Carcharoth's points, the largest being that it's best to declare upfront one's involvement when commenting on something like this. That said, given Whig's determination to go to ArbCom, that is perhaps the appropriate next step as all of our other bureaucratic processes for dealing with this sort of thing have been hammered ad nauseum. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be too little, too late, but I consider myself an only tangentially involved editor, and I fully concur that the comic opera otherwise known as Talk:Homeopathy would be better served by relieving it of the editing pattern shown by Whig there. For full disclosure, I also believe that there are other editors there who could improve the discussion by drastically altering their editing habits, or in lieu of that, not editing there at all. And in at least one other case, this appears to be happening. In both cases, I defer the severity to the community, but add that this may (or should) be the tip of the iceberg. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors who have expressed procedural misgivings about this discussion are invited to review the history at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing. The guideline originally required a consensus of uninvolved editors because of concerns that partisans to various conflicts would drive out minority voices. About a year ago the uninvolved editor clause got removed from the guideline. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Community sanction which contains process information. We need to decide whether to merge or do something else with this page. Regardless of the form, we need to record a process for establishing community sanctions so that these questions of fairness (How long does the discussion run? How do we count involved/uninvolved comments?) need not be revisited each time. Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We also need to make sure that those procedures make clear what is being proposed. There is serious reason to doubt whether the consensus above is for a 6 month broad topic ban, or a 6 month community WP ban. Procedural fairness necessitates such questions be addressed. Such discussions also should ideally be linked from AN or AN/I, but not held there, as these are community sanctions, not administrator sanctions. Ultimately, it may be appropriate to revoke the sanction on Whig, sort out these questions and then, follow the agreed procedure to make a decision. However, such should only occur if Whig was in agreement. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to restart this discussion on a subpage. For fairness, I suggest the following:

• Discussion lasts a minimum of 48 hours, or as long as uninvolved editors wish to discuss the matter. Involved editors cannot prolong the discussion with endless stonewalling.
• The discussion will be closed by an uninvolved administrator who has not participated in the discussion.
• Specific text of the remedy will be proposed. If no administrator objects, the remedy will become effective. If an administrator objects, the remedy may be modified and re-proposed.
• If it becomes clear that there is an difference of opinion amongst administrators that cannot be resolved through simple discussions, then the matter can be referred to arbitration upon request of any party, and the Arbitration Committee will decide whether to hear the case or not.
• If a sanction is placed, Whig has the right to ask the Arbitration Committee to review the decision. The review might be an expedited procedure or it could be a full case, in the Committee's option.

I hereby request that the existing sanction be suspended until these procedural issues are addressed. We should not place sanctions that are in any way questionable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think you probably want to modify the first point to request some disclosure related to involvement - otherwise, who is to judge what "involved" means? I think the third and fourth points are unreasonable - and frankly, encourages an 'us and them' view of the admin/editor relationship. We are not talking about an indefinite ban - where the 'no admin will undo' standard is used; we are talking about a community imposed sanction, and whilst admin action may be required for its enforcement, I don't see any reason for an admin veto. A more reasonable notion would be that a period (say 24 h) is set aside for any editors to propose remedies, which are to be discussed until consensus is reached - but no new remedies may be proposed after the 24 h. In the present case, it seems likely that two options will be considered. In line with ArbCom practice, I suggest that a maximum time limit of one year be applied for any proposed sanction. The closing uninvolved admin (or even bureaucrat?) can evaluate what the community consensus is, weighing the views of involved and uninvolved participants, without reference to admin/non-admin status. This admin should also have the option to reopen the discussion as 'no consensus'. We should also formulate a standard set of terms for enforcement before a discussion of proposals begins - similar to ones from ArbCom, most likely - so that enforcing admins have guidance as to enforcement action, whilst retaining appropriate discretion. We need to give some consideration to the question of 'evidence' and format. I suggest an approach like ArbCom RfAr would be suitable - presentations (of whatever length) by anyone who chooses to offer. A separate section for response (in this case from Whig). Another section for 'voting'. No threaded discussions on the 'case' page, but allowed on its talk page. Thoughts? Finally, I reiterate my earlier point - reconducting in this way should not occur without agreement from Whig. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is too complex. If the existing decision stands, Whig can appeal to ArbCom. The community has resolutely rejected the idea of "votes for banning". If we look at the consensus of editors, the partisans to this dispute with be highly incentivized to disrupt, bring in new friends, and it will turn into a circus. When we site ban editors, the standard is no admin willing to unblock. We should use the same standard here, to prevent drama and ensure fairness. I think this discussion over process should move to Wikipedia talk:Community sanction. We should hammer out a fair process, without regard to any specific case. Once we have agreed on a process, then we should be able to process cases with much less controversy. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions about process, and I agree 'vote' is a poor word choice on my part. However, I completely disagree about the standard. No admin willing to object for a fixed length topic ban is outrageous - it means any admin involved in a disputed area can prevent disruption from editors agreeing with their perspective being usefully addressed. It gives admins an unregulated power to act in relation to content disputes in which they are involved. Further, it is a COMMUNITY sanction we are discussing, and this is not about use of tools, so everyone is supposed to be equal. Admins are not supposed to have any extra weight in presenting ArbCom evidence, expressing views in deletion debates, etc - why should they be special in this area? The closing admin may weigh contributions differently - and long-standing and respected editors (admin or not) are likely to carry more weight, which is fine - but an admin veto is unacceptable. I am happy to move the rest of this discussion to the talk page, as you suggest, but I wanted to register here that community sanctions are imposed by the community - and we are supposed to be equal. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but if you look at WP:BAN the standard for a community ban is "no admin willing to unblock". Do we really want to have different standards for topic bans and community bans? Please answer at Wikipedia talk:Community sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Aids POV

In Aids:Stigma the final two lines convey that conservatives are less likely to be informed about HIV transmission information. Citations cited are citations 132, 134, and 135. 132 only gives one isolated example of a conservative and one other of an antigay activist being biased against, not misinformed, about the relations between homosexuals and HIV. 134 does not say anything about conservatives. 135, however, initially states that they expect misconceptions to be held by conservatives. However, later in the document, specifically in the final paragraph of page 16, the study notes: "The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgments rather than political beliefs." This means that not only does the citation actually contradict the phrase in the stigma section, but rather, in response to an argument made noting that the phrase said "significant predictor", could even be interpreted as meaning that liberalism is also conducive of being misinformed about Aids. Either way, to say that a political party, whichever it may be, is more likely to be misinformed about Aids is in conflict with the citations. The final four words of the section in question are "or conservative political ideology". This phrase is, as I have presented above, clearly POV. When I tried to remove the phrase, the revert was undone by an editor. When I later presented this rationale, he refused to hear it, and he and another editor (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) reverted all my attempts to remove the blatant POV without providing correct rationale for their reversions. Several times my edits were reverted with them not even making a single comment on the talk page, when the phrase was clearly under discussion and they knew it. Quoting the wikipedia policy for Tendentious Editing: "the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". No rationale has, of yet, been provided that is valid rationale. Furthermore, Wikipedia:verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." No evidence has been provided, yet these users (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) continue to stop me from removing the POV. Please help, perhaps by weighing in on the discussion (the new discussion, as the old one degenerated into name-calling) at [32]. I'm not defending conservatism, I'm defending NPOV.Merechriolus (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for dispute resolution. AIDS is one of our most heavily-watched articles, so one option is to let things sit for a day or so and you'll likely get input from some of the regulars, many of whom are solid and experienced Wikipedia editors and may be able to help resolve this. Another option is to request outside comment via a formal request for comment on the matter at hand. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will request comment (under science and technology, unless you would like it in Sports, Law, Society, and Sex) if my most recent withdrawal of the POV phrase is reverted again. I waited at least 40 hours after my last edit to be sure not to violate 3RR. If appropriate rationale is not provided, I will also update this section.Merechriolus (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to continue WP:3RR by gaming the system is not appropriate.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your input, marley. If you have something to say, I would be far more interested in your rationale for reverting my removal of the statement in question.Merechriolus (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We group Sports, Law, Society, and Sex into a single heading? That's interesting. I'd put it under Science/Technology, or perhaps Politics. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin has reverted my most recent removal of the POV statement without providing rationale in the discussion on the talk page. No clear reason was provided on the reversion description, bit I quote:"Reverted to revision 197113320 by Optigan13; Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.using TW". Obviously, the validity of restoring the statement like OrangeMarlin just did is out of the question, yet he continues to revert my edits. I would like to request that an admin ask him to discontinue his actions, because he has requested that I not violate his talk page and I will comply, and I will request comment.Merechriolus (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin has removed the entire paragraph in which the statement is question was contained. I will wait 24 hours to see if he reinstates the statement in any form; if he does not, I will declare this thread moot. If he reinstates said statements, I will continue to pursue the removal of the POV. If he later restores the phrase in question after 24 hours, I will contact an admin directly rather than go here, because this page has proved to be largely ineffective in my pursuit of the removal of the phrase (other than mastcell's suggestion to ask for comment, thank you.) If, by 10:00 PM of Tuesday, March 11th, the phrase is still not restored, I will withdraw current pursuits and requests relating to the phrase in question. I'd just like to thank Orangemarlin for coming around and making this easier for all of us here at wikipedia. However, if an admin would like to comment, the comment would still be more than welcome.Merechriolus (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a day and pretty much everything is resolved, so I'm declaring this moot now, but will allow the admins to remove it at their own discretion. Thanks.Merechriolus (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with a cabal of a obstructive editors POV and OR

I've been dealing with what one could call the "haunted houses" of Wikipedia: the Killian documents-related articles. They are seemingly abandoned and derelict, with unref'd assertions and lonely "Citation Missing" tags left unattended for ages. But if someone decides to pop in to try to fix things up, then all of a sudden all sorts of ephemeral characters come out of the woodwork and things get very, VERY busy and strange. But not exactly in a good way given that the poor encyclopedic state of the Killian articles never changes. The central problem appears to be that the article is protected/owned by a group of editors who not only have little or no interest in fixing/improving anything, but who actually actively oppose anybody who tries. Past issues and clues indicate that most if not all of these obstructive editors are affiliated with the conservative/right wing blog site, Little Green Footballs, which also has a bit of a vested interest in the Killian business -- it's their main claim to fame.

I had thought to try out the dispute mediation process by following up with a suggestion to start at the bottom with WP:3O. Since I know this is a messy, complex situation, I thought to start a new discussion section on the Killian documents Talk page concurrent with a WP:3O request, and made a section note the WP:3O Talk page for interested parties to watch what happens. And sure enough, this is what ended up happening as is typical -- tortuously drawn out "discussions" consisting primarily of ad infinitum instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and chronic violations of the part of WP:CIVIL that goes, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I may be mistaken here, but this seems to make things now more of a concern to WP:AN since this type of purely disruptive behavior is a separate matter from content disputes. (PS: the WP:3O request was eventually declined because of there being more than two editors involved.)

Even when I have all primary and secondary sources on my side, never mind elementary logic, and the obstructing editors literally have nothing to refute with, they still won't give in only anything significant, with this last sectional sequence being a good example. The issue here is whether these possibly (and possibly not) forged military memos should be referred to as, well, memos. This sounds stupid and minor, but it's actually quite significant: military memos ("Memorandum for Record," "Memo for file" and such) have certain recommended and accepted formatting characteristics, like for instance how the signature block is on the right side, as opposed to it generally being the left side for more official documents. Every single available ref indicates that these are memos: descriptions and examples in both the the official USAF writing guide, The Tongue and Quill (PDF pgs 139-176), this ROTC powerpoint presentation, as well as any available samples, like this for instance. Even further, both CBS and USA Today, who had originally and independently obtained the memos, also clearly refer to the documents as memos.

For any other Wikipedia article, all these unimpeachable ref's would have been much. much more than enough to resolve the issue, but not with the Killian articles -- not only do all these ref's get chronically ignored no matter how many times I try to draw attention to them, some editors have gone so far to try to even self-reference the article itself as a ref: [33], [34]. To me this seems overall to be a textbook case of chronic gaming to block changes, regardless of how much they would improve the article, and to discourage anyone from even trying.

Some of you might wonder why this "memos" bit would be so significant and why would anyone bother to go to such extreme lengths to keep this rather innocent sounding term from being used, especially if it's inarguably an accurate description. Well, for one thing, memos are not archived like other military documents. For instance, this DoD repository of George Bush's military records doesn't contain a single memo. Only when they are classified are they archived, like this other declassified memo. What happened is that a lot of would-be Sherlocks in both the blogosphere and even the mainstream media kept comparing the format of the Killian memos to that of Bush's DoD records, and they misread the format differences as being an additional sign of forgery, especially the position of the writing block being on the right (where it's suppose to be for a memo).

So basically having a Wikipedia article simply accurately describing the memos as being, well, memos actually undercuts a large chunk of the forgery claims. It even throws suspicion on the credibility of the supposedly independent panel review that CBS had commissioned to investigate the matter: in the panel's final report on page 156 (by PDF count), the evidently less than investigative investigators also thought the signature block was suppose to be on the left side, and used that as another reason to come down hard on the CBS personnel who had dealt with the Killian memos.

Such a little word, such big consequences....

But more to the point here, what should be done, or what should I do further, to deal with obstructive editors apparently chronically and willfully ignoring standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nevermind WP:HONEST and basic manners? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Note that I'm not an admin, just watching this page.) I've looked through the issues there, and it seems obvious that there is indeed a problem. I think the next step you should be taking is an article RFC. That should get some outside opinions on this issue from people who are more qualified than me to judge the issues. (Politics would probably be the best category there.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I second this motion. These editing patterns as bound to occur on such controversial articles, so filing an article RfC is definitely the best option. нмŵוτнτ 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc is now blocked. I think we all know what it means when a single user with a long history of blocks for tendentious editing and a very narrow set of editing interests complains about the "cabal" of "obstructive editors": in most cases it is an indication that all is as it should be, and that POV-pushing is being resisted.

The description above bears little resemblance to the truth; far from being abandoned, these articles have been the subject of relentless POV-pushing by Callmebc combined with vitrol personally directed against one of the cited sources, which has resulted in several OTRS tickets and related exchanges over several months. I went to get the references and found yet another complaint this week from this person towards whom Callmebc apparently cannot bring xerself to remain civil. Since Callmebc was unblocked on the understanding that tendentiousness and disruption would cease, and tendentiousness and disruption clearly have not ceased, I have reinstated the block. VRTS ticket # 2008030210009128 is the latest, others were at VRTS ticket # 2007111410017735 and VRTS ticket # 2007103010015799. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems about right. Ronnotel (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I must say that the sheer cheek of attempting to re-activate this issue by presenting it as a newly found issue from a previously uninvolved party is due some grudging acknowledgement... Does anyone need review the basis on which Callmebc was last unblocked, or is this moot following Guy's actions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, giant balls of brass (though I believe BC is female), but minus many many marks for smartness bringing this here in these terms - the complaint might just as well have stated up front that "I demand the WP:TRUTH be told and these people must be banned for insisting on WP:V instead". Guy (Help!) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the block. The involved user has a long history of disruptiveness and uncivil behavior toward editors, and, on the whole, has not been particularly helpful here. This is all evident by the myriad blocks for the same reasons, including one that was supposed to be indefinite but was retracted in a promise Callmebc would behave himself--clearly not a promise he has lived up to. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So I don't commit the same "sins", could someone point me to definitions of "tendentiousness and disruption" and how they relate to article authoring and editing?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TE, WP:DE. Also WP:NOR, WP:SOUP, WP:LAWYER in this particular case. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

possible vandalbot

Anyone else notice a lot of vandalism along the lines of this: Here. Appears to replace every newline in a section with an instance of _nl_

Seen it quite a bit tonight/this morning. A lot a just random IPs doing. The behavior seems to suggest vandalbot, but I dunno. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That IP address seems to be doing it too slowly to be a vandalbot, unless you know of others. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know I've seen other IPs that were reverted by others. Also I had speedied a talk subpage that contained just _nl_. That's what originally led me to thinking possible vandalbot, cause I remember reading somewhere that there's a certain bot that creates tons of subpages. But, yea you're right, it hasn't really happened enough to be a vandalbot. Was expecting to see more if it after I made this report. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way (like with hidden cat's cat) to track pages using the NL magicword? That would show any longterm trends. MBisanz ^talk 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List:

• 139.30.45.41 (talk · contribs)
• 155.187.2.2 (talk · contribs)
• 85.214.68.204 (talk · contribs)
• 194.55.112.104 (talk · contribs) (created template talk that was deleted)
• 195.75.146.229 (talk · contribs)
• 198.54.202.102 (talk · contribs) (This one has some regular vandalism)

Well 2 of them are from Germany (one's a university) and the other is from Australia, so I'm not sure their related, unless its some werid proxy thing. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't now much about IPs, but judging from style of edits I'd say they have to be related. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Try running this by Ryan, he knows a lot more about IPs and proxies and what not that I do. MBisanz ^talk 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Left him a note. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Add 70.253.45.45 (talk · contribs) found by a quick Google for wikipedia+"_nl_" ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

and 66.135.55.196 (talk · contribs) (created category talk that was deleted). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Def something bizzare going on here 195.75.146.229 belongs to IBM Italy. Makes me think of a case I had earlier this week at [35] with identical vandalism edits from widely dispersed IPs. Just gave up and semi-protected the page. MBisanz ^talk 09:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here there's no one page to semi-protect - this vandal seems to go for a different page each time, and creates talk pages apparently at random. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

139.30.45.41 and 66.135.55.196 blocked as confirmed open HTTP proxies. Mr.Z-man 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing the same thing as Redvers I saw this: [36] made on the 4th, so this has been going on for at least a few days and isn't isolated to this wiki. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And just now 155.187.2.2 (talk · contribs). Blocked for a couple of days by me. Is this some sort of HTTP proxy, like the ones that '/'/are known'/'/ to do '/'/ this type of thing? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to blacklist _nl_ (which is something we'd never need in an article AFAICT) so a page can't be saved with _nl_ present? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to just have the Devs disable the magic word for the en-wiki. Maybe Bugzilla? There isn't a reason to use it, but I'm sure its already being used places, and rather than create an unsaveable page (blacklisting), simply turning it off might be better. MBisanz ^talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think _nl_ is an actual magic word (it doesn't seem to do anything), so there's nothing really to turn off. It could be added to $wgSpamRegex, but I doubt they would use that in this case. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I assumed it was a real magicword being used inappropriately. I have no idea how the blacklists work, but if it would stop this sort of vandalism and probably won't cause collateral damage, I don't see a problem with adding it. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this is probably some new variant of the backslashing proxies (badly-configured proxies that put backslashes before quote marks and other backslashes, and often turn out to be open). So the IPs are quite likely open proxies, and almost certainly proxies of some sort, but badly configured and escaping newlines. The problem with backslashing proxies was ended when the code was changed to request that a backslash be sent back with every edit; however, doing that for a newline might be more problematic. So most likely it's a misconfiguration rather than a deliberate vandalbot, but it's harmful either way. --ais523 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

194.55.112.104 and 85.214.68.204 are also open proxies. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Add 116.72.224.30 (talk · contribs) - [37] on 4 March. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And 62.150.76.244 (talk · contribs) [38], 124.146.168.42 (talk · contribs) [39] and 208.116.54.32 (talk · contribs) [40]. All from 4 March, all found with Google. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated list of all of the above at User:Redvers/HTTP proxies. Should we block? And for how long? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. 198.54.202.102 (talk · contribs) inserted _nl_s in a run of edits, then came back a few hours later and edited normally. So either the IP was reassigned or the software behind this can be switched off/is browser dependent/something. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to see something so I took a couple of the _nl_ versions, replaced the _nl_ with actual lines and compared them to their respected good version and there was no difference in content. Which I find kind of odd. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Favour requested from nice admin

Please can you give me the text of the deleted Template:User_vomit?

Thank you 81.149.238.64 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It says "This user just vomited all over their computer. Ewwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". You're welcome. At one time, this was apparently considered "divisive and imflammatory". Grandmasterka 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thought it would be more interesting than that. I've been reading a lot of old policy pages recently, will be an expert in no time. 81.149.238.64 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's divisive. What if someone thinks vomit is beautiful? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will admit, depending on what I've eaten, that on rare occasion, I've found my vomit to be, well down right pretty. A challenge: eat too many cheese puffs and tell me that the vomit isn't simply a spectacular shade of orange. On the other hand, one of my janitor jobs, like most good janitors, is to clean up vomit.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LMAO at Cyde's deletion reason... --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can never have too many But think of the Children!!!! posts. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The version Grandmasterka gave was the lame one. At one point the template looked like this: Neıl ☎ 10:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Vomit.JPG

This user thinks vomiting is the way to diet. Ewwwwwwwww!!

Block review

I blocked Zenasprime (talk · contribs · block log) for 48 hours after reviewing this AIV report. However, there is a diff in the report that has apparently been oversighted, so I have no idea what it contained. In any case, this edit doesn’t give me much confidence that the user will behave after the block expires. Comments? Thanks —Travis^talk 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As the initiater of that AIV, I'm hardly neutral but I second your concerns about post-block behavior especially with this ongoing rant. The thing is, I'm not sure when/why he went off the deep end as he and I had been having a what I considered to be normal and productive discussion/debate about Tefosav but then come yesterday he appeared to just lose it and become ridiculously pointy. I'd recommend an eye on the AfD when he's unblocked in the morning. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who would have thought...

that there were so many {{future airline}}s? Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Future airline. Mind suitably boggled. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot. And? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh, how embarrassed will they be when instantaneous matter transportation comes online (perhaps somebody should create a Portal?)LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And learn that the cake is a lie? How dare you. I take pleasure in the belief that each day will end with a tender and moist peice of cake. HalfShadow (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MOAR CAKE PLZ. And Portal 2, si vous plait. FCYTravis (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fun thing is how many of them are unsourced crystal-ballism. Time to PROD. FCYTravis (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Planned airlines has nearly as many subcats. Gimmetrow 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some could be magnates' brainchildren that have failed to take off as expected. Got one of those. And this filters out non-articles linking to the template. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... the first one I clicked on. Mr.Z-man 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hou Yifan -- mass redirect creation

Resolved

 – redirects deleted and users blocked and then unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of users making redirects to the page Hou Yifan. Most of the redirects are unrelated to Hou except in that they are chess-related (and they all appear in a certain ChessBase article) -- many or most of them did not exist before they were created in this way. Most of them are the names of non-notable Turkish chess players and coaches.

I have tried to deal with some of them but I realized how huge the problem was when I tried to redirect one of the pages somewhere, and discovered that the target I tried to set up was already a redirect to Hou Yifan. I suspect there is sock- or meat-puppetry going on (although probably sockpuppetry as the users have very similar edit patterns, including creating a user & user talk page before going on the redirect spree), and I could use some help in dealing with this.

The users involved include:

• Eddy^kid (talk · contribs)
• FaustXmen (talk · contribs)
• Gfeig9940 (talk · contribs)

There may be others, but if so, I haven't found them.

--128.12.103.70 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Most redirects deleted, except one for the Chinese version of his name. The above accounts were also indefblocked, though anyone can remove/reduce the blocks if they feel I'm too harsh - stress from real life might be getting to me. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef block seems mostly justified to me considering that puppetry was probably going on, and in particular due to Gfeig's use of deliberately misleading edit summaries. Thanks much. --128.12.103.70 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at this in detail, but this could be just some editors making innocent mistakes. The redirects weren't vandalism, though they might have been COI for Google ranking (not sure whether redirects affect that). Please, if you suspect sockpuppetry occurred here, don't block on the basis of "probably", but consider filing a request for checkuser instead. I'm also unclear how creating redirects like this is actually disruptive. Can anyone explain? Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Now taking more time to look at this. Firstly, Pegasus, Hou Yifan is a girl, not a "he". Secondly, there are currently four redirects to this article (see here), all of which are name variants. Three by other editors and one by one of the editors that was blocked here. The other redirects are, as 128.12.103.70 pointed out, mostly non-notable Turkish chess players or coaches. These deleted redirects were (with their edit summaries):
    • Kubra Ozturk (resolution 432)
    • Kübra Öztürk (resolution 382)
    • Ayca Fatma Durmaz (gfdl public domain variation)
    • Burcu Sasmazel (resolution no. 483)
    • Özgür Solakoglu (opponent redirect)
    • Yesim Patel (←Redirected page to Merged data)
    • Yesim Patel (merged data - mistake)
    • Volkan Sevgi (RfD March 2 2008 decision)
    • Turkish Youth Championship (merged Winner 2006)
    • Burju (redirect "nickname")
    • Turkish Chess Federation (temporary redirect - head coach)
    • Turkish Chess Federation (see previous edit mistake)
    • Özgür Akman (name change redirect)
    • Faruk Sahin (Hou Yifan's press officer)
  • That is a total of 11 redirects. Many are inappropriate, but calling this a "huge problem" seems to be overstating what happened here. Do we really block indefinitely for this sort of behaviour? The Chessbase article in question seems to be this one, about a current chess tournament. Some of the edit summaries are confusing, but not all. I also see from here that one of the editors had apologised before he got blocked. One of the others was warned. One was never warned on the talk page. It is possible these were either inexperienced users, or (and maybe I'm now too tired) they were redirect vandalbots trying to appear to be normal editors by using hit-and-miss edit summaries based on the article they were getting ideas from for the vandalism?? Anyway, could someone else take a look? Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The following from 128.12.103.70 was posted at my talk page, and I'm posting it here on behalf of the IP editor. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to respond to your comments on the AN but the page was sprotected, so I'm responding here.

In your list of redirects, you missed a few which I made into pages or redirects to the right targets. These were Chess career, Betul Cemre Yildiz, and Türkiye Is Bankasi. As for the disruptiveness of the actions, I just had a bad feeling about it because these were names of real, independent people (young chess players) being lumped under the name of one single chess player. It seemed like a very demeaning statement to make about those players, many of whom will have careers of their own (and some of whom may eventually deserve Wikipedia articles) -- that they're all just insignificant compared to Hou Yifan.

Finally, as for the issue of sockpuppetry, I'm no expert, but I doubt that RFCU would have accepted the request.

The accounts were created very close together in time and seemed to be SPAs. If I had to guess, I would say that this was probably a group of friends who decided that they would do this for a lark, rather than a single user, but who knows? I did warn two of the users on their talk pages, but when I discovered the that there was actually a third one I gave up ("two times is a coincidence, three times is enemy action"). --128.12.103.70 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It does look disruptive, I agree. I don't think indefinite blocking was the correct response. I've asked Pegasus to comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked all of them. On hindsight this appears to be a one-off incident of edits that amount to borderline vandalism. Nothing more. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If the disruptive behaviour restarts someone can talk to them or even reblock if needed. I'm marking this resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for unbanning

Resolved

 – No.

Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(moved from talk - Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

I was advised that this is the place for making a case for unbanning editors.

I would like to request that User:Lir be unbanned (agan).

The user is required for participation in editing/authoring articles as part of Military History project Eastern Front revamp/expansion. While I appreciate the difficulties Lir has with Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia admins have with him, these issues seem to me to be quite separate from his ability to contribute to Wikipedia content.

Lir has expressed to me that he wants to contribute productively to the articles in question, and has demonstrated this ability, albeit his edits were undone by another editor based on the banning, and having foregone any discussion in talk. Given Lir's personality, and history, this seems to have been an expected result. I dare say that behaviour in administrative realm does not equal poor article content assumption.

My proposal (I'm aka mrg3105) is that Lir is unbanned on the basis that he limits his contributions to project articles and lets bygones be bygones. All discussions should be limited to article talk pages.

There is a lot of editing and authoring to do there, and I would ensure Lir has what to worry about as part of the team of editors and proposed project parameters and goals.

It seems to me that people like Lir need a bit of mentoring and understanding, and for lack of it they become perennial banned editors, literally since Lir is clearly not masochistic, but has been banned, and unbanned since 2002, including by Jimbo Wales. People with that much dedication, even if exhibiting a degree of self-destructiveness, should not be excluded from Wikipedia because, although seen in a negative "light", are also the best advocates of Wikipedia, and its best defenders.

I do not think it will be productive to dwell on the past. I propose that Lir be brought back on a 6 months probation to allow him to demonstrate ability for editing without seeking administrative recourse. Is this acceptable?

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shattered Wikiglass (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we JUST do this? Or am I confused? I seem to remember that Lir came back to Wikipedia very recently. - Philippe | Talk 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Seems to have gotten reblocked pretty quickly - see the history of User talk:Lir. Sarcasticidealist (talk)

Yep, let's put a quick end to this please. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no reason to unblock (again). Lir simply wasted whatever chance he was given, stirring the pot rather than contributing. - auburnpilot talk 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't participate in earlier "history", so profess impartiality with a strong bias towards inclusivity of editors capable of contributing to the project. Actually, with all the arguing of his case in admin, Lir also managed to contribute to an article, and, as an editor, I did not find him difficult to deal with. I have seen the history, but the history am interested in is his active contribution to content. It seems to me that had he not been encouraged to participate in administrative cases, eventually his demands for justice in an undemocratic community will have turned to editing articles. It seems to me there are two separate issues for which only one solution was sought. One is claims of administrative "due process", the other, the ability to contribute to content. Has this banning thrown out the proverbial "baby with the bath water"? Are there actual clams of bad article editorship on Lir's part?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point it's a dead issue, but he had fairly baleful effects on DNA, Christopher Columbus, and Saddam Hussain, as well as several articles on imperialism. I don't think the DNA article ever recovered. It's really not worth your time and trouble to investigate, but if you want to, those are the places to start. His editing at Colin Ferguson (as "Vera Cruz") was also fairly typical. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one scratching my head over why would a day-old account ask for unbanning of a user with who he has no past communication? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't see any recent edits (since last year) in those articles. I'm asking, what has Lir done since his most recent return from a ban to be banned again?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

His contributions since being unblocked include edit warring, repeated incivility and a threat to abuse sockpuppets]. Euryalus (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So where are you involved in this Euryalus?

In any case:

• re: edit warring - I can actually speak for myself on this. Lir made contributions to the article Battle of Stalingrad, most of which were were valid, if possibly needing some references. These were summarily undone by another editor with no discussion in talk, and based on one source of his own. On my questioning, the editor offered to revert the edits. It seems the "edit waring" was somewhat justified (and mislabled) since no editor likes their edits undone without talking about it first.

• I can safely say that what you may consider incivility is probably part of Lir's personality of "give as good as he gets". Should all societies "screen" for such personalty traits at childhood and eliminate such disagreeable people? In any case, incivility takes at last two "to tango". A fiery personality does not a bad editor make. What it does take is cool heads, and if Lir lacked one, then obviously so did the other party. Where there no other editors that could have intervened and called a "time out"? It seems not.

• Threat of using sockpuppets is not actually banable! One has to be caught being a sockpuppet to be baned for it as far as I'm aware. For example if I threaten you now with being uncivil towards you, I can't be banned since I haven't actually done anything that would warrant such action.

So, why was it that Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed - such intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy, and you've only been around for a few days. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's almost Lirlyrical. (^_-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter since anyone can have spent years reading Wikipedia, but never contributed. However, this is my other ID of the primary ID User:Mrg3105. I had to create it for technical reasons that are only partially related to Wikipedia (I suspect). In any case I note that both Ed and Nihonjoe were able to contribute biting sarcasm, but not to answer the question. Is it any wonder people with shorter fuses become frustrated?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an alternate explanation - they have shorter fuses. JuJube (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is absoloutely not. I provided him with a clear and reasonable framework under which he could be unblocked, which basically amounted to stop being disruptive. He did not accept it and wikilayered himself into having his talk page protected. If he wants to be unblocked he has the means to do so. As a side note, the reason your account status is being questioned is because Lir had his 1 year block extended several times for sockpuppetry, so its not surprising that people are questioning who you are and why you are interested. Viridae^Talk 08:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that this for example can be dismissed as Lir harmlessly "giving as good as he gets" but whatever. There seems to be no support for an unblock for the reasons outlined above and also in the earlier thread on this topic. I'm not sure how productive further discussion is going to be on this point. Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have added Shattered Wikiglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lir based on editing pattern; smells more than a little of WP:DUCK to me. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• According to Thatcher, the magic 8 ball says  Unrelated, surprisingly. Got to assume this is actually Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) as they say they are. Though why the new account just to agitate in favour of Lir, I really don't know. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have established that Guy has a bad sense of smell, and REDVEЯS doesn't care to read what others write, can I be removed from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lir? It seems good faith is only a byword for some who claim Wikisainthood.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What amazes me is that most of the people that had appeared here are not in the history of User:Lir. Not only that, but assumption of bad faith is endemic in the comments above. Not one person has pointed me to any sort of arbitration page where the evidence was used to arrive at a ban.

Pointing to Lir's outbursts may need to be contextualsed by the User:Calton's proclamation on his user page ""It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that." The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist" calling himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels". If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost."

It looks to me like Calton is "on a mission from God"! Should maybe add all "bad guys"? As I understand it, this all started when Calton decided that Lir's user page had inappropriate content in Calton's opinion? Right?

Now, so that I don't get banned by Calton, can I get an idea how "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" are defined in his moral code? Has this been enshrined in Wikipedia?

In regards to Calton, I seem to have already been labled per this ingenious observation "The rule "birds of a feather flock together" seems to be in force. I've never quite understood why axe-grinders and stalkers think that banding together gives them some kind of credibility, as the more applicable rule is, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." --Calton | Talk 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"

Of course this is no "rule", but an English proverb derived from translation of a Roman zoological observation that "As commonly birds of a feather will flye together." I note that the only commonalty all participants in Wikipedia have is that we are all different! We are also from English speaking cultures, and therefore come from cultural backgrounds markedly different to the one Calton is residing in now. Mores of social behaviour are far more individualistic, and these individualisms are in fact defended by real, rather the proverbial "rules", often known as constitutions.

I suppose according to Calton I now have the proverbial "fleas" for trying to work out why a contributor to an article I was collaborating with was suddenly baned?

Calton, knock off your "moral crusader, holier then thou, defender of Wikipedia" act, and stop labeling people. If you don't bate the "dogs", they won't bite [www.ddfl.org/behavior/dogbite_guide.pdf]. If you treat them as human beings rather then lables, you may even learn something about them.

For the rest, can someone point me to the place where the decision to ban Lir was made? Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is not an anarchy either. If Lir was guilty of something, it ought to be describable in one sentence as a cause for the ban? Right?

Where is Golding when one needs him?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can read his block log as well as anyone. "Exhausting the community's patience" is the basis of WP:BAN, and it's what appears to have happened here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all too often people in Wikipedia tend to read edits and "history" rather then the editors. Think about it.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence

The above proposed policy has been created in order to set the standard that Wikipedia takes all threats of violence seriously. This should hopefully put to rest any discussion as to a threat being a hoax, joke, etc. My apologies for posting here but very recent events seem to indicate that wide community discussion is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Teh interenets is full of eggshells armed with hammers". Most threats of harm are not credible. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Largely irrelavent, all threats should be taken seriously until proven otherwise. I'm not agreeing to a set-in-stone policy regarding to this, but it's fairly recognized here that acts of violence, suicide or other acts causing harm to someone or themselves should be reported. — Κaiba 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS stands in the way of supporting this. Do we really want to put this idea into people's heads? Durova^Charge! 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Durova. If the community has a "we will deal with threats seriously and by calling the proper authorities" policy, people will exploit that, just to make the community look stupid. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL at the shortcut. Not having to type those extra two spaces is a real timesaver! -- Kendrick7^talk 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

^demon, you honestly think editors of this website want the chance to exploit that the police may or may not show up on their doorstep for making a silly edit to Wikipedia? Again, I feel the only thing we should have is an essay, not a policy, on how to deal with those situations, but there are editors who are not afraid to do so, including me, and I have done so before. — Κaiba 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the fake suicide threats we've dealt with before, yes, I do. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is somewhat the point. I think that's more the reason why if there is a essay that says that we will treat them seriously then we will get less of them. Who would make a fake suicide threat when they now know the police will show up? — Κaiba 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to drop an anvil on your head for suggesting this as policy. --Carnildo (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How often do we get threats of violence? How often have these threats manifested in real-life violence? This strikes me as an attempt to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. – ClockworkSoul 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We gets threats of bombs, suicide, etc. every week or so to be quite honest. In fact the last incident was two days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat or vandalism to Plano Senior High School? How many times has that resorted to real-life harm? I'm not sure, but everytime that I've reported it, it turned out to be a joke by someone who didn't think we would report it. — Κaiba 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a response plan for things like this is not in itself bad, especially since Jimbo has said we should operate as if these threats are generally real. However, in fact, these threats are generally not real; most people making them just want attention, so they might make hoax threats, make real threats and back out of them, or make ambiguous threats and claim, loudly, that Wikipedia's reaction is bogus – or, they might make real threats. A pernicious minority will be joe jobs or attempts to injure a third party by forcing attention on them (Police or otherwise). We don't want to encourage any of these, least of all the genuine ones, but I don't see how we can have a prominent policy page like that without it attracting more such threats to the wiki. If anyone wants community policy on this, step one is to figure out how to have that policy without attracting badness. I'm afraid this page doesn't do it. I'm not trying to crap in Bstone's cornflakes, here; our typical reactions to this sort of thing are badly disorganized, even among people who mean well, and attempts to fix this are laudable. The WP:BEANS issue needs to be fixed first, though, or this policy makes more trouble than it can ever prevent. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reckon Kaiba's probably right that the root of the recent broo ha ha was a misplaced joke - but I think the best way to deal with such things is to be very clear that all wiki folk will do is contact an authority and kick the ball into their court. There's no doubt in my mind that that's the right thing to do - and if the page can communicate that in as simple and mundane a fashion as possible, then it might also help avoid good-faith editors having to cover the same ground repeatedly - a good thing, no? Privatemusings (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion can be moved to the proposal talk page? It's entirely on topic but would be best for there. Thanks. Bstone (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of User:Hornetman16's community ban

I know its unusual to see someone ask for a review of a community ban imposed on a user that has presented cronic sockpuppetry after said ban was issued, but this case is different, every time that one of this user's sockpuppets is blocked the same discussion appears on WP:PW, the arguments in favor of Hornetman are usually "should he be given a second chance? he has tried to be a better editor when given the chance", other users have also noted that he hasn't been given a second chance yet. The arguments for keeping his block are his cronic sockpuppetry as well as often using these socks to repeat past disruptive patterns. Now the idea of finally bringing this to the community has been pitched around several times, the user has been in contact with some of the members of WP:PW and has agreed to comply with the community's decision if he is given a review of his ban before the community. Please note that personally I object this unblock strongly and am only taking this action for the wellbeing of WP:PW, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is still the same: he doesn't deserve more chances. What is this... his 1000 chance already? People fall for Hornetman's lies too much, which leads to problems. People have made deals with him, and even told him how to "lay low with socks" which is simply unacceptable. Hornetman's deserves to stay banned, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He's been socking right up until last weekend and has been disruptive on other wikis. He's even gone to the trouble of bugging me about his block on other non-English speaking wikis (in English!). The mayhem and the Utter. Waste. Of. Everyone's. Time last time round was too much to bear again. I'm pretty AGF-y at the best of times - ask others here - but this guy wore me down. Add the fact that he lies about his socking again and again and again and promises reform then doesn't deliver - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per Alison, this is as close to an open-and-shut case of "no, sorry, this isn't being overturned for a long time to come" as any. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, per Alison. I don't think we're missing out on much either, he wasn't very constructive even when he wasn't banned. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Alison. Leopards can't change their spots. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - and he's still causing problems on simple.wiki. It's patently clear that absolutely nothing has been learnt - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I've had a chance to sleep on it, I can't possibly support his unblocking. I let my emotions cloud my judgment. He has to stay banned. SexySeaBass 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I support the continued ban. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support the community ban. It takes a lot to get banned in the first place...he had multiple chances before his ban. He has also shown that he isn't mature enough to be unbanned. He had a proven sock only a couple of days ago, he's getting into arguments on Simple, he has tons of confirmed/suspected socks, etc. Moreover, in January, one of his confirmed socks vandalized my talk page, as well as others': [41] [42] [43]. Is this somebody people really think deserves a yet another chance? I'm sorry, but I don't think we should humor him by even discussing it. Nikki311 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the unban - absolutely not. Is the lesson here that someone can earn a ban, consistently prove that the ban is warranted through further abuse, and then get unbanned upon request? Avruch ^T 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This was done in order to reafirm the community's desicion so WP:PW can finally continue its work without having to engage in 10, 000 kb conversations everytime one of his socks appears, this way we can source a consensus in order to prevent these from happening. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note also that Hornetman has now taken to bringing the fight to simplewiki - Alison ^❤ 07:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Heyyy, the first amendment line, that didn't work before either. :( I really doubt anyone from simple is dumb enough to follow through on that one, but let's keep an eye out nevertheless :/ ~ Riana ⁂ 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On simple english Hornetman16/Christianman16 demands that I give my opinion as a condition for ending a discussion. That sums up his contribution to SEWP. He is combative, uncooperative and, to use a British English phrase, bloody-minded. Almost two-thirds of his contributions to SEWP have been in the user or usertalk space. I did not support his recent attempt to become an admin, one factor being his apparent lack of commitment to the wikipedia community. I would not support a his return to ENWP-- Barliner  talk  18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) SEWP admin.

Wow, inter-wiki canvassing, that is something that I had never seen before, he is actually bribing users into commenting here in order to drop a disruptive pattern, he will end up banned in simple if he continues there as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... Nothing has changed has it? Now that his actions in the Simple English WP have been clearly pointed out I have seen enough. I connot support his unbanning.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism

Resolved

 – No backlog; multiple users not finalwarned/were inactive --slakr^\ talk / 10:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please address this? Cheers, Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple users were not finalwarned and/or inactive. Please remember to follow the directions in the header of the AIV page. Also, the bot will automagically add and remove backlog notices. Thanks for helping out, and cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 10:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Admitted Sockpuppet

• 64.149.212.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User has admitted [44] being a sockpuppet of indef blocked vandal Burgz33 on the Wikipedia:Long term abuse page. Recently seen blanking content on Pigeon John‎ page. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month; but looks like an AT&T semi-dynamic IP address, so that may not be worth anything. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay. I just noticed the IP after looking through another users contributions and thought it was important to let someone know. I figured one less vandal here couldn't hurt! --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Major CAT:CSD backlog

Resolved

Can a few admins please come help out at CAT:CSD? There's a major backlog there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on, I need help with this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Only two pages & 1 image remaining. Caknuck (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's SUPER_ADMINS!!! Marking this resolved, cat empty (for at least a few minutes anyway.....)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a game or something serious? I just get the feeling that when there are backlogs, some admins race each other to try and clear the backlog. I personally would prefer 10 admins do a few items slowly, rather than 1 admin do everything fast. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

CheckPage

Just a friendly reminder of the names at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to keep mentioning this, but there are now requests over 24 hours old. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Ultraexactzz who took care of it. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dick.ellershaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This person is the intellectual property manager for a UK company making portable buildings, particularly the trademarked Portakabin & Portaloo versions. A quick Google shows that he is enthusiastic in protecting the company's trademark. Over the last week he has been going through our articles editing references to "portakabin" etc to "portable building", and similar. I have left a {{uw-coi}} on his talk page and advised him to contact the Foundation, but as I understand it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) only deals with style of rendering trademarks, not with their use. I would argue that as "Hoover" has become synonymous with "vacuum cleaner", so has "Portakabin" with "portable building". Some input would be useful here. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, him. He gets coverage in The Times for this sort of carry-on. I've seen plenty of edits where he changes a linked Portakabin to a generic "portable building" thereby removing incoming links to his own company's article, plus the even more counter-productive edits like this where he keeps Portakabin yet removes the incoming link. Judging by his letter to "Carve", he's intent on removing any reference to the trademarked names, yet in this edit the source I used to write the article specifically says Portakabin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that he should talk to his company's advertising agency; after all, whether the articles refer to his company's product or not, they are still getting totally free, worldwide publicity. But having read some of the Googled articles, perhaps my "enthusiastic" above was a gross understatement. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to be getting a bit of a reputation, having even made it into The Guardian's manual of style for journalists ([45], page 246 of the PDF), curiously next to the entry for pyrrhic victory. But this seems to be a situation which WP:BFAQ doesn't seem to cover: we're more worried about companies unreasonably adding references to their products, rather than removing them! --RFBailey (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that the Guardian are saying it's a Pyrrhic victory to order magazines and newspapers not to give your company free publicity by mentioning its products? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, I've never thought a pyrrhic victory equivalent to "shooting oneself in the foot". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just have a bot go through and change all instances of "portaloo" to "portable toilet"? Unless there's a real reason to use "Portaloo"? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm sure Dick's on the case already...... --RFBailey (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

What can we do to report staff that are harassing us? --Xander756 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you post some diffs that show this? Also, you'll get a faster response at the incidents board if this is happening now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that any of the staff are harassing you. There might be individual volunteers who are doing so, but as Rodhullandemu said, you'll need to provide diffs. Corvus cornix_talk 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is through e-mail that was obtained through here. --Xander756 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then there's very little that anyone here can do for you. And again, I doubt if it's staff. Corvus cornix_talk 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfair block (again)- Homeopathy

Administrator Jehochman banned me for one month from Homeopathy because of this edit: [46] [47] I tried to improve the article twice by adding to it a quote in the lead from a reliable source already cited in the article. I invited the editors to discuss it at the talk page but I was reverted without any discussion . I asked Jehochman to intervene so my edit could be discussed at the talk page and he banned me. Please remove the ban –it is quite easy to see what happened we don’t need arbitation for this – I think. Best to all.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the ban precludes doing this, perhaps you'd be better served by simply creating an account. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will do. Thanks. But this is not related with the issue.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that your one-month ban from Homeopathy topics, if it stands, applies to you, under any account. What is your new account name? Lawrence § t/e 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor is not blocked, they are topic banned. See Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. "Again"? Did you get banned before under a different account? Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not.Again I meant all the editors you block because of their POV. Justify your ban or whatever you call it, please.

--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All the editors you block because of their POV. It is hard to take an accusation like that seriously when no diffs have been provided. The justification for your ban is visible on your talk page, and in your edit history. You have been disruptively editing the homeopathy article and related pages. Just today you did two POV pushes,[48] and [49], which had to be reverted. This, in spite of many past warnings that you have received.[50] [51] [52] We do not need this sort of editing at Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not receive any justified warnings - Look what the other administrators say below. Dont you agree with them? [53] Again,I added a quote from reliable sources already cited in the article wrote - I invited editors to discuss it - I was reverted without discussion and you banned me.These the facts and the diffs are here. [54] [55] I think arbitation will solve the problem. I thought you made a mistake in the beginning.I m waiting for an administrator to procced. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and related articles are under probation. That means the bar for sanctioning inappropriate behavior is set very low, because there has been so much of it. For probation to be effective, there has to be some discretion afforded to the admins enforcing it. I see no evidence presented that Jehochman is in any way "biased" against specific points of view; I do see evidence presented that your presence on homeopathy-related articles has been counterproductive. Therefore, a topic ban under the terms of the probation is reasonable and justifiable. If every enforcement of this probation turns into a lengthy complaint about systemic injustice, then the probation is actually worse than useless. Let's move on. It may also be worth checking this IP against Davkal (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Davkal, perhaps, but this IP's syntax and complaints bear a strong resemblance to blocked user Sm565 (talk · contribs) (whose user/talk pages are, for whatever reason, deleted, even though he's a confirmed sockpuppeteer[56]). The checkuser may want to look there as well. Skinwalker (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide any reasons or diffs MastCell. The fact is that I was banned unfairly when I was inviting the editors to discuss the changes and reverted without discussion. adding a quote from a reliable source. I think arbitation will solve the problem if the ban cannot be removed.I m confident.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering all the noise that has been made about homeopathy by now, I'm confident that arbitration will solve nothing. JuJube (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MO looks like Davkals. Shot info (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Category for Deletion Archive?

Please tell me how to check if a category has been nominated for deletion in the past and find the previous discussion?

I found that there are monthly logs kept of cfd's, each month separately.

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates

This is huge. Is there a way to search through all the log files in one search? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Use Google. Example. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd behavior, possibly by school users

I'm not sure what's going on here. The below users have almost no productive edits.

• HollyNoelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Orinatoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nathancampis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Alphahunter57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Alphahunter58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

There are several deleted pages in which they simply declared their love for one another, or were complete nonsense. The rest of their cumulative edits are to each others' user pages. I'm guessing they are school kids, but I'm not sure. This didn't seem appropriate for a checkuser case, so I'm brining it here. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is a recent similar incident. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have indef'd the lot of them as Disruption/Not contributing to the encyclopedia. I'll drop the relevant template on their talkpages now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Alchemic Dream

In response to an OTRS ticket, I have removed this content from the article, and placed it on the article talk page. I have also engaged the editor at the user talk page. I don't know if the editor understands our policy on the verifiable sources, or not. So I have to assume good faith, this is probably an editor new to the project. Protection may be of some use here, I have however met 2RR on this one. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The content needs to be removed. "an interview with some former employees dealing with this company" well, that's not a suitable source. It's not been published anywhere we've been told of, so we can't confirm the contents, it's not exactly a reliable source anyway, and there is all sorts of POV and legal problems with an interview with (a) former employee(s) making the sort allegations in question. When there's a reliable third party source publishing the allegations, then we can look at this again, but at the moment, the content needs to be removed. Nick (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Since one of our most energetic vandals seem to be suffering from diarrhea of the typing fingers, I've temporarily semi-protected the page. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've unprotected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts so that IPs/new users can actually post there now! Something to add to a few watchlists, perhaps? Bencherlite^Talk 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Already on mine. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA participation needed to offset canvassing

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27

It has come to my attention that at least one sole purpose account has been used to anonymously contact users encouraging them to oppose Benjah-bmm27's RfA via the Special:Emailuser function. The full extent of this canvassing cannot be ascertained for sure, though investigations are ongoing. In order to dilute the effects of this attempt to manipulate consensus, I would ask as many users as possible to look at this RfA and evaluate the candidate. To this end, I have extended the RfA so that it has a full day to run. Please take the time to visit this page and provide a fresh perspective on the candidate. I would like to express my thanks to those users who approached me having received the emails in question. I strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki to support or oppose a given RfA that give rise to suspicion that this part of an organised campaign of advocacy to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention. WjBscribe 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Post edited in line with discussion below about circumstances where one should contact a bureaucrat. WjBscribe 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

given that the opposes there at present come almost entirely from established editors, giving reasoned arguments, I do not see how canvassing is likely to have had much of an effect. Certainly I participated there, and nobody emailed me about it. I question whether a counter-canvass is a reasonable way to remedy canvassing on an AfD. I'd have worded that first line of the posting above as "... encouraged them to vote in a particular way." DGG (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting people support to balance opposes that may have been canvassed - if I thought that was sensible I would just have closed the RfA making some kind of allowance in evaluating consensus - instead, I'm asking for more people to form an assessment of the candidate. I don't really think there has been "bad faith" as such on the part of the participants, but I do think from the details of the canvassing I have seen that the balance of contributors may have been distorted. That is I think remedied by keeping it open a little longer and asking more uninvolved people to take a look. WjBscribe 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But it may be coming across that you are suggesting people support to balance the opposes [57]. Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi WjB, I wonder whether this is problematic. You wrote that you "strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki to support or oppose a given RfA to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention." When you say "off-wiki," I'm assuming you mean more than just by e-mail, so this would have to include comments on IRC and on other websites, but as you know, these are common. So where do you draw the line in determining what kind of comments or canvassing might require a bureaucrat's intervention? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I don't like the idea of someone being encouraged to oppose or support, whatever medium is used and would consider an extension of time in cases where the RfA was coming close to an end. I'm not suggesting everything needs to be reported, a discussion somewhere like IRC may well touch on an RfA and discussion may follow without it being problematic, but actual advocacy of a position is troubling. In my view its particularly where one receives a message that makes it likely that a series of other such messages have been sent that its especially important to say something about it. I trust people's judgment - do people think someone is actively advocating a position in such a way as the result of the onwiki discussion may be distorted? If so, please speak up. Obviously email has the advantage that people can forward the actual email, complete with information about the source, whereas instant messenger conversations may be harder to document. Ultimately though, I think it is better to err on the side of caution and extend the discussion so the effects of campaigning can be diluted, and campaigning can be discouraged. WjBscribe 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking in particular of comments on IRC (I'm paraphrasing) such as "User:X -- YES!!!!" and a link to the RfA, followed by "Those opposing bastards ...," another link. Although no one is actually saying "please go and vote for X," the advocacy is clear. I find this much more troubling than sending out individual e-mails, because dozens or even hundreds of people may be watching the discussion. And yet comments like this are not uncommon on IRC, and bureaucrats have been in the channels and have seen them, but I've never seen an objection. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The behaviour you describe is not acceptable. Its different to email - one can at least judge how many people were in the channel - though not what fraction looked at the screen at a given time, which can be pretty low. One can also quickly correlate how many people who were in the channel then joined the discussion - whereas recipients of an email campaign are totally unknown. I don't think I've observed such clear cut behaviour on IRC - I can assure you that if I did see it I would both comment in the channel and look into appropriate steps to dilute the effect. What steps would probably depend a lot on the effect of the canvassing and the amount of time a nomination still has to run. WjBscribe 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to take issue with e-mails being worse. If prominent IRC users are saying or implying that people should vote for User X, that could prove absolutely decisive, because they exercise a degree of influence over other people in the channel. But a single-issue account set up to inform people about an RfA is unlikely to persuade anyone to vote in a way they wouldn't have voted anyway. What such an e-mail would do is draw attention to the RfA, but without being particularly persuasive, because anonymous.

The other difficulty is that, if a very poor candidate is standing, I want to be told about it, and I would prefer to be told privately so as not to prejudice things for the person by having an inappropriate public discussion. You're basically saying that people are not allowed to do that, and I really don't see that as reasonable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, they should inform you on your talkpage so it is clear what communications gave occurred. This isn't about one person giving another a nudge, this is about systematically emailing a group of users selected by an unknown criteria asking giving them a one sided argument and asking them to act in a particular way. We have a pretty clear behavioural guideline at WP:CANVASS which makes it clear that this sort of "stealth canvassing" is not something the community accepts. I have agreed that the IRC scenario you laid out would be inappropriate, I am saying this is also inappropriate. I would hope that if you wanted to know about poor candidates, you would follow current RfAs attentively - alternatively you could have confidence in other members of the community that is a candidate is indeed "very poor", they will not pass. I do not see a justification for the email canvassing that occurred here. Further, I think that if someone proposed an amendment to WP:CANVASS to allow for contacting users in such a way, it would be roundly rejected. WjBscribe 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that creating an account just to canvass is inappropriate, so I have no quarrel with you on that score. But I still feel your statement that you "strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki ... to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention" is too sweeping, and if it were taken literally would involve large numbers of RfAs having to be extended -- e.g. whenever they're discussed on another website or a blog, for example.

I think editors have to be allowed to e-mail people and say, for example, "Would you mind taking a look at ...". There is nothing wrong with this within reason, so long as it's not done anonymously and doesn't involve huge numbers of people. I do take part in RfA regularly, but I nevertheless want to be kept informed in case I miss something. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I had not intended my statement to be taken that literally - I was assuming people would exercise some judgment in deciding what should or shouldn't be reported. Perhaps I should add "in such circumstances that you have reason to believe this may form part of a campaign of advocacy aimed at multiple users"? WjBscribe 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. I think it might also be helpful to add something to the new IRC guidelines that RfAs ought not to be discussed on the channels, because of the possibility of comments being interpreted as canvassing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would presume that whoever sent those emails picked their audience on the basis that they might be inclined to certain points of view, which to me smacks of poisoning the well; raising the matter here where, as you rightly point out, hundreds may be reading, sounds more like creating a level playing field where those who take part in the RfA will assess the candidate on his merits as demonstrated by the material available there. That's how I see it anyhow. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no issues with canvassing, right? RFA's are supposed to be determined by well reasoned consensus, not by numbers... right? <very innocent look/> --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) If not, then canvassing is probably the least of your worries. :-P

I personally suspect User:Nrcprm2026, since Ben has had problems with one of his sockpuppets User:LossIsNotMore on the Uranium trioxide article. Has a checkuser been run to see if the throwaway RfA account is related to any of the IPs recorded for that sockfarm? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

TIm, the IP the account used was an open proxy. I've sent you a copy of the email, though, as you might recognise who it is from the text. I normally try to be careful about privacy and such but when you use socks to try to sink an RfA any expectation of privacy is null and void in my book. Sarah 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

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

Sorry for boring everyone again with this guy, but I'd like to work with him. I've just been through his contribs and I can see there's some useful stuff there to help the encyclopedia - the problem is his disruption and trolling. I'll be honest from the start - I'm not his biggest fan. I would however like to work with him and act as his mentor, but obviously under strict instructions as follows;

"Lar is placed under community parole. If any of his edits are seen to be trolling, uncivil, assumptions of bad faith or any other form of disruption, he may be blocked for upto one week by any administrator. After 3 such blocks, the maximum block length is extended to one year/indef. He is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite and is expected to abide by his jurisdiction. Further, he is limited to one account and anymore evidence of sockpuppetry will result in an immediate indefinite block."

I realise that he's been an idiot with the socking, but there does seem to be some good in him and hopefully I can knock it out of him. I'm not scared to block him myself, and I would expect him to follow exactly what I say. Anyway, just putting that out there. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found his lack of restraint in the last attempt to be very frustrating, but I support trying again. If somebody wants to seriously write article content, as Lir does, we should try whatever we can. That being said, if he screws this one up, he should be blocked for at least a year before he gets another try. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this for years, Lir might be the first time I ever heard about ArbCom. You can try, Ryan, and I know that Lir has submitted great content. My philosophy in this case is the motto, "If you go looking for trouble, you will find it." Collaboration and compromise is not censorship and that's something he has to accept. That's really all I have to say about that. Keegan^talk 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even as I think that we ought to keep an eye on Lar—I've always been a bit leery of adults who like LEGOs—I think the instructions read better were they directed at Lir. Joe 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Keegan^talk 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan notice that I offered to unblock him if he agreed to a similar set of terms and he refused instead telling me i should unblock him and take my case to arbcom to get authorisation. That completely disregarded the fact that I didn't block him in the first place. He has also treats DR like a quasi legal system. However if you can get him to agree to those terms, I don't see why he shouldnt be unblocked - they are very similar to some I provided. However, make sure he really understands the terms, or I will be first to reblock. Viridae^Talk 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, Ryan, I think you're being highly optimistic. I have no hope at all that Lir can become a useful editor again. I did have hope when it came to the lifting of the ban recently, but he did nothing to suggest that he has any intention at all of helping the encyclopaedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Is there an section where I can put in my vote on this or whatever? Seriously, why do we want to unblock someone that's caused enough hassle to have been blocked for three years? All that will happen is that a month down the line we'll be back here again discussing whether to ban him again. His ban was so long in the first place because he kept on socking, vandalising, disrupting etc. And he comes back and we want to keep him? Good grief. No. No content is that valuable that we need people poisoning the environment and causing drama as much as that. The harm he's done to the Wikipedia over the years far outweighs any possible good content we might get out of it. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a bad idea. I can't think of a single instance when one of these admin-led quasi-paroles was successful, and I can think of at least one where it was demonstrably unsuccessful, to the point of disruptive. Mere days ago he earnt himself a re-indef-block, mere days after finally expiring a multi-year ban lengthened repeatedly by his own interminable intractability. There is no evidence that an unblock will cause anything other than further heartache, and before long we'll have yet anohter thread here discussing the block, with someone claiming they thing just one more chance is all it takes. The end of the road was back there somewhere. Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not therapy; for anyone. Splash - tk 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The contents of this edit (removed inexplicably by the 'single purpose tagger') are interesting. Splash - tk 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting certainly but why would someone create a sockppuppet account in order to accuse others of being sockpuppets? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure this is a such a great idea. Ryan, I know you've worked miracles before, but Naerii is right. We can do without Lir. Any worthwhile content he might contribute is not worth the price we will have to pay - the disruption he will inevitably cause. Moreschi (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Um, no. When an umpteenth chance lasts less than 48 hours, there is no chance umpteen+1. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please no, I'm getting flashbacks. I don't think this is a good idea at all. And the idea of having to cycle through three one week blocks is rather "sigh-some". I was all for giving Doc's unblock a go but all he did was prove that he hasn't changed one iota since his banning. I would be really surprised if Lir even agreed to this or took it seriously beyond seeing it as an opportunity to resume his trolling and disruption. With utmost respect, Poss - you know I adore you - but this just seems to me like a very bad idea. I think that people who haven't been around all that long and don't realise how much disruption Lir caused back in '04 and '05 should look through the Arbitration pages and his old talk page archives and see that his recent behaviour is pretty much what led to his Arbitration case. It's not like he just came back feeling disenfranchised and pissed off and will get over it with a touch of mentoring. This is what he does and how he behaves. Sure, he makes a few good edits to mainspace articles but he is too disruptive and has made it clear time and time again that he has no intention or desire to do anything but troll us. Sarah 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm the one who reblocked Lir after Doc's attempt at giving him yet another last, last chance. If you do go ahead and unblock, I would recommend that you arrange in advance a complete prohibition to claims of censorship, one of his favorite trolling baits. — Coren ^(talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose Ryan's proposal, if only based on the statement "knock it out of him". I doubt that, given my relatively short familiarity with Lir's personality, any method that includes any suggestion of force will achieve desirable results.

Aside from that, it doesn't seem like Ryan actually has very much in common with Lir. On the other hand I share interest in the discipline, propose collaboration on articles, and integration of Lir into an editorial team, and a Wikipedia Project. Aside from the fact that there is way too much writing to do within the project to worry about all the other issues, there are competent admins in the Project that are able to deal with any situations which may arise, and be able to evaluate Lir's probation over a period of 6 months, which I think is a significantly longer period to evaluate a person's intentions and abilities then a day.

Coren, while I appreciate your statement, I think the approach used in mitigating Lir's behaviour, and in community's ability to emphasize, has been less then ideal. While several editors above have expressed Lir's return from a negative perspective, I think a bit of positive thinking would not go astray, right? Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article! Surely that seem to indicate good intentions? He also starts to express his opinion on Wikipedia on his user page. So what? Do you think New York Times reporters are going to use Lir's user page for an expose on Wikipedia? I looked at it when I first read his declarations on the article talk. So the guy has issues with authority, tell me something new! The page had nothing to with the article, so I wrote to him. Lo and behold, beyond the facade was an editor with actual knowledge of the article subject, good sources, and willing to, even impatient to contribute! For crying out loud, does every 'tree' need to be uprooted to 'plow' a Wikipedia field?! I for one would be shocked if anyone returning from such a long ban had no feelings at all to express on the experience. Bitter and twisted people often suppress feelings and thoughts, and lie low, hatching plots. I don't see Lir doing this at all, so enough with amateur psychoanalysis, characterisations and labels. This isn't some TV drama. --Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article!

Wrong. His very first edits were as an IP , and they were to build his User Page as a billboard against The Evil That is Wikipedia and How I Have Been Done a Great Wrong. His very first edit was "I am the Lir. What I've realised is that the Wikipedia has been overrun by a bunch of morons. I used to care -- now I don't. The idea of a Wiki is a great idea, but the Wikipedia is überghey...", and his very first article edit doesn't come until after nearly three months of soapboxing. He's not really here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What Lir did as an IP is another matter. However, lets try an experiment. Lets ban you for a year for a reason you don't agree with, and see how you feel about it later. I am not supporting Lir's behaviour, but I do understand it as typical of individuals in similar circumstances in the real world. Believe it or not, but Lir's behaviour since his most recent unbanning was normal! You just failed to recognise it as such. Did you expect a placid angelic-like Lir singing praises of those who banned him? If he did, that would have made him a liar, and anyone able to lie to oneself, can lie to others, those being Wikipedia readers. I would rather an editor called me a moron a hundred times then he/she write one lie that will be read by a thousand. Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie. I can live with that. Chill out Calton. Allow me to explain to Lir why calling people names, and living in the past is not healthy. Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned because currently he is still running on fight/flight instinct.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What Lir did as an IP is another matter.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Lir = IP, and its editing is his editing. The rest of your comments make even less sense: he was blocked for a year, yes, and his behavior is what led to the constant reblocking and the additional 19 months of block time.

Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie.

I'd say trying to hide your identity through sockpuppets counts as lying, but let's leave that aside. You believe that jackass behavior and trolling is okay if you're sincere, do I have that?

Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned

So his not understanding why he's doing something wrong is a reason NOT to ban him, do I have that? You've officially gone through the looking glass. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you constantly hit someone over the head ("constant reblocking") to prevent behaviour, but behaviour change is not internalised as justified, the only thing that will change is the punshment avoidance strategy (not to get hit). You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing.

Using sockpuppets (in this case) is not lying, but rather evading being constantly hit over the head.

Well, I didn't know there was anyone watching me...officially. Is 1984 your favourite book?

Lir understands very well what he did wrong, but seemingly others like to constantly remind him of this and make a point, a very large point, of showing him they don't have any intention of letting him forget. There is all this great talk of "Wikipedia community". Do you know what a community looks like, or do you live in front of a screen? A community is not judged by its firewalls alone. Community also welcomes, appreciates, understands, etc. All I have heard is "defending community". Let me spare you the time; lets have a welcoming interrogation committee so no-one will ever get banned. May I remind Wikipedians that we are a part of the freedom of information community, so lets not become the paranoid brigade.

What has Lir done wrong? He decided to create a user page that may be seen as undesirable? You Calton live in a country notorious for public scandals over deeds by public officials. You come from a country where morals of presidents have been found wanting. On a scale of Wikipedia "sins" within the thousands of user pages, does Lir rate public enemy #1? You (plural) have treated him as one, and he obliges every time. What a surprise. You'd rater have editors writing articles who will cower every time they are challenged...not. (Japan excepted; a different culture there)

Have you banned Lir because he consistently shows POV, uses OR, never cites sources? This is what I am saying, did you ban an editor, or his personality? If it the later, its only because you failed to 'connect', and seemingly never tried. You are the community "shoot first, ask questions later" cop. I had to connect, because I have the intention to collaborate with him. It all comes down to purpose and motivation. It seems too me Lir's most recent banning was snowballed, so please lets take a pause now that Lir has, and consider all sides of the argument for and against unbanning Lir. All he tells me he wants to do is edit articles. If he is lying to me, then I will be the first to support his indefinite banning and you will never hear from me here again. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are talking such rubbish because you don't know Lir and we do. He tells he only wants to edit articles, he is lying and you are naive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. No unblock. I had my doubts about letting him come back after reading his history, and after this past weekend, it's obvious he's too unstable for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actions of Lykantrop

Over the past week or so there has been a large discussion over the type of album that Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. is, primarily between I and Lykantrop. You can see the discussion at Talk: Slipknot (band). We have been at a stalemate for a while now so I requested comment a while back but that didn't receive any replies and I then asked for mediation at the mediation cabal. It was decided by Kagetsu Tohya (who is an outside mediator) that it should be declared a demo album after reading our discussion on the Slipknot talk page. I made edits to coincide with this decision to Slipknot Discography which were later removed by Lykantrop stating that they were vandalism on the grounds of WP:V and WP:POV. However all other parties in the matter agree that it is a demo album and we have reliable sources which claim to be. He has since stated thast he rules out the mediators decision and has reverted my edits to Slipknot discography twice now. I am reporting him for his behaviour because it is very uncivil and it appears he is the only user who disagrees with the decision and yet his arguments against aren't sustainable. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I must comment this: I explained the problem at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability question - a band and they told me that the former attitude of the band and proffesional's view have more weight than band's later attitude after the band stopped to support the album per WP:SELFPUB and I think also WP:NPOV. I was only presenting a fact with multiple reliable sources both from professionals and from the band (Which you can see directly next to the Mate.Feed.Kill.Repat. in the Slipknot Discography). If somebody deleted the sources or the album, please watch the last version of the article by me. Retzer (and no one of the few users) did not show me any reliable sources that would refutate my statements. The edit is according to every of Wikipedia's rules including assumed good faith. Thanks for reading my comment. Lykantrop ^(Talk) 12:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and there is little that admins can do if there is no breach of policy. You (both) need to (a) sort it out yourselves, (b) seek a third opinion, or (c) try dispute resolution, preferably (a). In any event, how much does it really matter? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My issues that I have with your claims are;

• That you interpret the use of the term "album" by the books and Shawn Crahan as "studio album" were prior to this they clearly call it a "demo album" then later refer to it as an "album", as a shorter term.
• The main reason for the band creating it was to demonstrate to record labels their music and get a record deal, they were never going to release this through a record label as their debut album.
• 5 out of the 8 tracks have later appeard on Slipknot and Iowa.

I also disagree with the way you have worded it in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability question - a band. You are saying that all these sources proclain it to be Slipknot's debut album, which none of them do. The only sources you provided were lists of discographys which included it, they never said "MFKR is their DEBUT ALBUM", I have 3 books which state it is a demo album and that it was only to help them get a record deal. Again I am sorry for posting this here because again this is turning into a content dispute but I constantly have to battle against the way he interprets sources. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place AGAIN!! I really don'tt know ere to get this whoel thign sorted out. We had a mediator invovled and Lykantrop ignored him whole heartedly. I then tried to seek the Arbitration and they sent me here. REZTER ^TALK ø 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This really should not be necessary. Admins do not rule on content disputes, which this is. You've had a third opinion, Arbitration is inappropriate and I suggest you now open an request for comment on the article, but it really looks like a minor point of detail and doing that would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone

Take a look at this link to imeem and tell me if it's allowed [58]? I don't think it is, and I keep reverting them, but now I'm on the edge of 3RR and I don't fancy getting blocked over a stupid imeem link. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing the right thing. Any more and report it to AIV. Rudget. 11:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV appears to be backlogged atm. I reported two people a half hour ago and they're still not blocked - and are still continuing to vandalise. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clear now. There is often something of a backlog on AIV around this time; the majority of our admins are from the US or Europe, so when the US is asleep and European admins are at work or college, this can happen. Black Kite 12:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § BBC news article

Apparently people are now reporting Jeff Merkey's rather idiosyncratic interpretation of his dealings with Jimmy, and people are adding that to the Wales article. Needless to say, Merkey is rather a long way off base - no undertaking was ever offered in return for donations, and I (among others) made it perfectly plain to him at the time that no such undertaking could or would be given. But then, Merkey is a real oddball, as we all know. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that smearing Merkey is going to make us look any better in the press. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 12:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go as far as saying that it's the other way around - Merkey is smearing us. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he's smearing Wales. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Smear? I don't think so. Jeff Merkey is pretty self-aware, and would be among the first to admit that he opinionated, and downright odd sometimes. I Like Merkey, he struck me as a decent man, but his interpretation of events is definitely idiosyncratic to say the least. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your comment specifically Guy, it was more of a thought-out-loud - it'd be better for us not to dismiss Merkey as being a bit of a loon/oddball/kook/whatever and just report on the allegations factually as stated in the sources and not dignify them with much of our time. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention is needed howso? Viridae^Talk 12:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, yet. But this is the administrators' noticeboard. It can be used for giving notices of interest to admins. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Its pure content - the claims are being repeated by the BBC so its not as if there isnt RS to back it up. Viridae^Talk 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I reserve the right to draw the attention of administrators to any hotly disputed article or topic on Wikipedia, for reasons which should be obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone disputing the inclusion of the allegations in Wales' article yet. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not belong here. We don't use this place to work out truth or significance, or who is smearing whom in the press. Use the talk page to work out content applying BLP, NPOV and WP:V as usual. Anything else is for chatrooms and mailing lists not for wikipedia, unless you want to take out an RfC on either Wales' or Merkey's ON-WIKI activities.--Doc^g 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My point, exactly. Viridae^Talk 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But Guy is not the only one to want to give a head's-up notice to the community of Wikipedia admins. With breaking news stories like this, it is good to get people clued in fast. My (more neutral) post on this was at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BBC news article. There should be some way of posting news like this without being told to go away. Didn't there use to be a news section on the Village Pump? Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Carcharoth on this one. This is not an incident requiring admin intervention, that's why it wasn't posted on ANI. This is a noticeboard to make admins aware of developing stories and ongoing events, so I think AN is the perfect venue for such a notification. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is ironic, because I posted at ANI! :-) You are right, I should have posted here at AN. I just wish my post had arrived here before Guy's post that (however truthful or clueful it might be) will be interpreted as an 'attack is the best form of defense' response. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the likely knock-on effects on Jeff Merkey, Jimmy Wales, and other concerned articles as the various trolls come out of the woodwork, giving a heads-up about this newest bit of trollfood seems perfectly reasonable.

But that's the trouble. When you have reliable sources like the BBC reporting both sides of the story, you can't call it trollfood any more, or those who point to the BBC article as trolls. You have to swallow hard and be polite and stick to policy and sources (as we should always do anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they reported both sides here, only Jeff's side. And Jeff is wrong. I told him so on the phone, and I was of the opinion that he had accepted that (part of the reason I unblocked him, in fact). Guy (Help!) 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To steal from American economist Paul Krugman, "One of my lines in a column -- in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally -- was that if Bush said the Earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: 'Shape of Earth--Views Differ.' Then they'd quote some Democrats saying that it was round." So, yeah, the BBC is reporting a "Shape of Earth--Views Differ" story. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but how do we say that, as Wikipedia editors of the article, without some source to back that up? Do you know how bad it looks when those editing the article say they "know" this is all wrong? Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton, yes, precisely. And Carcharoth's point is also valid. We have this situation with agenda-driven reporting by people like Cade Metz, who report only those whose views serve their agenda. It's a problem. I have no solution, other than for the Foundation to mobilise its communications committee and actually respond to some of these stories with "official" accounts of what went on. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, are you talking about your unblock of him from May 2007? The block log is here. And the BBC article says things like In response, Mr Wales has called the allegations "nonsense"." and "Jay Walsh, a spokesman for Wikipedia, told the Daily Telegraph that the allegation was "absolutely false" ." In fact, most of the article is given over to the rebuttals and denials by Jimmy and the WMF. It is mostly the lead-in to the article that has Merkey's claims. Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. The problem with the piece is the tone; it builds Merkey up as some industry Titan before reporting that others dispute it. Calton's "Shape of Earth" comment sums it up perfectly. Although I think Jeff Merkey is a lot smarter and cooler than Shrub (I know which I'd rather have a beer with, anyway). Guy (Help!) 13:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I hope you recorded your phone conversations with Merkey. Given his history, it would have been extremely foolish to discuss anything with him without being able to produce verbatim copies of those discussions to refute the misinterpretations and misrepresentations which could obviously be expected from him. --MediaMangler (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, cynic tho I be, I did not record it. I don't think Jeff is evil, I think he's a great guy, but weird. Hell, even he thinks he's weird! Guy (Help!) 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Guy. Let's leave the RS issues at the article's talk page, with any questions about Guy's prior conversation with Merkey left at his talk page. For the rest of us, let's just add the article to our watchlists. Trolling or incidents like this, may require admin intervention. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I had forgotten to watchlist Merkey's article (d'oh!). I am trying to contact him to work out a framework by which he can comment without violating the ban, since it would be very harsh indeed to extend or reset the ban simply because of his commenting on an issue in whihc he's directly involved. I'll talk to the arbs as well. As I think I made clear, I like Jeff and would like to see him back. He was trolled off the 'pedia quite deliberately. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The fallout of the last two weeks is entirely due to wrong-headed efforts to spin the truth resulting in people who are not credible having wikipedia articles white-washed so they look credible and then when they attack us publicly people take them seriously. Stop white-washing articles of living people. Not everyone is credible. Articles on people who are not credible should not give the impression that they are credible. I note someone's edit above indicates the BBC article is a 'Shape of Earth--Views Differ.' type article. Well, read our article on Jeff and see if you can see that the white-wash has created the same thing in that article. Jeff's opinions about anything do not have credibility. So said a US judge who ruled that he lies and creates his own universe. We do ourselves and our readers a disservice when we misrepresent published reliable sources that indicate that the subject of an article is notorious for being a liar. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since JVM has evaded his ArbCom ban with this edit [[59]], I am asking that his one year ban be reset. SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh please don't do that. Like I said, I'm trying to get him to engage nicely, especially since the article is about him. It's scarcely fair to hammer the guy for commenting on his own article, especially since we have no proof that's him and not one of the SCOX trolls making trouble (yet again, as they have a very long history of making trouble). Guy (Help!) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, the address traceroutes through his private space. "jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com", That IS proof. If he has concerns about his article, he can deal with OTRS. SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff needs to be indef banned for his continuous manipulation of Wikipedia and its admins though offers of gifts (on a wiki mail list he offered a free computer to a top admin - makes me wonder what other gifts he has given, prehaps to admins that think he's a great guy?) and attacks of wikipedia to the press and legal threats and conflict of interest editing of articles. He is Trouble with a capital "T". WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be in any hurry to get Jeff back here editing, and it's probably inaccurate to say he was simply trolled out of here since he brought a significant portion of his troubles on himself. My only experience with him, which as far as I know played no major role in his block though it certainly could have, was at Reformed Egyptian. There he combined personal attacks - particularly against Mormons, which basically meant everyone who disagreed with him including me even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist - with what was probably the most tendentious pattern of editing I have ever seen (it got so bad I actually e-mailed JzG, who was sort of mentoring him at the time, about the situation which admittedly did seem to help). I think Merkey probably really likes this project, but most of the time he is quite impossible to communicate with on-Wiki and sort of makes up his own rules as he goes along. Nice guy, smart guy, liked by Guy - no matter. He's really not worth our trouble and it's probably better if he stays blocked. I agree with Guy though that it would behoove us to let that last edit slide rather than simply resetting the ban.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

True dat. I've asked him to email me to fix any issues, and have alerted the arbitrators. I see no pressing problem with him commenting if the debate at his article gets out of hand (as it has multiple times in the past), but it would be better if he left it to others to do the spadework. Quite a lot of us seem to be watching the article at present, which is good. I think the article tells us all we need to know about Merkey: he is something of a hothead, with a very strong (and sometimes misplaced) sense of right and wrong. As long as we're fair to him I don't think we'll see any problems here. As an aside, "go to OTRS" is not a great solution right now as OTRS has long backlogs and can take quite some time to fix even BLP problems. Anyone interested in fixing that can start by talking informally to Cary Bass. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal from voluntary 1RR

I am hereby withdrawing the 1RR which I had voluntarily decided to stick to for 2 months. However, I shall of course not indulge in reverts tell some admin here clarifies if there is any other procedure to withdraw a voluntary decision. Thanks. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This restriction was by community consensus. You have not shown community consensus indicating that you should no longer be bound by 1RR and thus, it still applies to you. See WP:RESTRICT and WP:ARBCOM if you wish to have this restriction lifted. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here is the archived WP:AN discussion thread. Ronnotel (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agree with Yamla, it wasn't "voluntary", it was a community sanction. If you think you've turned over a new leaf and want to have it reviewed with a view to removing it then you need to appeal to the community but given the editing restriction has only been in place for about eight days, it is highly unlikely anyone will want to champion your cause. I'm not really sure why you think that this was a "voluntary decision" but it was clearly imposed as the result of a community discussion on ANI. Sarah 14:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[[60]] This is the link - where is the explicit community decision???? DemolitionMan (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• PUt it this way: if you start making more than 1RR, you'll rapidly find yourself blocked for disruption. Dress it up how you will, OK? Guy (Help!) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Demolitionman, that thread was clearly a proposal and discussion of a community sanction and was closed as one - look at the final comment by Jehochman. Also see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community which notes that you were placed on editing restrictions by the community. I'm not sure how clearer you need it to be... Sarah 10:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I had clearly and lucidly stated that I would accept the 1RR voluntarily only for this article - much to my surprise - it has been arbitrarily been decided my one individual to restrict me to 1 RR on all desi-related articles without any community decision. In light of this breach of faith, I have withdrawn the self-imposed 1RR. So, I would like to know where is this decision? I just want a link - that's it. I am obviously not going to break any rule, so I would appreciate it Guy if you spoke more politely. DemolitionMan (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the mis-understanding is in how community decisions are measured. In general, WP:CONSENSUS is the standard that's used - which basically means everyone may not agree with a decision, but everyone does agree to abide by it. In this case, the community consists of administrators (those capable of enforcing the proposed restriction). The fact that the proposed restriction was presented on this page and received some support, and, importantly, no dissent, was the basis that I used to determine that the restriction had been agreed to by the community. As an aside, I think you might have an easier time in editing if you learned more about how WP:CONSENSUS works, because the same principle is in use at Indian Rebellion of 1857. Ronnotel (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of disparaging redirects

After seeing that EncMstr deleted the redirect page Client 9 and protected it against recreation, and discovering some similar ones, I deleted them (all 7) and protected them. Ordinarily, I prefer to confirm that deletions should be done before I do them, but in this case, due to BLP issues, I figured that I should first delete them and then ask. Was I correct in the deletions and protections? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but they look fine to me (all variants of "Client 9", and I assume all pointing to the obvious place). Anyone who knows to search for "Client 9" (etc.) knows where to look in the first place, and the target is potentially an explosive BLP problem due to the nature of the material. These can always be recreated later if there's no longer a BLP problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point in time, someone is going to refer to "Client 9" as an offhand reference and someone will look it up to figure out what was meant. We should have that redirect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And when there is a reliable source that shows that the individual is actually Client 9, beyond doubt, then I would agree. We're still in the allegation stage, at this point, with no conviction or incontrovertable proof as yet - so, unfortunately, this would amount to a tacit confirmation that the individual is indeed client 9. While that's extremely likely, given the situation, it's not confirmed as yet, unless I really, really haven't been paying attention. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that while some of these may be things that a person may put in the search box, others (such as Client-9) aren't. I saw what was seemed to be an attempt to try and outsmart the admins by using variations which (they hoped) we wouldn't find all of. And the edit summaries on some of the redirect creations were along the lines of "Hahaha". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This particular redirect strikes me as useful to readers, but I agree it's a BLP concern and should be discussed -- the key question is whether we have sourcing for it. I've quickly found both CNN and the New York Times making clear reference identifying the article subject as Client 9. At any rate, Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal is either an alternative redirect target or a serious BLP problem (if so, feel free to remove the link). – Luna Santin (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

It would be appreciated if an administrator could delete this redirect. Per an arbcom ruling, I am fairly sure that trivial changes to a redirect are allowed to be ignored when moving a page back. This page was moved for the umpteenth billion time to a (naturally) more POV-pushy title away from a consensus version. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris

I propose a community ban of

• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Samiharris (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

The Mantanmoreland ArbCom case is apparently about to close, with 4 net votes to close in place. Therefore, I propose that the community act to tie up the loose ends here, by enacting a community ban of Samiharris as a disruptive sock and POV pusher, and Mantanmoreland as a disruptive sockmaster and POV pusher. I am willing to enact the ban myself after discussion. (but not until the case actually formally closes) As a reminder, despite ArbCom findings not specifically acknowledging it, the community has already found the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling, as documented in the RfC. I was debating where to propose this but this seems the best place. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The arbs have already enacted punishment. Let's see how that goes first. IronDuke 17:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  "Punishment"? Mike R (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Did I misspell it? I hate it when I do that. IronDuke 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  I think he's trying to imply that Arbcom enacted "remedies," not punishment. The goal isn't simply to penalize editors, but to fix the situation. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  If he did, he's free to say so. I suspect you are not correct, however. But as I say... IronDuke 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Based on exhaustive and overwhelming evidence presented by multiple users on the RFAR of connections between these two for advancement of common goals: sockpuppetry. The light RFAR penalty has no bearing on any further actions the community may decide to take, and any community sanction can certainly supercede or expand upon any AC findings and decisions, since the AC is simply an extension of the community. Lawrence § t/e 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Even those who were opposed to ArbCom linking the two accounts formally (and to the real life identity that they supposedly share), indicated that they expected the community to enact a community ban shortly after the ArbCom case closed. It's time to draw a solid line under two plus years of controversy, to take action against someone caught using sockpuppets MULTIPLE times over two years, and to tell all sides in an off-Wikipedia battle to keep their battles off of Wikipedia. ArbCom had their chance, and rather then mete out punishment, they decided to take steps for the future. Now it's the community's turn to do what the ArbCom won't. (oh, btw, please refrain from turning this into a straight line !vote with things like oppose and support, this is a discussion, not a vote) :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes please... this is NOT an up/down vote. I'll be enacting it unless I see a compelling reason to believe that the community consensus is against doing it. If others revert, so be it, but I would suggest that is not a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Hang on, that's backwards. You'll be doing it unless consensus says otherwise? Why not only do it if consensus says "yes"? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Consensus already says yes SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  To banning? I don't think so. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  We don't ban people for socking it up repeatedly? Lawrence § t/e 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Lar is suggesting that there is consensus for a ban. There is not. Banning did not come into that discussion (bar a couple of people -- do a search if you're interested in who) and to suggest otherwise is highly misleading. I do not see that sockpuppetry should automatically lead to an infinite ban. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  There is consensus, The RfC. We'd ban any other troublemaker who OWN'd a series of articles with sockpuppets, double voted in Adminship cases.. MULTIPLE times. This is no different. SirFozzie (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  That was my reasoning to support. Mantanmoreland is just another pseudonym caught socking multiple times. We block those. Lawrence § t/e 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  You are being disingenuous to the point of deliberate deception. There is not consensus for anything other than the general conclusion that they are sockpuppets. By all means ban SamiHarris, especially for the abuse of proxies. What do you intend the ban to achieve, other than some vague idea of deterrence or conformity with precedent? And please don't shout, it's very unbecoming and does not assist a convivial and edifying atmosphere. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Sam, consensus exists in multiple venues that Mantanmoreland more than once abused our sockpuppetry rules. We would ban (and do ban) other users for that behavior daily. Why is Mantanmoreland different? Lawrence § t/e 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  I fail to see what it will achieve. I disagree with any ban that does not have a purpose. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Prevention. Stops the account "Mantanmoreland" from sockpuppetting a third time to benefit that Mantanmoreland account, as is our common practice. The user also has never to my knowledge apologized for or stated he would not sockpuppet further. He's been caught now on two incidents with a total of at least three usernames. Why do we assume it will stop? Why is Mantanmoreland any different from any other run of the mill sockpuppeteer, that he deserves special consideration that others do not? Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Prevention is already achieved by the extraordinary scrutiny anything he does will attract. Banning him will make no difference and is therefore at best pointless. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent for readability -19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

• Scrutiny that from a technical perspective he is adept at evading--see Samiharris. Again, why is this disruptive sockpuppeteer any different from the other dozens we ban weekly? Why does Mantanmoreland, a thrice-proven sockpuppeteer, get the extra carrot? Lawrence § t/e 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Do you really think anyone is going to get away with tendentious editing in this area now? Everyone should get the extra carrot, as you put it. The fact that they don't is an absurd reason to deny it in this instance. "We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty equally." Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Should we unblock other long-term confirmed sockpuppeteers then? Archtransit, Runcorn? Are you calling for enforcement of abusive sockpuppetry to change? Again: why is Mantanmoreland a special character compared to all others? Lawrence § t/e 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Archtransit's abuse went far beyond just sockpuppetry and could not have been countered in any other fashion. I oppose banning users unless there is some positive way in which that would actually help. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Banning Mantanmoreland, who is skilled technically at evading detection, will prevent his being able to affect Wikipedia under multiple usernames to benefit the aims of the "Mantanmoreland" username. He is banned from the editing of the articles, but can still influence them via Wikipedia space discussion, RFARs, RFCs, and user and article talk pages. Are we going to be checkusering and blocking any and all proxy-based users on these accounts from now on that support Mantanmoreland's stances? It would be a violation of the privacy policy, common sense, and a huge workload. Easier to get rid of the center of the problem, so that there is no established account for sock accounts to support. This is not positive? Lawrence § t/e 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  If he continues to be disruptive, we can always ban him then. If the softer approach works, that's the one to go for. It has not been demonstrated that the soft approach will not work. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, it has been tried and failed. Fred Bauder explicitly warned him against using more than one account after he was caught as user:Lastexit and User:Tomstoner before. He turned right around and made User:Samiharris. Fool us once, fool us twice, fooled us thrice... why are we going to wait for the fourth? Lawrence § t/e 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Because his prominence and that of his edits is now going to be extraordinary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  You mean to say, "We're rewarding a three-time confirmed violator of our sockpuppetry policies", who is in trouble now because of his self-created circumstances, so that certain parties don't get black eyes and so that we don't "reward our enemies". Outrageous. I think the community should simply do what ultimate consensus bears out. The Arbitration Committee is ultimately only a tool of the community in any event, and can be superceded by the community as needed: we allow their appointment and authority, and they serve us at our pleasure. If they don't do what the community decides it needs, the community can always take extra steps to protect itself. Lawrence § t/e 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Strawman alert! That isn't even slightly what I am saying. What I mean to say is that it is outstandingly stupid to use this "he's going to do this and that" stuff. He might. Then we ban him. Why not at least try what is already in place? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Because it appears that the community wants to apply the same exact standards to Mantanmoreland that we apply to everyone else caught sockpuppetting three times. We show them the door. The community I think does not understand why some members are advocating a much softer approach for this specific user. Why is MM special? Help us understand why this puppetmaster should be treated differently. We always ban these guys. Why not this one? Lawrence § t/e 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Would you be happier if I told you that I would hold the same opinion of anyone in this situation? I do not agree with Mantanmoreland, I do not defend Mantanmoreland, I do not want to further Mantanmoreland's agenda, I am not paid by Mantanmoreland and I do not like Mantanmoreland. I do not think banning Mantanmoreland will achieve anything and therefore I do not think he should be blocked. Is that clear enough? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• (deindenting) Sam, you're nto getting the point here, I think. You claim that a soft approach should be tried. It has been tried. It failed. Samiharris just showed up and took over the torch for Mantanmoreland. So why do we have to go down a path that's already been tried and failed, and have to wait for the NEXT sockpuppet? SirFozzie (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the next sockpuppet might well not come. Given everything that has gone on in this case, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. The assumption that Mantanmoreland will continue to sockpuppet is a very large one. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • All we can go by is past history. Wikipedia turned the other cheek, and that one got smacked too. We shouldn't be presenting a third cheek for him. Let's not forget the fact that to this day, MM has denied angrily EVER using sockpuppets, even though Fred Bauder, then an ArbCom member was the one to find the first one. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The assumption that he has sockpuppeted in the past and therefore will continue to do so is by no means obvious. What would, on the other hand, be obvious would be any sockpuppets he might create in the future. The scrutiny all this fuss will have brought will make sockpuppeting futile. We have measures; let's see if they work. (NB We are not obliged to wait and see, I just think we should.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I sincerely invite you to retract your personal attack, Sam, but if you want to call me a liar (and that's what you're doing, no matter what pretty words you use to gussy it up), That's fine. "When you can't attack the evidence, attack the accuser." But to answer your question, what I want the ban to achieve is: To keep an account who's been caught using sockpuppet accounts multiple times over two years to import an off-Wikipedia battle on to our site from abusing Wikipedia any more. No less. He's made a mockery of Wikipedia's rules, and roped in admins I have praise for in other issues to fight his battles for him. SirFozzie (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Do you know what a personal attack is? Accusing you of being deliberately deceptive is not one. Can you explain how banning him will actually achieve anything? You seem to consider "letting Mantanmoreland edit Wikipedia" and "letting Mantanmoreland disrupt Wikipedia" to be synonymous. They are not. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I know what a personal attack is.. apparently you are unclear. Calling someone a liar (you just used two words where one would have done just fine, everyone else got the point just as well) is a personal attack. Mantanmoreland's editing of Wikipedia IS disruptive. Let's consider what would happen that if it was any other user being caught using sockpuppets multiple time, and their only defense being that everyone who investigated this is a paid shill of an off-site attack clique, (which is patently untrue). SirFozzie (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Saying someone is being deliberately deceptive is not a personal attack, if they can reasonably be perceived to be acting in a deliberately deceptive manner. I did not call you a liar and do not consider you a liar. I don't understand this whole thing about "any other user". What makes you think I would suggest anything different for another user? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  MM editing here under this account or any of the others is inherently disruptive, this is clear (RfC, ArbCom, the MB of text this has generated over the last 2 years). R. Baley (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• You know... I'm not actually sure it makes sense to ban Mantanmoreland entirely. What about a topic ban? —Random832 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  What would happen to any other two-time sock master whose socks double participated in things like ArbCom elections, Adminship requests and ArbCom cases? SirFozzie (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Obviously, I think he's disruptive enough and insidious enough that we just don't need him or his socks around. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  He's made only 500 article space edits in the last year and a half. He's never created featured content or a good article or even a DYK. What exactly does he bring to the table that would merit special leniency? Durova^Charge! 19:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal to ban from Wikipedia, on the basis that the remedy is sufficient. Mantanmoreland has been given a perpetual topic ban of the open-ended "articles related to" nature and firmly instructed not to use socks, and there is also an exceptionally firm set of enforcement clauses. I have no objection to a block on the Samiharris account because it deliberately used proxies and the possibility that he is a sock of Mantanmoreland exists. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
• Oppose. ArbCom just did this, why would we need to reopen the can of worms? Guy (Help!) 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just did what? They specifically declined to do this remedy, but their wording also clearly leaves the door open to this remedy. So then, lets do what they did not. I submit that enacting it closes more worm cans than not enacting it does. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Clarification wanted Can you please point me directly to the wording that "clearly leaves the door open to this remedy"? Kingturtle (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The clearest statements are in the decision talk page. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed_decision/Archive1#Community_ban.3F_.2F_specific_factual_findings where jpgordon and Newyorkbrad leave the door open to this community discussion. Durova^Charge! 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What I get from that is that Archtransit "wasn't in the context of a formal case" while this is. Kingturtle (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• I don't quite see what this is going to achieve. Whatever either editor does in terms of content editing henceforth will be so heavily scrutinised that tendentious editing will be impossible. I suggest it is reasonable to ban SamiHarris for abuse of proxies. I don't see what will be achieved by banning Mantanmoreland. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Before any one else uses the "ArbCom has already decided" line of thought, ArbCom has specifically said that while they passed remedies, that does not mean the community can go further then they have. Consider the Archtransit situation, where the ArbCom de-sysoped Archtransit for multiple violations with Sockpuppets, etcetera, but the community found the breach of trust to the level of requiring a community ban several days later. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Any other editor faced with such compelling evidence would be banned, so why not this one? Several committee members have made comments suggesting the possibility of impersonation. I find that scenario to be highly, highly improbable. To impersonate MantanMoreland, Sammiharris would have to know, in advance, when MM was going to start and stop editing. Therefore, the impersonation also requires extra sensory perception or use of the Force. Sorry, I do not believe in either. I believe there has been sock puppetry and egregious deception. If anybody has exculpatory evidence, please post it for consideration. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editors who entertain that alternate scenario can review this evidence. Durova^Charge! 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I do think there is more than sufficient basis to block Samiharris indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland (though, he's likely not going to come back anyway, so why bother?) - I just think we should give the topic ban a chance to work. —Random832 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Any other multiple incident sockpuppeteer would be indef banned. Why is Mantanmoreland different or special? Lawrence § t/e 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, Mantan is clearly not here to write an encylopedia - he's here to fight external battles and push his POV. He's taken everyone for a ride and seriously violated the community's trust, and I find it inexplicable that some people would continue to allow him to edit this encyclopedia when he has shown he cares not one iota for our oldest and most basic principles of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS (by skewing the appearance of consensus using multiple socks). Blatantly lying to the community for so long and manipulating the kind people extending assumptions of good faith towards him is unforgivable and not the kind of behaviour I would tolerate from anyone on this website. Ban him, block his socks, and block any reincarnations of his socks and keeping blocking him until he gets the message that Wikipedia is not so full of fools that we would tolerate this behaviour twice. -- Naerii · plz create stuff —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Remedies aren't punitive; they're preventative. And a ban is a necessary deterrent: the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts double voted in the ArbCom elections and a recent RFA. A soft don't do it again would send the message vote early, vote often to anyone who knows how to defeat checkuser. Durova^Charge! 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• I support this, as I find no plausible interpretation of the evidence that would find in Mantanmoreland's favor; on this basis, Mantanmoreland has deceived people with his sockpuppetry and has showed no sign of remorse or new willingness to respect the rules of the encyclopedia. This is an egregious breach of community trust and we do not need editors who will not accept the terms of appropriate use of the encyclopedia. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely not Arbcom after careful deliberation of the evidence tied, and declined to pass a sanction. And now we get the lynch mob out because we don't like the result? And people who have not necessarily considered the evidence come with the pitchfolks? No. Arbcom is there to prevent the arbitrarinesses of "votes for banning". This is the law of the jungle, nothing more.--Doc^g 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I can't speak for anyone else but I have reviewed the evidence very carefully. I did not announce my intention to ban this user, across the two userids, lightly, it was after careful consideration and with considerable regret. So far I am not seeing a lack of consensus to do so, despite the efforts of a few to try to position things differently. This ban will cut our losses (of time and effort). ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So you'll be unblocking ArchTransit and undoing his community ban, right? Even the arbitrators have said that the community consensus is above their judgement. A majority of the committee agrees that there is disruptive sockpuppeting (a finding from the ArbCom case). This is the usual people defending for the usual reasons, because they can't afford to take the hit to their pride and face that they were wrong, and defended a multiple time-caught sockpuppetter against charges that turned out to be true, nothing more. SirFozzie (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lynch mob"? I would say that this is only hilariously inaccurate, except that it is also an offensive description of the participation on the part of multiple editors; this has been deliberative, careful and slow process. Nobody has been in a rush. I urge retraction of DocG's above statement. No more attacks on the wiki-community on behalf of MM, please. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Community consensus is fine where arbcom haven't been involved. Often arbcom is unnecessary, but where arbcom is involved, we should not substitute it's careful judgement for jungle law. And as to your assumption of bad faith, I've never opined on this case, and have no pride at stake - so stay off the personal attacks.--Doc^g 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Doc, I invite you to take the logical conclusion to your theory and unblock ArchTransit. ArbCom de-sysoped him. According to your theory, since ArbCom did not ban Archtransit, the community consensus to ban him was invalid, and therefore he should be unblocked, since his block was invalid. And as for the personal attacks, I'd clear the mote from your own eye before attending to others (Law of the jungle, lynch mob, votes for banning, etcetera." SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, during the voting phase some of the arbitrators specifically stated they'd have no objection if a community ban discussion followed on the heels of the case. I shared your concerns about process until I saw those statements. Would it sway your opinion if I pulled up the diffs? Durova^Charge! 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nothing against Mantanmoreland, I don't care that he's gamed the system to pov war to the extent that he has, but the ArbCom has completely folded in its obligation to protect its own integrity, not to mention the integrity of the encyclopedia. Concur with Durova. Amerique^dialectics 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• A banning is clearly needed here. ArbCom, with all due respect, failed us on this case. Those crying "stop the witchhunt" need to really consider, do we want an abusive sockpuppeteer editing various controversial articles (including BLPs)? I think not - Mantmoreland/Samiharris/Gary Weiss/whoever he is has messed us about long enough, I think. Enough is enough. --82.19.1.139 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Hi. please log in and sign that under your registered account. A single post from an unknown IP is unlikely to sway the discussion and may be perceived as disruptive. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How so? Doesn't look disruptive to me. What's it disrupting?--Doc^g 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In a discussion where I've articulated vote stacking as my primary reason for supporting the motion, it would be inconsistent to turn a blind eye to a possible occurrence of vote stacking (even though the editor agrees with my conclusion). Durova^Charge! 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the community ban of the editor using the Mantanmoreland account (and all socks) as convincingly established by the RfC and the Arbcom case. I don't think the editor behind these accounts should be given yet another chance to hone their skills at: 1) evading accountability with more socks, 2) agenda pushing, or 3) bringing in off-wiki disputes to divide the wiki-community. I find the thought that MM would have a voice in internal wiki-processes (e.g. RfA, RfB, Arbcom elections) offensive. There has been nothing in the way of credible explanations on the part of MM and I'm not satisfied that Arbcom went far enough to protect the 'pedia. They didn't, and I don't know why they didn't. . . but the community can. Let's end this so that any future pushing can be handled can be swiftly handled without pouring salt into old wounds. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Based on my independent looking of all the comments, all the evidence, and all the turmoil that's taken place of late, this is really our only option. Arbcom does the preventative remedies, it's up to us to pull the trigger on the real problem though. If I were on the fence about this, then Cool Hand Luke's evidence pushed me over. Wizardman 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

Consensus exists in multiple venues (RFC, here, RFAR pages) that Mantanmoreland more than once abused our sockpuppetry rules. We would ban (and do ban) other users for that behavior daily. Why is Mantanmoreland different from other sockpuppeteers? Lawrence § t/e 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support banning both sides in this destructive two year war. One side is banned already. Time to ban the other side. Both sides are conclusively known to have sockpuppeted in a point of view pushing way on numerous articles. It is wrong to assume good faith about those who have a history of bad faith behavior. Let's treat this like an encyclopedia, not like a game. We ban people every day for less. Is our time worthless? Mine isn't. Ban 'em. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unconvinced. I'm not entirely sure about this. We're not talking about a situation like Archtransit where ArbCom decided it wasn't appropriate for them to enact a ban without there having been a case, here there has been a full case. It seems to me that people who I trust to make this sort of decision have spent quite some time looking into the evidence and have decided not to enact a ban, only a topic ban. I'm not sure what role ArbCom serves if we are, after referring cases to them, simply agree on a different outcome where people are unsatisfied with the result. My instinct is to trust ArbCom to do the job the community appoints it to do. WjBscribe 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that ArbCom may have been privy to information the community does not have. I would like to see a much more persuasive argument about why the community is being asked to enact an outcome the Arbitration Committee has rejected. WjBscribe 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because as one arbitrator has said "I don't want to see "This is an official decision of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee as Exhibit A in a real-world lawsuit"? when trying to explain why even though a majority of the committee agreed that the two accounts ARE linked, why no action was being taken? SirFozzie (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the ArbCom had access to some emails from the editor behind these accounts, and some did not have access. . .in any case no mention has been made of secret exculpatory evidence (oops, except as SF has pointed out below: that "NO non-public info used. . ." etc.). I myself am unlikely to give weight to secret evidence when weighed against the damning on-wiki evidence. WJB, I urge you to reconsider your position and help the community do what ArbCom was too (timid? divided? I have guesses, but nothing concrete) to do. We don't need division, we need resolution. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that ArbCom has spent weeks reviewing the evidence and I am not in a position to devote the same time for scrutiny as they have. You ascribe timidity to them but this is the body we appoint to make these sort of decisions. It seems to me that if we have confidence in ArbCom members' judgment, we should accept their decisions even when we personally disagree. ArbCom would have been aware that there was considerable community support for a ban of these users. If they decided not to do so, I feel I must assume they had good reasons not to. WjBscribe 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, that consensus that MM and SH are controlled by the same user already exists. The RFC establishes that and I don't really see that as a debatable point. Lots of evidence has been presented that the accounts have acted disruptively. What is the question here is whether the sockery (which community consensus already exists for) and the disruption, and the collosal waste of everyone's time, and the precedents set, outweigh whatever miniscule contributions these accounts have, or are likely to make, outside of their COI/POV/SPA area. I contend no. Cut our losses and get back to what we want to do instead of wasting further time and energy. These accounts aren't worth our time and effort at this point, let us be shut of them. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, ArbCom member FT2 has stated in the ArbCom case that there was NO non-public information used in the ArbCom decision. SirFozzie (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor clarification so there can be no misunderstanding - as habitual with me, I posted then refined that post. The actual statement was "Suppose you had the same valid concerns, but did something novel like post them as an open question or emailed us with the worry you have. We could then have openly confirmed for the record that in fact, there was no 'secret evidence' in this case of any note. The only non-public evidence was the great amount of prior discussion and past incidents reviewed that indicated how matters in this dispute have tended to go. No new or recent "secret" matters of any kind were presented of any note here." [61] (post+tweaks 03:04 - 03:17 March 1, underline added). And again, if any user had questions of interpretation, I hope they would ask on my user page or email to clarify. The focus in that thread was explaining to a user not to assume, but to ask, covering by way of example that one might ask if there was "secret evidence" also being presented by users, related to puppetry, rather than assume, and presenting an answer. The answer was, there wasn't any of note presented in private during this RFAR. However there have been many investigations and discussions pertaining to the Overstock matters and related users in the past; IP information and analysis from previous considerations... these were background knowledge how matters in the overstock dispute have tended to go. They included harassment emails, impersonation analyses, checkuser information and analyses from the past two years. I clarified the comment to make clear my statement referred to "new or recent" matters (see above). There was none. The backlog of past cases - not all of which is public - was of course re-reviewed. This was made immediately clear in the comment quoted above, to avoid doubt. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

comment - as I susupected there is enough opposition to likely derail community sanctions. For what it's worth, I endorse at least a one year community ban on folks who abuse community trust through the use of abusive sockpuppet accounts to import a real world dispute to en.wikipedia. The evidence compiled by sirfozzie, coolhandluke, analyst, gdett, and others is well above the threshold normally used to indef ban abusive sockpuppet wielding users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. It's clearly been proven by the usual evidence standards of our community that Mantanmoreland is a disruptive sockpuppeteer - if ArbCom insists on conveniently tightening those standards for their buddies, then the community needs to step in. This project is no place for disruptive, narcissistic sockpuppeteers to hold wars by proxy, and the encyclopedia has suffered enough - ban Mantanmoreland, just as we banned WordBomb two years ago, and we can get back to building our encyclopedia. krimpet✽ 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  I don't object to that line of reasoning, but I would add that the evidence that Mantanmoreland caused or intended any harm with those sock puppets is weak. He betrayed our trust, but I'm unconvinced, having carefully examined his histor of editing on two of the articles, that he slanted them egregiously, inserted unsourced or irrelevant facts or opinions or engaged in systematic removal of sourced opinions, or indeed any such removal at all without discussing his reasons on the talk page and accepting consensus. Perhaps his behavior had some subtle disinformational intent, and the socking is worrying, but this is one of the weakest cases for a community ban I've ever seen. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Tony, I know you haven't been able to get up to complete speed due to how complicated it all was, but did you read Durova's section on the RfC, the one where she specifically says Per findings described here, Mantanmoreland edited several articles in summer 2007 in a manner which, at minimum, looks like the two bypassed normal onsite input to redirect several articles into a newly created article of their making.? SirFozzie (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  There's something even simpler: he double voted in important recent discussions (the ArbCom elections and an RFA). Durova^Charge! 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Having reviewed the same material, I'll say I found it extremely unsubtle, converting entire bios into the most damaging information available. Certainly it was a step above people replacing pages with personal essays, but I think the expectation has to be higher than that. The pattern also clearly shows that the sockpuppets were used specifically for this kind of POV editing, which is exactly the sort of thing standard community attention can't address. Mackan79 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Tony: your standards for what constitutes intent to harm are so low it's not even funny. Your so-called careful examination includes labelling this diff of Samiharris (on the Byrne article) with a gentle "a touch of WP:OWN here". Mantanmoreland reinserts a reference to a negative piece here and you simply note "rv of WordBomb". Mantanmoreland removes two paragraphs of sourced, harmless content here and you comment "Removes "Dutch Auction IPO" section", by which I suppose you mean "no problem here". You don't need to insert unsourced facts or to systematically remove sourced opinions to be a nuisance. Only dimwits do that. But Mantanmoreland and Samiharris have done this on the long term, by repeatedly placing emphasis on negative coverage. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban as long as it is in place for the other side. Evidence was presented in an RfC that was supported by the vast majority of commenters, and the user gave little response other than to repeatedly attack the proceding. The user still hasn't admitted previous sockpuppetry. If he has reasons why he can't admit this, that's up to him, but it isn't someone who should be editing Wikipedia. Mackan79 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  That isn't a correct characterization of Mantanmoreland's response to the RFC. See here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, considering the extent of the evidence, I didn't consider this an adequate attempt to show that the claim itself was false. Mackan79 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, and one reason why nobody endorsed Mantanmoreland's response is that he claimed he had never even been warned for sockpuppetry. Well here's Fred Bauder's warning when checkuser confirmed a previous Mantanmoreland sock. As Mackan79 correctly states, Mantanmoreland has never answered questions about whether that checkuser result was correct. Durova^Charge! 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support At the time of the prior community ban discussion, I said we needed to give Mantanmoreland more time to attempt to explain his actions before we acted. Since then, he has had ample time to make such an attempt, and has made no attempt. All he has done is to engage in battleground behavior. We don't need someone who makes very few mainspace edits (less than 500 a year outside the battleground) and actively uses Wikipedia as a battleground. Since that time, a great deal more evidence has come to light indicating that these two accounts are one editor. No evidence has come to light contradicting that conclusion. The ArbComm decided that it would be best for Wikipedia if they did not reach the relevant conclusion here, but the drafters of the decision explicitly said on the proposed decision's talk page that they thought the community could, and probably would, do this. Their decision also says that by the standards of evidence and judgment used routinely, it is reasonable to conclude that these accounts are sockpuppets. I guess the only real question here is whether any administrators are prepared to wheel war to undo an indefinite block. Because I am also prepared to place this block. If anyone is saying that they will wheel war over it, let's put that in evidence on the ArbComm case now so that they can complete the whole case at once. GRBerry 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• support per Durova, Krimpet and GRBerry. These individuals have massively abused the community's good faith towards them by repeated sockpuppeting. As a result, they made Wikipedia a battleground for an outside issue and in the process resulted in much wasted effort and created enemies of the project that did not need to be made. The old standard in such situtations was whether the community patience was exhausted. I don't speak for the community as a whole, but mine certainly is. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - as above, we do ban other editors for this every day. Will ^(talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I definitely support a community ban. MM is a disruptive editor who has only shown that he will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. нмŵוτнτ 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ban 'em both The evidence was strong, coming from multiple angles; numerous editors without an ax to grind spent hours delving into the details and came up with too many damning similarities that simply cannot be dismissed as coincidental or the results of bias; the defense was surprisingly weak (I waited to make up my mind until I saw that defense), and the ArbCom decision stated the committee found good reasons to find for sockpuppetry, but didn't want to act for vague reasons that the committee didn't go into. Some ArbCom members said there was no confidential evidence of any import and no ArbCom members suggested that the community would be making a mistake to ban. In fact, there were some hints to the contrary from some of the members. The ArbCom decision left the community defenseless if Samiharris and Mantanmoreland should vote together in any forum, a circumstance that would demoralize many, many valuable Wikipedia editors. For the good of the project, get rid of them and reduce future drama and disruption. There is also an important element of deterrence here: Wikipedia currently has inadequate defenses from sockpuppets using IP proxy services. This would provide a good example for future reference, and if we don't ban them, it will set a dangerous example. Noroton (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The community is far from defenseless to abuse. For example an AFD closer is always able to consider the weight of issues and as an AFD closer I have routinely handled AFDs with suspected stacking without worry. Ditto 'crat's at RFA, and consensus on talk pages. This statement shows a deep misunderstanding of the community's ability to handle concerns once they are brought to wide awareness. We feel content that the ruling gives all the tools that experience shows are needed, even if some editors would feel they want more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, FT2, we should not be creating potential additional work for admins who are closing elections and AfDs. We should not be leaving the door open to what would become yet another roiling drama. You should not be shifting that kind of depressing work to the shoulders of other admins. Having read their comments at the close of controversial AfDs, I know many admins can't stand dealing with that kind of situation, and nobody at all could like it. You deeply misunderstand the demoralizing effect voting by both SH and MM would have on other editors, or even if MM alone were to vote on anything at all (editors would then start examining all the other voters to see who MM's new sock might be). We don't need any more of this distraction from a person who has demonstrated more concern with his own nonencyclopedic, POV hobbyhorses and feuds than with encyclopedia building. You had a strong case for sockpuppetry, stronger than what is normal when editors are banned for this, and for vague, cloudy reasons you didn't do enough to protect the encyclopedia. MM, who has been a sockpuppeteer even after he was caught at it once, needs a strong message that he is not wanted here at all for any participation whatever. If he ever takes up another name under cover of an IP proxy, let him constantly look over his shoulder so that the rest of us don't have to be looking out for his abuse. Discomfort the reprobate, not the honest editors. Noroton (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

Less drama please. We don't vote on bans like this. The community had no agreement on a ban, or whether sockpuppetry had taken place, and brought the matter to ArbCom. ArbCom seemed unconvinced, but they didn't just leave it at that. They took measures to resolve the problem, including an article probation and a topic ban from the problem areas. What further, then, does a ban accomplish besides taking punitive action? I think instead of obsessing over this one case of sockpuppetry, the vocal group that has been pursuing the matter needs to let the matter drop in light of the arbitration case, and at least give it the time it deserves to see if that decision will be effective. The amount of drama that the people pursuing the case have generated in the name of justice has been at least as disruptive to the actual writing of an encyclopedia as the disruption they are trying to solve, and it just keeps going on. This proposal, before the case has even closed, is an insult to the time and energy put in by the arbitrators. I find it telling that Lar's proposal includes not even a hint of a reason why an indefinite ban is called for, just that he thinks there was disruption. The two are not the same; again blocks are preventative, not punitive. At least in theory. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The community didn't agree whether sockpuppetry had taken place O Rly? Want to read that? SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, this very MUCH isn't a vote. I'm checking for consensus about the block I'm proposing to enact, and so far I'm seeing it, although it's not unanimous. I think exhaustively listing all the reasons for why an indef ban is appropriate would be a waste of time and effort, the arbcom case has plenty of that for those that want to read it. The community already had consensus that socking was going on, see the RFC. If, when this case closes, I still adjudge consensus for a ban exists (despite minority voices) I'll enact it, on my own recognizance. What happens then is up to the community. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I feel that not addressing the abuse of the community's trust shown by the abusive sockpuppetry is only a recipe for additional disruption, not just from MM, but others. And, in fact we do discuss bans this way, when there is likely to need discussion of them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom seemed unconvinced -- seemed is the operative word, and we can't even be sure from their statement that they were unconvinced. The ArbCom finding was weaker than a blade of grass: "The Arbitration Committee has carefully reviewed all of the extremely detailed evidence of various kinds as presented in a request for comment and in this case. A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached." (Findings of Fact, 2.1, with 10 nine votes in support.Italics in original.) Because of "various factors" unnamed by ArbCom, ArbCom didn't take the next logical step. FT2 left an unusual note under this statement: "Note: the key statement is emphasised by italics. This finding of fact should not be mis-cited or used (deliberately or otherwise) by any user to signify other than is clearly stated. (Clerks please copy the previous statement to the main page, if the finding passes" I take it that FT2 wanted to preserve the subtlety of the ArbCom finding. You're entitled to draw your own conclusion and use your own judgment as to how much weight this statement should have in the current discussion, but ArbCom did not ask that the community defer to it in this case and more than one ArbCom member wrote on the Proposal discussion page that they well knew the community has the authority to take this action and they expected some kind of community action. Therefore the ArbCom decision is no impediment at all to a ban, and it was not meant to be one. Noroton (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) (corrected: nine votes in support Noroton (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I opposed the first community ban proposal so that MM could have fair opportunity to defend himself. Since then he got that opportunity and made so little use of it that he was one of the most disruptive participants at arbitration. Mantanmoreland specifically rejected the only alternative scenario that might have cleared him and no one has articulated a reason to abandon the longstanding tradition of sitebanning vote stacking sockpuppeteers. Deterrence is preventative. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support a ban of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. WAS 4.250's and GRBerry's comments reflect mine. The entire reason Wordbomb ever came to this website is because of Mantanmoreland's sockpuppets and POV pushing. Mantanmoreland was protected, while Wordbomb was banned. Realize that neither person is an angel. As a result of not addressing the issues of Mantanmoreland's socking and POV pushing, Wordbomb has engaged in socking and other tactics, which has disrupted Wikipedia. Banning Mantanmoreland, and his sock Samiharris, sends a very clear message to whoever is watching (Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Wordbomb, the press, etc.) that we are not going to take sides in this dispute. Wikipedia should divorce itself from this "real life" battle; Banning Mantanmoreland and his sockpuppet is the only way to send this message and prevent future disruption. Banning MM is the only logical option, really. daveh4h 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Although I'm surprised to be saying this, it's obvious that this ban proposal is a lot more controversial within the community than I anticipated during the recent arbitration case. I don't recall a community ban ever passing with this level of opposition from well established members of the community, and suggest that its proponents consider postponing it for a week or so to see how things go. If problems emerge I'm sure the situation will be resolved by a ban in any case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Sami can be blocked now in my opinion. He uses a paid proxy without any obvious need to do so, and a plausible case exists that he could be socking. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm surprized that you are surprized. Did you not realize that many established users and admins oppose anything that hints that wb might have a valid point? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think that is why I am opposing, consider yourself wrong. Indeed, I have no particular prejudice as I have been away from Wikipedia for most of the last 15 months. My opposition to the ban is purely practical: I do not believe it will have any effect. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• While not speaking to above, Tony, I think it's obvious while it's not UNANIMOUS, there is a consensus that does support a proposed ban. SirFozzie (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. As Mark Twain once said, "Never shoot a man who is hanging himself." Blueboy96 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Expanding on my reasoning ... the reasoning used behind a ban makes me somewhat uncomfortable ... almost like the reasoning used to justify the Iraq War. I'd really like to know--is Mantanmoreland that much of a danger to Wikipedia to merit a preemptive ban? Lar and SirFozzie, as much as I respect them, have presented no evidence to support this. Preemptive banning would set a bad precedent for Wikipedia. I believe it's very likely, however, that he's going to sock again--and if he does, I'd indef him myself. Blueboy96 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, Blueboy. If you look at the evidence, not only have the two accounts acted together to generate a false consensus to have articles present their side of a financial issue, as well as fighting a certain financial writer's wars here on Wikipedia against those who he disagrees with, the two accounts have double !voted in ArbCom elections, double participated in Request for Adminiship accounts. Basically, they've spit in the face of Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOVand WP:Consensus SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He's socked before, you believe he'll sock again. . .how is blocking not preventative in the case you describe? Do you welcome his input? Would anything he had to comment on be taken in good faith? The ban here would not be preemptive, it would be preventative. His(?) participation here is neither welcome, needed, or productive. We are perfectly capable of building an encyclopedia without disruptive battlegrounds being imported. For your consideration, R. Baley (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not comfortable with the precedent that would be set with banning under these circumstances. Let it be known, however, that I would wholeheartedly support a statement of some sort that the community is offering him a "Last Chance." Notwithstanding As I said before, I would indef him first and ask questions later if he does sock again--and I don't think there are too many of us who wouldn't do the same. The proposed decision says that any administrator can block him for "an appropriate period of time" if he violates any of the remedies--and per this guy's history, indef would be the only appropriate length if he does slip up again. Blueboy96 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• For now I oppose this - until I am convinced otherwise. I am currently reading the case and this conversation closely. Kingturtle (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've read extensively through the case. Upon further review, I remain opposed to this community ban. "The community taking action" sounds like a mob. And what is this "community" anyway? It amounts to any editor who stumbles onto the scene, which amounts to a few dozen. The ArbCom is a fixed, known entity, that is sanctioned by the community, designed with a process. ArbCom exists to avoid kangaroo courts. So stay with the formal process and avoid the free-for-all (no offense). By the way, the Archtransit precedent doesn't apply here because it was not in the context of a formal case. Kingturtle (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - from my experience, banning or blocking a user does not end that user's sockpuppetry. Kingturtle (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that we shouldn't block or ban sockpuppet masters because they'll just come back anyway? That makes no sense, sorry. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No I am not saying that. Kingturtle (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - this reads like a lynch mob denied their desired kill. The ArbCom didn't give you what you want? Perhaps that's a sign that you're wrong. I will happily be the one admin to unblock, demonstrating this "community ban" ("not one admin will unblock") isn't. We have the ArbCom bcause we don't do "votes for banning" - if you don't like their decision, bring an actual case - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you wish to wheel war against consensus, and add that to your various problems, go right ahead. ArbCom has stated that community consensus can override ArbCom's action or lack of action on a case. SirFozzie (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It is, however, outstandingly stupid to choose a body to make the difficult decisions and then to ignore them when they have made them. You might as well have every case decided by the entire community. Why not let the chosen body's decision stand for a while and see if it works? (Incidentally, and without any irony at all, enough with the ad hominems) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Sam, it's happened as recently as two weeks ago when the community decided that desysoping Archtransit was not enough for the disruption he caused, and formally community banned him. Again, if he wants to wheel war (and unblocking without community consensus of a community consensus block/ban, whatever you want to call it, is just that), fine, but he should be aware of the consequences. SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That was somewhat different. Firstly, it was a summary action. Secondly, IIRC, much more evidence came to light after the original desysopping. Thirdly, it was a significantly simpler decision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, if David Gerard wishes to wheel war in the face of community consensus, on behalf of Samiharris, there should be a new RfC. R. Baley (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The banning policy requires a very high level of consensus for a ban--not one admin prepared to unblock. Moreover there is quite strong opposition to a ban, even discounting David's statement. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Until David Gerard apologizes for blocking an entire town in Utah, for improperly blocking Piperdown, and for other personal attacks he threw during this entire sordid episode that he helped propagate, his opinion on the matter has zero credibility. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• My instinct would be to let the topic ban (which appears likely to pass ArbCom) take effect and see what we get from Mantanmoreland. Since all of his potentially disruptive activity was focused on one topic, a broad ban from that topic seems like a reasonable remedy. While an outright ban is appealing from the perspective of Justice, a broad topic ban seems the more focused preventive remedy. If he has something to contribute to the encyclopedia beyond fighting that particular battle, we'll see it emerge. I would favor a formal indefinite block on the Samiharris account (though it may be superfluous if the user has indeed retired) because of the strong evidence of sockpuppetry and the use of proxies in a fairly clear attempt to participate in an on-wiki battle while avoiding scrutiny. But even if we accept the evidence of sockpuppetry (which I find extremely compelling), I don't see a major harm to the encyclopedia in seeing what Mantanmoreland will do when he's forced to stop fighting this particular battle and move on. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, not all of his disruptive activity was in the area that the Arbcomm choose to address. For whatever reason, they choose to ignore his behavior using sockpuppets on articles related to Julian Robertson where he has a COI, nor did they choose to address his disruptive behavior in community discussions. The topic restrictions they imposed are too narrow. GRBerry 20:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mantanmoreland has no evidence of substantial contributions of value to articles, however, to overcome all his disruption and socking. It took him a year and a half to accumulate 500 article edits. He may be a valuable contributor: but under what username? That's the heart of the problem. The topic ban also doesn't prevent him from working on his pet issues from talk pages or Wikipedia space. I could only support a topic ban if it completely cut him off from the subjects utterly, like the recent community ban on User:Whig from even discussing homeopathy and science issues in any space, or matters related to them. Lawrence § t/e 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This statement is the effect of a timid Arbcom that was frozen with inaction due to "confounding issues". The arbcom dropped the ball; I don't know why. Maybe David Gerard would know, as he has access to the arbcom mailing list. Maybe you can clue us in, David? Why did arbcom ignore evidence of disruption and the importation of an off wiki dispute? Maybe it would all be clear, if only these discussions were transparent. daveh4h 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• (rp to MastCell, ec) I came into contact with this editor at the Glenn Greenwald article. though his position supported mine, I'd rather not have the taint. There's no AGF left here, anytime s/he has offered to apply our BLP standards, I have to worry about an alternative agenda. Just end it here and now. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I admit to not following the ins and outs of this case in great detail, and I've never encountered Mantanmoreland or Samiharris personally, so those are both important points which I had not taken into consideration. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MC, I have high regard far you both as an editor and an admin, and your opinion is valuable to me. Best, R. Baley (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Alternative I believe there is a consensus to block both users for an appropriate length of time (Samiharris indefinitely, and Mantanmoreland for at least a month). This is how we normally handle any run of the mill sock puppetry case. They may not be banned due to minority opposition, but that group cannot undo a block that has been supported by consensus. Unblocking against consensus is not allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't support overturning the arbcom decision - the arbcom remedies should be applied, and then if they aren't sufficient, then further sanctions could then be agreed. However, overturning the unanimous decision of arbcom, based on a small number of votes here isn't a good idea. Addhoc (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This doesn't "overturn" them, and ArbCom has said (afaik) that the community is perfectly within its rights to consider additional measures. R. Baley (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There's actually some fairly strong indication that ArbCom's decision was not intended to be definitive, but reflected largely a desire to get itself out of the dispute. Some editors disagreed with that, but it may be notable that for instance WordBomb is community banned rather than banned by ArbCom. It's also unclear the ArbCom really set out to decide anything other than the sockpuppetry issue, though some findings were tagged on toward the end. In light of this, I'm not sure it's accurate to think ArbCom saw itself as making a wholistic resolution of the issue. One purpose of taking the case to ArbCom, for instance, would be to allow MM to present a defense based on private information; it appears he did not. ArbCom could also have issued a definitive finding, but chose not to. In fact, at least one arbitrator said that if there had been a community ban, the considerations would have been significantly different. I believe this is why many of those who have followed the case closely are advocating a community ban, not to redecide issues, but for the community to have its say on the matter. Mackan79 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - MM did very little to address any issues raised, was caught on several occasions outright lying in evidence ("I have never even been accused of sockpuppeting"), and the standards of evidence of sockpuppetry shown would have anyone out the door - we ban the sockmasters, not just the puppets. To those saying "Let's see if he breaks the rules again"? Why "again"? Why the free pass that he's got on more than one occasion? I say, enough. Achromatic (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Recall that Fred Bauder gave Mantanmoreland a second chance when he told him to stop using the LastExit and Tomstoner accounts -- both of which immediately went dead. Mantanmoreland has been given a second chance and he took that chance to sockpuppet again. No third chances. Noroton (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban In the absence of any explanation or argued counter to the evidence that was provided, it is proven as it is possible to be (the evidence far exceeded the quantity and quality that has been the standard for the WP:DUCK test) that Mantanmoreland has operated several alternate accounts in violation of WP:SOCK. In spite of the material presented he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that he has abused the trust of the community, or that the compelling evidence was compiled and presented in good faith; the major thrust of his comments to the ArbCom, in lieu of counter evidence or explanation, was that a Mr Patick Byrne and a Mr Judd Bagley orchestrated the entire situation - via off-Wiki websites and other media - to influence the editing of articles in which they, plus a Mr Gary Weiss with whom they are in conflict, are major factors/parties to a real world dispute. In this manner not only has Mantanmoreland been strongly linked with disrupting past editing of the Wikipedia via alternate account abuse, but has presently disrupted Wikipedia by using ad hominem accusations against the good faith efforts of various parties, many in good standing and experience, in presenting and arguing evidence. As he fails to acknowledge that he has socked and otherwise sought to manipulate the point of view within articles that were subject to that abuse, he therefore would deny that he has a conflict of interest in contibuting (by use of the talkpage and other venues, with reference to the subject ban that is likely to pass at ArbCom restricting the editor contributing directly to such articles) to any subject that ArbCom has referred to in respect of such conflicts. The restrictions likely to pass regarding editing articles, further, will not stop Mantanmoreland from continuing his campaign of both denying his sockpuppetry and related violations of community trust and tainting those who have acted in bringing this abuse into the open as being manipulated by or in league with off-Wiki individuals to corrupt Wikipedia. Therefore a ban would prevent the real likelihood of Mantanmoreland further disrupting Wikipedia.

Also, as regards bans being preventative in diminishing disruption to Wikipedia, it should be noted the effect that such a ban would have outside of the account name "Mantanmoreland". Sockmasters, current and potential, would derive no expectation of leniency or of precedent by the ban of this abuser of alternate accounts (and given the evidence compiled and exampled, very much the opposite would be true if this abuse were not countered by strong sanction), and also those off-Wiki observers and commentators will have less ground for any accusation of favouritism or bias within the community generally or its governance that they may have should sanction not reflect the severity by which this account has utilised an arrogant disregard of WP values, principles, rules and policy to abuse the trust of this community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support of ban after following the arbcom case closely. Mind-boggling abuse has gone on for two years now, with troubling high-up enabling along the way coupled with threats to all who challenged the situation. Neither MM nor SH has offered any indication they will refrain from continuing their misbehavior in the future (MM has already been caught and warned before for sockpuppeting and he turned right around and did it again). If we don’t take a stand against abusive sockpuppeting and long-term stubborn tendentious editing in this high profile case, it will open the floodgates for future abusers and bring disrepute to the project and damage credibility due to protecting and allowing favored biased editors a free pass to hijack articles and keep them laden with propaganda and misinformation. --MPerel 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban on the grounds that this user's continued presence is a net detriment to Wikipedia. Mantanmoreland combines a remarkably small number of actual article edits (roughly 500 in the last two years, many of them contentious), with a remarkably high quantity of drama. Whether he is actually GW, or even a sockpuppeteer, is not relevant to my reasoning. He should be banned because he's not helping the encyclopedia and there is no reason to believe he ever will. We're better off without him. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; no further finding is necessary to justify a community ban other than a determination that the editor is not a productive addition to our community. *** Crotalus *** 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wait and see what happens - why not just wait and see what happens? No need to rush into this. My overall view is that the two accounts are effectively unusable now for any nefarious purposes (they will both be watched carefully for the foreseeable future), so whether they end up banned, blocked, or left to quietly moulder, is not that relevant. I note that User:Mantanmoreland has contributed in recent days, but that User:Samiharris (blocked and unblocked on 13 February 2008) has not contributed since 8 February 2008. So remind me again what the point of all this is? To send a clear and unambiguous signal? We are doing a good job of that at the moment... Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is clearly a controversial proposal (read: literally no consensus) and I suggest that we set the decision aside to await developments. There is no urgency, and the extremely strong arbitration remedies and enforcement clauses will prevent harm being done. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest the Samiharris account be re-blocked, as it was only unblocked to enable participation in the ArbCom case. As the case is now (for want of a better word) closed, and no participation was forthcoming any way (all the open proxies it used had been blocked?) it ought to be indefinitely blocked once more. I think stating there is no consensus above to block Mantanmoreland is wrong, with only a small minority of editors opposing such a block. I would like to see the user behind the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for gross and systemic abuse of Wikipedia, and for deceiving some of our more senior admins into shilling for him. Neıl ☎ 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Banhammer! - the evidence of Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry is circumstantial, yes; but overwhelming. He has made a mockery of any core Wikipedia policy you care to name; for reasons that are unclear, the ArbCom and other power structures have not called him on it. The community needs to step up, and forbid the pursuit of off-Wiki disputes through the use of Wikipeida puppetry and system-gaming. Gary Weiss Mantanmorland and Samiharris have to go. <eleland/talkedits> 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support per my comments on the proposed decision's talk page. People arguing that the committee has somehow decided that Mantanmoreland should not be banned have not been following the discussions. ArbCom left this decision to the community. It is established that Mantanmoreland did use sockpuppets at one point, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that Samiharris is another of his sockpuppets (and the far-fetched impersonation theory would only be more reason to block that account permanently) and there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence linking Mantanmoreland to Gary Weiss. There is still a bit of doubt on whether he is Gary Weiss or someone closely associated to him, but there is in my mind little doubt that Mantanmoreland repeatedly edited a number of these articles with a very strong and undisclosed conflict of interest. And despite the impressionistic account of these article's history (from the user formerly known as Tony Sidaway), the edits of Mantanmoreland were fully part of the tailspin and were often blatantly biased. He was an active participant in this absurd imported battle and I believe that the community has very little faith in the purity of his intentions and I simply don't see how one can seriously defend the idea that keeping him as an editor is likely to have any sort of positive impact on the project. This is not about being fair: editing Wikipedia is not a right and we're better off without these two accounts, period. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ban or at least lengthy block. Christ, what a mess this is shaping up to be. We have what may or may not be (depending on how you look at it!) consensus to ban these accounts, with some senior admins willing to enact the ban and at least one other senior admin willing to wheel war and unblock. Unfortunately all of this was completely predictable coming out of the ArbCom case. Hopefully things will calm down a bit and we'll come to some solution, but the discussion so far is the best evidence yet as to why the committee utterly blew it on "L'affaire Mantanmoreland et les chaussettes mauvais" (I'm totally trademarking that!...even though I really don't know French that well and it's therefore probably grammatically incorrect). For what it's worth (and I imagine it is worth very little), I fully support Lar's proposal to ban these accounts. After examining the evidence for weeks, it is clear to me that Samiharris is a sock of Mantanmoreland and that the operator of those accounts has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry (compounded by past sock abuse for which Mantan was warned). We indef ban those kind of accounts, so let's ban these in the interest of not having different rules for different people since that would be bad. If more people are in favor of a 6 month or year long block and probation after that, I would be fine with that too in the interests of compromise.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

An alternate proposal--a "Last Chance"

As I mentioned above, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a preemptive ban. That being said, however, SirFozzie does bring up a good point--Mantanmoreland has given the finger to two fundamental policies. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with the community putting him on notice that he's skating on very thin ice, and that notwithstanding any statement by ArbCom on the matter, he'll be banned if he slips up again. Blueboy96 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to post this comment, although the length of this discussion probably means that I'm repeating above comments; nevertheless, I digress. I do not see any compelling evidence why the Community needs to top-up the Arbitration Committee's remedy: surely we need to leave an observation and trial period post-that case closting, to decide whether a ban really is necessary. I know I'm not the only one who would rather not see an editor banned... AGK § 20:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent for the community reinforcing remedies imposed by those higher-up on the food chain. MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs), for instance--he was banned by Jimbo for implying that people could pay him to write articles on their behalf. The community felt this activity was so far from the principles of Wikipedia that later on, it reinforced Jimbo's ban with a community ban. To my mind, ArbCom's decision is quite open-ended, and leaves it to the community to decide what an "appropriate length of time" is for blocking in this case. Blueboy96 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of letting off unrepentant vote stacking sockpuppeteers with warnings. Think of the message that sends. There's good reason why we've always been firm about this. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, AGK. ArbCom's decision to not handle this properly has given a clear sign to vandals, POV pushers and the like that you CAN double participate in things like ArbCom elections, Request for Adminship votes, without being penalized. ANYONE else that had done such things, would be out the door so fast that it would leave vapor trails. Again, we had an ArbCom who was paralyzed by not wanting "an official decision of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee" appearing at Exhibit A in a real-world case. They ducked the issue and hid behind "A majority of the committee", because no one wanted to have their butts out in the breeze. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, what are you insinuating? What do you think people's ulterior motives are? You clearly think people are treating Mantanmoreland differently for some reason -- what is your accusation? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree ... looking at the proposed decision, it's quite open-ended, and leaves the community with considerable room to determine how long a sanction should be. If it didn't leave that room, I'd wholeheartedly support banning him now. As it stands now, I say once more and I say again--a preemptive ban, no matter how egregious the misconduct, sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 20:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

we pre-emptively banned wb and piperdown in this very dispute. So, the precedent you are worried about already exists. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb was banned for outing a user, while Piperdown is (from what I'm reading) unblocked, but welcome to return if he's willing to do so in a constructive manner. No comparison here. Blueboy96 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In Piperdown's case, he was only unblocked so he could cite his RightToVanish, BB. SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

wb was indef blocked and his talk page protected with no community discussion after about 24 total hours of editing. Has wb since acted in such a way as to deserve a ban? sure. Most editors we instruct how to bring the sorts of concerns he had while respecting the project norms, not in this case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both durova and sirfozzie. He's been warned. He's had opportunity to defend himself. He has chosen not to. If he had come clean with his abuse of the community, I would support a last chance. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sam, if you have to ask, you're not paying attention ;). But let me make it clear. There is a large group of administrators who have defended Mantanmoreland against allegations of sockpuppetry and against allegations of being a certain well-known financial writer. To have this proven would be a huge loss of face. Hell, Jimbo Wales has even stated on a certain mailing list, after offering to meet with Mantanmoreland, so he could lay the rumors to rest that the MM=SH and that certain well-known financial writer. When Mantanmoreland responded to this with hostility, Jimbo stated "The reason for this, I believe is that Mantanmoreland is (the name of the financial writer)". SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Is that the reason you think I, by way of example, am opposing this ban? Or is it a more general reason? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

my personal opinion is that you are opposing it because you don't like community bans in general. And that's fine. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And mine is that as an ex-arbitrator, that is that you don't like causing drama, taking a case to ArbCom and then things aren't settled. And normally, I could understand that. But in this case, with this much evidence that this person has been sockpuppeting for such a long time, and been protected from the consequences of his actions (again, it's rather blatant he was asked to step back from the articles for just this reason, and he just created another sock to do his dirty work). My viewpoint in these things is.. "If we're going to claim the moral high ground in these disputes, we'd better damn well act in that way". Protecting someone who has basically run off editors (good or bad) from a whole sections of articles, and prosecuted an off-Wikipedia war ON Wikipedia, is not the moral high ground. It is some of the dirtiest, slimiest behavior I could see. SirFozzie (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think you realize to what extent this arbcom has abdicated it's responsibility, Sam. Members have said as much when they state they don't want arbcom decisions cited in a real life dispute (or court case?). I think those concerns are meritless; but, if they are not, then let a community decision be cited in an off wiki dispute—our concern should be the encyclopedia anyway. daveh4h 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

People in this dispute have been continuously using "abdicating responsibility" as codewords for "disagreeing with many people". They are not the same. If you feel the Committee has so egregiously failed, the proper response, IMHO, would be to ask them to resign. Forcing every decision to have community consensus completely undermines the purpose of having a selected body.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced those are the reasons the Committee has not made the decision you want. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee, Sam, you made a rather different conclusion here. If you thought that those who disagree should be asking the committee to resign, that discussion should have run - instead you closed it as disruptive. A little less hypocrisy please. GRBerry 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. The second MfD nomination of the arbitration committee. I'll have to look up whether I was the first to predict that Arbcom being deleted at MfD is always a possibility. And no, I don't think any such debate would be productive, and yes, I do think the Arbcom are doing a reasonable job at the moment. I just like noting these "out of left field" MfD nominations. I'm disappointed (seriously!) that Wikipedia talk:Arbitration committee doesn't have a template linking to these two previous nominations for deletion. The first one was, presumably, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (deleted in November 2006 and again in February 2007 - so this 'second' nomination is actually the third deletion nomination), and now this one at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (2nd nomination). Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The community could of course actually MFD and get rid of the AC, if enough supported the decision. No one could stop it, if enough people supported it. Not likely to happen anytime soon if ever, but the way we operate certainly allows for it. Lawrence § t/e 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That was the point I was making, though I was getting sidetracked into looking up the reasons for the previous nominations. I wonder if the community could ever discuss itself into non-existence and MfD itself? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(de indenting) Sam, I have supplied you with the quote from one of the folks who wrote the decision. It doesn't just have effect on WP, it has effect off of WP, in the real world as well. Whether it's a valid concern about tying the two accounts together and/or to a given Real Life person, is for others to decide. Off-WP concerns forced ArbCom's hands in this. Concerns the community as a whole does not have. SirFozzie (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear they did not want to deal with certain issues because of external factors--factors which should not govern how this encyclopedia is ran. Is that abdicating responsibility? To me it is. As for asking them to resign; This is very funny--excuse my language, but who the fuck am I to ask such a thing? This is probably the third arbcom I've followed very closely--I'm certainly no expert--but I do realize that a new standard of disruption is being applied to this case for some reason ;therefore, the arbcom did not decide to ban. Before you ask, I don't know why these new standards were applied or pretend to know why. Only individual arbcom members know why (Ask them on the arbcom mailing list, let us know!). Or perhaps all these people supporting a ban of MM are delusional and decisions to protect the encyclopedia can only come from a group of people called "arbcom". I'm not saying the arbcom is irresponsible or ignorant in all cases, but it is clear to many that have followed this case that there was a glitch somewhere. We'll probably never know what that was, and we do not have to know! The community is going to fix the abdication that took place in this case. Or at least, it's trying to, of you'll let it. daveh4h 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe they have honest opinions otherwise. And I am part of the community, if you don't mind. (Unless you want to ban me too? :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(following SirFozzies indent) Sam Korn, you are arguing from an obviously very strong opinion on the merits of the matter of the community ban. I wonder if you could comment to what degree you have studied the contents of SirFozzie and Durova's initial investigation (with the participation of other editors in providing detailed data), the evidence and comments provided in the subsequent RfC, and the exhaustive presentation of evidence, statements, arguments, answers, suggestions and proposals at the ArbCom. I ask because I do not recall your participation at any of these events (although in all the gigglebytes of material, I may have missed it) and I am concerned that you have not fully comprehended the depth and persistence to which Mantanmoreland strove to edit outside the expectations and standards of Wikipedia contributors, and why someone so dedicated to an agenda that ignores the Wikipedia ethos will not violate it again when the first opportunity presents itself. If you are fully familiar with the efforts of the past few weeks, why now only do you speak? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for an appropriate moment to make my entrance. This might go part of the way to an answer -- I have been on a long wikibreak. I fail to see the relevance here, in any case. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned, as I said, that you may appear not have read yourself too well into the history of this case, and are making very strong good faith comments - which doubtless are going to be given due consideration by many observers - based on opinions formulated through a lack of understanding of all the issues, evidence, and thought which has provided other good standing editors with a different perspective. Also, if you have taken the time to consider and digest the vast quantities of fact, opinions, and considerations, it may appear puzzling that you consider this time appropriate rather than a few days ago when the ArbCom were finalising their deliberations and closing arguments were being expressed in various subpages. Clarification on when you started reviewing the masses of text and why only now comment on the conclusions may help others understand the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it really makes a difference to you, I have been following the case since I returned, on and off. It obviously has been a subject of much discussion on the arbcom-l mailing list, which is the only list I follow. If you look closely, you might just find a few of my edits to the proposed decision page. I have certainly read over the majority of the evidence. I am certainly well-enough informed to make a reasonable judgement on the matter, and am slightly suspicious of the reasons you have for suggesting otherwise. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish that I were able to follow a case entirely by using the arbcom mailing list, but alas, that is impossible.  :-) You see, perhaps you have not been a peon for so long you forget that a lot of people discuss things on wiki, and not seeing you in that discussion, and then suddenly pop up to argue so vociferously is a little odd! Hence, I do not think questioning what brought you here is out of the ordinary. By the way, what did the email sent out to the arbcom list alerting all subscribers to this community ban proposal look like? Was it something like "And here goes the lynch mob" or was it something more NPOV? I've been curious about that one all day, ever since seeing you and Mr. Gerard pop in to say hello. I wonder if discussing this particular case on a closed list, is the best way to learn about this case? I'm guessing you would probably say it is, since apparently it is your belief that an arbcom decision is infallible. daveh4h 05:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatty-whatta-whatta? What brought me here was reading WP:AN, just like any other administrator! As I have stated, I have been reading the case all along. I do not feel that it is necessary to give my 5000KB of opinion on the Workshop page to allow me to have an opinion here. I do not believe the AC is infallible -- being on the Committee has taught me better than that. I just think it is potentially workable and using the big stick when unnecessary is, well, a bit stupid. I am astonished at your bizarre accusations against me. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So can we get to a compromise here? It's obvious that there are several admins willing to ban Mantanmoreland right away. I suspect that most of the other admins feel as I do--that they're willing to ban him first and ask questions later for even a minor violation of the fairly onerous restrictions ArbCom has placed on him. All I'm proposing is a strongly-worded statement that there is overwhelming community consensus to ban him if he doesn't comply with the ArbCom restrictions. Blueboy96 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy, it's no exaggeration to say that there are 1,000 KB worth of evidence, reasoning, discussion and even asking questions at the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case. No one is asking questions later. The questions have been "asked and answered" as a particular person likes to put it. I misread. Taking a break now. Noroton (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the onerous standard of evidence being applied. There are strong reasons to believe that Mantanmoreland got caught at socking twice before, and got better at it. Do we really want to offer him a fourth strike before calling this batter out? How much useful encyclopedia-building suffers while volunteers pore over his edit history yet again? Last night I put off the Portal:Textile Arts featured portal drive for this case. Really, Wikipedia would be better off with good biographies of William Morris and Eli Whitney, minus the Mantanmoreland drama. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Either ban him, or lift the ban on WordBomb... be consistent at least. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If it interests you, Dan, WordBomb has announced that the only reason he would want to return to WP would be to clear his name. He does not want to help the encyclopaedia. He is, in short, the last person we want to unban, whatever "just" reasons there are. There is a difference between them. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are certainly differences, but the question is whether you can show extreme leniency to one and not the other. Doing so would perpetuate the dispute, whatever the differences are thought to be. Of course, if in some time we decide MM wants to edit according to the rules and WB doesn't, I think most people would be fine with considering that. Mackan79 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dan, this dissapointed me. There's no reason to trying to balance justice here between MM and Wordbomb. WB is permabanned for truly bad stalking behavior against multiple Wikipedians. Only a couple of people (one of whom is in and out of jail for it) in Wikipedia history have done anything of the same magnitude. There's no legitimate reason to unblock WB or propose unblocking WB. An attempt to even things out in this manner is ridiculous and disruptive. What happens to MM and SH is up to the community as a whole - what happens to WB is not. That decision is made, and only the Foundation or Arbcom should revisit it (and are not likely to do so). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • George, I don't believe it's my place to refactor your comments, but they are extremely inappropriate. I've personally asked you on Wikipedia and by email why you make these statements, and you haven't provided it, yet you continue to repeat the same thing from place to place. This has gone on long enough. If you want to engage this issue engage it, but going around making incendiary statements about a living person on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Mackan79 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I told the committee of my intention to reblock him and asked if they did not want me to reblock him. I've nothing telling me not to. He was unblock for this arb case, it's over. He should be reblocked. That is my intent. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the fault of the disrupters

As an ArbCom member I can say that the Committee has worked extremely hard to get to the remedies. That being said, I’ve had doubts about my participation in the case due to my involvement in the editing process (both 'Short (finance)' and 'NNS') ([62], [63], [64], [65], [66]). I’ve had doubts because I edited those articles long before there was any dispute.

If I have to disagree with any thing it would be that WP:BATTLE was marginalized in this case. If there is any sockpuppeting case here it would be a case motivated by defending an off-wiki position related to a long dispute; hence using Wikipedia as a battleground. Most people, at least users who have participated at the ArbCom pages or here, know how this dispute has been ongoing for years online and offline. Both parties have come here for a reason unclear to most of us except to themselves. Now, "everybody knows." According, to some extra evidence I saw as an arbitrator, a few users, including administrators, were driven somehow to get involved directly or indirectly in this mess. I consider this very harmful to Wikipedia integrity.

Anyway, I prefer commenting here as a regular editor and administrator… I have no objection about this community ban discussion. However, I would have preferred the community discuss the following points prior to a ban discussion…

a) Should have the community tried this before going through the arbitration process? The community should rather discuss how cases like this are to be treated and handled in the future.

b) Can the community wait to give the remedies a chance? But asking this question would definitely lead us to another one… did WordBomb have a similar chance?

c) Should this random process override the procedural way of handling disputes? Always, never? When? How? And how would this affect the raison d’être of the ArbCom?

The essential thing is not who to ban or restrict but to answer the above points.

My personal view... A scene of a Wiki-battle is unlikely to happen soon. However, the offline dispute is not to be finished soon. Some say above that the ArbCom "was paralyzed by not wanting an official decision of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee appearing at Exhibit A in a real-world case." It may be true as it may be untrue and even if it were true it would have been a positive action. Wikipedia purpose is "not to make news" but to be an encyclopedia. We are not here to judge people but to ask them to behave according to the general standards and ethics. If the smooth running of things gets disrupted then appropriate administrative action should prevail. All the users tied to this real life dispute who have brought troubles should have been banned long ago before a case be brought to ArbCom regardless of who they are, how many they are, socks they got, proxies they use, etc... A news title like "Wikipedia administrator blocks pro-NSS and their opponents for violating one of the project’s policy [Wikipedia is no battleground]" would be more beneficial to the project than "Wikipedia court bans/restricts a pro-NSS for site violations." No need to bring these issues to the ArbCom if you already can decide what to do with.

Ban all disrupters and keep Wikipedia safe from off-wiki disputes. I've administered a few and feel free to review my actions and my way of dealings. I always never care whom opposing sides may represent but giving many chances to all offenders would be tiresome. We have spent a couple of years battling with this issue. That would have been enough to fix, create and expand thousands of interesting articles. Wikipedia raison d'être is "not to make news" but to be an encyclopedia.

Again, I hope the Community gets to discuss ways to prevent such messes to happen again the way this case has taken. Wikipedia is evolving rapidly and We really need to address the main issues instead of wasting tremendous amount of would-be productive time dealing with clear-cut issues.

In brief, the Community could have done this work before coming to the ArbCom. It is not the fault of the Committee as it is not the fault of the Community either. It is probabbly the fault of disrupters. I suggest it is wiser that ArbCom decision is respected. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The community did attempt to do this work before coming to ArbCom, as much as it was able. The offsite publication of one of Jimbo's e-mails precipitated SirFozzie's filing the RFAR when he did. And I agree he made exactly the right choice there: tempers were flaring and the RFC was in danger of getting out of hand. A certain administrator also started a premature siteban discussion before Mantanmoreland had adequate opportunity to present his side of things. So although we did our best to handle this at the community level and conduct an orderly and sober discussion, those of us who were undertaking the work weren't left with any other fair and viable choice. Durova^Charge! 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I'd like to answer your questions:

a) Should have the community tried this before going through the arbitration process? The community should rather discuss how cases like this are to be treated and handled in the future.

Answer: We did. It was thought by several people that there was a very good chance that any ban action taken as a result of the RfC would be wheel-warred over, so it was figured that it would be best to take the case to ArbCom, and get an up or down answer. We didn't get that up or down answer (instead, we got "A Majority of the committee believes.."), so, we bring it back here, and guess what? We have a vast consensus, and yet we have someone promising to wheel-war any consensus blocks.

b) Can the community wait to give the remedies a chance? But asking this question would definitely lead us to another one… did WordBomb have a similar chance?

Answer: I really can't answer the WB situation, because, I wasn't there, and all I've seen is 2nd hand evidence from the people involved. my thoughts is along with some others, more then just the violations of NPOV/Consensus etcetera, these accounts double participated on Request for Adminship cases and ArbCom elections. Did they sway any decisions? Probably not, but there were two users recently banned for amongst other things , using sock puppets to vote multiple times in ArbCom elections (Vintagekits and David Lauder.) In both cases, it was more of a final straw then anything, but still, precedent states that sockpuppetting to inflate their viewpoint is a bannable offense, especially on something like ArbCom elections. Especially since this person had been caught previously doing the exact same thing.

c) Should this random process override the procedural way of handling disputes? Always, never? When? How? And how would this affect the raison d’être of the ArbCom?

Answer:This is a special case. We did not get the up or down answer that both sides were looking for, that would not solve the baseline behind this conflict. Instead, we have an inbetween answer, and no action on what a majority of the public was looking for. Therefore, we brought this to get that answer.'

I know the ArbCom means well.. I went about 15 rounds with Brad when this decision was first released, and I truly appreciate him going to the considerable amounts of extra effort to try to explain the decision. The decision lacked a core element, but at least he spoke up. At least UC spoke up and gave his viewpoint. At least you're here giving your viewpoint.

But the vast majority of the 15 arbitrators who were assigned this case... did nothing. They showed up at the end to rubber-stamp the decision that was made. No arbitrator put together a motion to see where everyone stood, despite being asked several times during the discussion. No effort was made to explain what evidence they would find useful. Trust me, the question was asked, several times. "Let us know what you need to make your job easier". We asked. There was nothing. No guidance, nothing.

I do agree that we should ban folks who disrupt the encyclopedia. WordBomb is banned, and even his most ardent supporter will tell you, considering the disruption he's caused on this and other issues, that it is a good ban. It's just as well that WB has stated he does not wish to edit WP anyway. No one really disputes that, in a vacuum, WB's ban now is a good call.

But on the other side, there has been unmeasurable amounts of disruption. We've had good faith editors run off the site by this editor. We've had this editor basically WP:OWN a whole section of articles, using unfair tactics to harass his opponents off the articles in question. We've had this editor use other, well-meaning administrators to protect his viewpoint here on WP by pointing out how bad the other side is, while doing a lot of the same things himself without others noticing. We've had this person, over two plus years, give the big old middle finger to Wikipedia's core policies. Consensus. Neutral Point of View. No Personal Attacks. He's never admitted to any of it, never apologized for it. Even during the ArbCom hearing, he insisted that others good faith concerns were nothing more then shills for a "paid stalker".

That's why we've asked for the indefblock/ban, whatever you want to call it. The rules are the rules. They need to be fair, balanced and evenly applied. That hasn't happened in this case. That is why the vast majority of the editors who've contributed this discussion have agreed there IS consensus for Lar, GRBerry, or whomever to block both these accounts. SirFozzie (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Durova and SirFozzie.

a) Fair enough and your efforts are appreciated. What I meant by "trying it before" is to 'Community ban discuss' as it has been usual with all cases without filing an arbitration case.

b) At this specific case... If there's consensus to ban, a motion can be proposed and added to the arbitration case anytime since you believe that some arbitrators declared or alluded to not have any problem with such a Community ban. You can also request a clarification if you are not sure or simply appeal, etc... I can see this as reasonable alternatives to this thread.

c)We've had this editor basically WP:OWN a whole section of articles, using unfair tactics to harass his opponents off the articles in question. We've had this editor use other, well-meaning administrators to protect his viewpoint here on WP by pointing out how bad the other side is, while doing a lot of the same things himself without others noticing. That's why, as an arbitrator disagree about the fact that WP:BATTLE was not given much importance by most arbitrators. Probably because most people here have been arguing about sockpuppetry when the motive of sockpuppetry is, with no single doubt, to protect and defend individual points of views outside the encyclopedia in a totally inappropriate manner. It's all about process and how cases are presented. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Our community sanction process is poorly developed, and conflicts with the community banning policy. Maybe some of the arbitrators, in their capacity as ordinary editors, could help us sort this out. They have unique experience and since they will be called upon to review decisions, it would help if they provided insight into what would work, and what would likely cause more heat. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are those of us who readily agreed to the RfAR because they were apprehensive that taking action without the input of the most senior venue of dispute resolution would result in an unseemly dispute and possible wheelwar should the decision be taken by one admin, even with a majority/consensus backing....

Hey, guess what? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More votes on community ban

• Support community ban on Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. As a second choice, I would suggest unblocking User:WordBomb and just impose a topic ban on all three for the Weiss, Byrne, Naked shorts, and Overstock articles. Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support the ban. Abusive, unapologetic sockpuppetry confirmed beyond doubt on two occasions and beyond reasonable doubt on a third. Viridae^Talk 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris have been indef blocked - see below.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Split from above: User:Samiharris sockpuppet tag

There seems to be no legitimate dispute that the Samiharris account is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland. User:Michael Snow, an admin, had previously tagged the account as such on 13 February 2008. Brad removed the tag pending the end of the AC case the same day. As there is community consensus that Samiharris = Mantanmoreland based on the exhaustive evidence provided, I re-applied the tag today. User:David Gerard, who threatened to unblock Mantanmoreland above if any user blocked him (which would be invalid if unblocked against consensus) removed the sock tag saying, "Pity the arbcom doesn't seem to agree". As User:David Gerard has no special authority in this matter, I re-applied the tag here, and then Krimpet modified it slightly here. Just a heads up in case any foolish individuals attempt to edit war this page against community consensus. Lawrence § t/e 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going for WP:Tea. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? I don't see a "consensus" or anything like one above - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Different issue. the issue above is what to do about it. I don't see anyone disputing that Samiharris is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland. There is abundant evidence that he is, far beyond that usually gathered or analyzed. It is clear that there is a consensus that he is a sockpuppet. That you choose to willfully blind yourself is your own problem. GRBerry 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mantanmoreland, we have dozens of editors agreeing Samiharris is a sock of Mantanmoreland. Here at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence, we have sockpuppetry evidence of such insane detail that any users we dropped this research onto WP:AN or WP:ANI would be tagged and blocked incredibly fast. However, there is an extremely small number of users previously involved in protecting Mantanmoreland and involved in the Bagley/Byrne conflict that still refuse to follow consensus on these matters. But, since consensus never needs to be unanimous, this is fine. My posting here was a "heads up" for people to keep an eye on that Samiharris page. Lawrence § t/e 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I likewise only see in your comments a difference in opinion and viewpoint, rather than arguments supported by evidence or reference to policy which reaches a reasonable standard in refuting reasoned points given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To say it has been "confirmed" is a gross abuse of the English language. Consensus does not make something true. If the page read "community consensus has determined that SamiHarris is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland", that would be considerably more accurate. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, as requested. Lawrence § t/e 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• While I can understand the difficulty of reaching consensus re blocking Mantanmoreland, why on earth are we edging carefully round this one? As Lawrence says above, any other account that was brought to ANI with the level of evidence of this one would be blocked, tagged and forgotten about before you could say "hosiery". Why on earth does the sock tag on Samiharris need to include such WP:WEASEL? Black Kite 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• With all the innuendo bantered around by Arbiters, I'm concerned now that someone has threatened to sue someone--either Byrne vs Weiss, Weiss vs. Byrne, MM if he's someone else vs. Byrne, or one of the three vs. Wikipedia over this. I can't think of anything else or any other reason for all this reticence, unless people just really, really don't want to give Byrne and Bagley any vindication or satisfaction. No other sockmaster gets this level of deference. Lawrence § t/e 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've seen suggestions that Arbcom were wary of the legal ramifications of incorrectly identifying a public figure as having engaged in sockpuppeting. Others have pointed out that these two pseudonymous accounts can be linked and tarred by the Wikipedia community with no need to link to any real person, but I'm not sure how much linking and self-identification exists in the history of these two accounts to be certain what the real ramifications are. My overall view is that the two accounts are effectively unusable now for any nefarious purposes (they will both be watched carefully for the foreseeable future), so whether they end up banned, blocked, or left to quietly moulder, is not that relevant. I note that User:Mantanmoreland has contributed in recent days, but that User:Samiharris (blocked and unblocked on 13 February 2008) has not contributed since 8 February 2008. So remind me again what the point of all this was? Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ecx7) If the AC or WMF is aware of any legal threat from any of these individuals that could affect any of us here that have worked on this case and they have not told us about known risks to us from it, and have possibly ignored their duty under WP:NLT to block the threatening parties, this is going to lead to a very nasty situation for the people that did not communicate the danger. As in, I can see an RFC starting to get people removed from the AC, at the least, if that is the case. Lawrence § t/e 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And thus begins the edit warring over whether the community can name a protected individual as a sock in opposition to his friends in high places: here. WHY is so much deference given to this ONE guy? We don't give ANYONE this level of special treatment. Lawrence § t/e 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring, I'm neutral on the sockpuppet issue, but there's no reason why a tag should not declare the whole case. The fact is that are careful investigation by arbcom reached a "not proven" verdict. Most of the community may believe otherwise, but we have arbcom to settle matters of doubt.--Doc^g 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, I agree the tag should be there, but I note the first reversion was carried out by yourself, reverting more than one other editor. I also agree with Doc that the tag should tell the full story. I have tried to rewrite the convoluted tag to read better without changing the substance - hopefully this is acceptable to people. Neıl ☎ 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the first revert war was by David Gerard, not myself, and I then updated the tag per Sam's very sensible suggestion. I'm gobsmacked by people just clearly choosing to disregard consensus demonstrated in the RFC at the very last that MM=SH, but when stacked with the overwhelming evidence in the RFAR I'm baffled by how people keep asking for and insisting on consensus. Do we need a 99% threshold, something like that? Any other user(s) with THIS much evidence against them would have been gone without a communal fart being heard. Why are we being so extra, overly cautious to the point of sillyness with Mantanmoreland on even this? The AC has no power to overrule such clear community consensus, and they didn't even do that. They completely sidestepped the puppetry and threw it back to us, and we decided. THREE times now. RFC. RFAR. Here. Lawrence § t/e 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From the arbcom: "various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached." That's a convoluted reason to begin with! The "various factors" are unknown to the community. It only follows that any sock tag trying to explain this situation would convoluted. The arbcom decision is convoluted. daveh4h 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the evidence was as clear-cut as you suggest then arbcom would have not had a problem with finding sock puppetry. That, after careful consideration, they failed to be convinced by the evidence should give us all pause for thought. Clear neutral thought always (although it can be wrong) is always more likely to convince me than enthusiastic crowds shouting for crucifixion. Lynchings are seldom righteous.--Doc^g 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What lynching? We now have at least three or four dozen people that based on the evidence, between the RFC, RFAR, and here, agree that SH=MM. The AC cannot (and didn't anyway) supercede such blatant consensus. How is this even a debate? If I plopped down evidence of this depth linking another two random users on ANI five minutes from now, they'd be both blocked in another 5 minutes after that. Lawrence § t/e 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were that clear and compelling, it would have convinced arbcom. They can be wrong, but they are not such dullards.--Doc^g 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right Doc, they're not dullards. A majority of the Committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, so, now, are you going to back off your wrongheaded campaign?? SirFozzie (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If a consensus exists, it exists. Consensus exists that SH=MM, and there has been no legitimately proven dispute of that fact. The AC didn't even touch the question, citing some undisclosed secret facts. The community is empowered to take any action to protect itself that consensus supports. We certainly don't need the AC's "clearance". The AC serves us and answers to us, in any event, not the other way around. Lawrence § t/e 23:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that people can appeal a community ban to arbcom and be unblocked? Here is a timely example (not of a community ban being overturned, but of sockpuppet accusations being said to be unfounded - I realise that is not the case here, but why not let the arbitration committee remedies take effect, and await developments?). Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that. My point is, no one has appealed the community puppetry finding to them. Maybe someone should, to settle this, if the AC wants to take on the community over this. Lawrence § t/e 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking because arbcom case has ended

As an offshoot of this, given the Samiharris account was unblocked by Newyorkbrad solely for the purposes of participating in the ArbCom case, which is now closed, shouldn't the account be re-blocked? Neıl ☎ 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Lawrence § t/e 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That would be splitting hairs. The obvious intent was for the Arbcom case to decide if the sockpuppet accusations were justified, and failing that, for this discussion to try and decide. Pre-emptively blocking is not needed, as the account seems to have retired. I hope I would be right in saying that people would notice if it started editing again. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet was used disruptively and should be blocked. (double voting, pov pushing, etc.) daveh4h 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris have been indef blocked - see below.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SH and MM blocked

(section moved from below 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

In light of the (extensive, dramatic) melee above, I have indef blocked both Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs) (for repeated sockpuppetry) and Samiharris (talk · contribs) (as a disruptive sockpuppet).

I understand that there are a number of other administrators who will disagree. Before you retaliate with a wheel war, please take into account:

1. Most any other editor would have been blocked on much less disruption, and with much weaker evidence; and
2. the very magnitude of the drama above is the perfect illustration on how immensely and irremediably disruptive this editor has been, and how much strife he has caused.

I make no statement on what real life person lies behind the accounts; only that the preponderance of evidence leads inevitably to a finding of sockpuppetry, and that MM had been previously found to be a puppeteer and enjoined to refrain from doing so again. — Coren ^(talk) 03:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, well as ever I'm late - but it might be worth quietly noting that Mantan hadn't edited in a over a week before today, and I dropped him a note to see if he'd mind sharing his intentions..... <insert heartfelt plea for calmness and extra servings of tea all round....> Privatemusings (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one feel absolutely topping about your actions, however methinks we are still going to have some problems here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First! (Second due to ec) I mean, certainly a gutsy call, I'd be interestd to see the community's response. Wizardman 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I make no call about this being a ban! MM is welcome to make a case for continued contribution on his talk page if he so wishes. — Coren ^(talk) 03:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to move this up as subthread of the thread above? Maybe so but I'll let Coren or someone else decide.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It damn well would. AN discussions are confusing enough. Noroton (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You would think that a community ban proposal would be discussed for more than half a day, at least, when a dozen admins have expressed opposition already. I wonder whatever happened to "If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned." I don't think escalating this discussion with a block already is likely to help, especially when the consensus does not exist. Dmcdevit·t 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should have probably been discussed for a longer period of time but I don't think it was Corens intention to consider this a ban - he simply blocked as there was a clear consensus at that point in time to remove the editing privilidges of both accounts. I don't think no consensus for a community ban should stop a consensus for an indef block. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dmcdevit you are well aware that this has been discussed in minute detail for weeks, with about 1 million bytes expended on the case in ArbCom, and before that a community discussion. Dmc and Ryan, read those million bytes and then come back and tell us there wasn't enough discussion. Go on, read 'em. One million bytes is plenty discussion. Just plenty.Noroton (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The distinction being drawn is a useless one. An indefinite block that stands is one way we determine if someone is banned by the community. Or are you implying that the account is only technically blocked and that ne may create another account? I doubt that is what you mean; I don't see what saying this is "not a ban" means to you, other than that if we don't call it a ban, we can block without the same level of consensus. Dmcdevit·t 04:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the post by Coren that this is a block, not a ban.. and as for consensus, that does not mean unanimity, Dmcdevit. Please don't tell me you're looking at the section above and NOT seeing a vast consensus that a block is warranted, please? SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Coren. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block for the reasons stated by Coren. The evidence of abusive sockpuppeteering is just about overwhelming. Until there are some acknowledgement/contrition/commitments, this block is appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. R. Baley (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block in the strongest possible terms. Everyking (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as part of the undeniable, overwhelming, sober consensus. Noroton (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per the opinions above. I'm glad someone had the balls to do what some of arbcom didnt. Viridae^Talk 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Overall community consensus is absolute and it's time we all began to respect that, so that nonsense doesn't swirl and fester for ages on multiple problems. Lawrence § t/e 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Consensus is that they're disruptive socks, and disruptive socks are generally indef-blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. For the sake of the project. This has gone on long enough. --MPerel 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have to say, I am very disturbed by this block. Firstly, the contention that there is any difference between a permanent block and a permanent ban (and I use the word permanent advisedly) is the height of sophistry. Secondly, the fact that a good number of experienced administrators have opposed (though apparently I don't count, because I didn't write 5000KB of evidence/arguing on the Workshop page) should be an indicator that more discussion is needed. We shouldn't do "votes for banning" and that is very much what this appears to be. 09:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)
  • Actually, it is not sophistry. An indefinite block is more likely than a community ban to be overturned by an uninvolved administrator if the editor in question puts an "unblock" request on their talk page. There are differences. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. I'm not sure who posted the statement above, but let me tell you that I've had to endure personal attacks and bad faith POV pushing by Mantanmoreland and his socks, plus retaliation from several of his administrator friends over the past two years. This indef block is definitely appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That was Sam Korn. Must have left a tilde off the signature by accident. Durova^Charge! 10:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, that would be him adding an extra tilde. Compare: Carcharoth (talk) (three tildes) with Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (four tildes) with 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (five tildes). Do I need to sign this again now? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Whoops, got a little over excited there :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. We've all been played by this guy for a very long time, me included, and no admission or contrition seems to be forthcoming. I hate to say it, but in my experience it often takes a block to kickstart a ban discussion, and until someone steps forward like Coren did, problem editors continue to linger and the community doesn't do much about it. Grandmasterka 10:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not to state the obvious, but we were actually having a discussion about two sections up on this page before the block was made. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• All this and the ArbCom case still hasn't even closed! The only aspects of the above discussion I find surprising are how many people still have such strong faith in ArbCom, and how the criticisms (whilst forcefully worded in some cases) have remained civil. I am really surprised that anyone who followed the case wouldn't have seen this discussion as inevitable, and its outcome (at least in the short term) as almost inevitable. That's not to say they agreed, but that this has been coming with bells and huge flashing lights since the proposed decision appeared. I not only believe that the evidence presented strongly supports an indefinite community ban, but I also endorse both the block by Coren and the resulting barnstar on his talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's very nice, but it would be nice if those making comments would also take the time to consider how the process could be improved and carried out with less drama. See the section I started below. I see you have also commented previously at Wikipedia talk:Community sanction. If we could get more attention there, we might get consensus and avoidance of future drama in similar cases. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Carcharoth, I'm on board and have Wikipedia talk:Community sanction watchlisted. I believe that a more structured process is a good idea, and have doubts about the case applied to Whig - not because of the outcome, but because of the process. However, the discussion above would not have been stopped by greater structure, or by Jimbo asking us to leave it, or even by fully protecting this page. The dam broke a day earlier than I expected - I thought it would be within an hour of the case closing - but once it did break, the water was going somewhere and there was going to be damage (of which the Mackan block is an example). I applaud and support your goal, and admire your effort - but I doubt you can redirect much attentioin to the discussion you suggest just yet, as the water is still moving way too fast. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block, as stated previously, on the grounds that this user's continued presence is clearly not going to be beneficial to our goal of building a high-quality, NPOV, free-content encyclopedia. All sides of the underlying off-Wiki dispute should be strongly encouraged to fight it out somewhere else and leave us in peace. *** Crotalus *** 11:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• The block is good. I feel that there is no ban, due to the amount of opposition. Mantanmoreland is free to request unblock, especially if they can provide an explanation and assurances that there will be no further disruption. At the moment, I do not think there is a consensus to unblock them, but in time, that may develop especially if they provide assurances and explanations that are credible. Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose block--for now, anyway. Based on what I've seen so far, I have to agree with Dmcdevit and Ryan--this was way, way too premature. At the very least, Mantanmoreland should have had a chance to explain his behavior. If he does have that chance and he appears to be unapologetic about his actions, I will endorse a ban. Given the level of disruption he has caused, he has to earn the community's trust again--the reasoning behind my "Last Chance" proposal. I would also endorse a ban if there is evidence that Mantanmoreland and his socks' double voting actually changed the outcome of an RfA or an AfD. If either of those occurred, I will not only support a ban, I'll put the {{banneduser}} template on Mantanmoreland's page myself. I'm going through all their contributions now. Blueboy96 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification--I endorse the block on Samiharris, based on overwhelming evidence that he's a sock. I oppose--at least for now--the block on Mantanmoreland. Blueboy96 12:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Chnce? He has hadn an entire arbcom case of chances. What more do you want? Viridae^Talk 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read Coren's statement that he does not intend for this to be a ban at present, I endorse the indef on Mantanmoreland as well. Also leaving a note at Mantanmoreland's talk page. Blueboy96 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, to answer your question, "what more do you want?": for this banning discussion to be as clearly laid out as the arbitration case and the RfC, not an ad-hoc process started with no clear end point or framework of operation (have a look at Lar's original post and compare it with the process-heavy page at User:Lar/Accountability). To judge consensus on a community ban discussion, it is important for the people participating to say how involved they are and to say why they endorse the ban. The RfC was open for some time, the RfArb was open for ages. There was no rush or need for the basis of this discussion to be changed midstream by the enactment of a block the way Coren did. I will start a new section discussing the timescales involved and how much 'process' is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a vote. There was not adequate consensus for the block of Mantanmoreland. It was conducted in a precipitate manner in the face of strong and well supported arguments against: to wit, that the user is under a sufficient remedy imposed by the arbitration committee. Suggestions that we wait and see (under his very generously worded remedy he can be indefinitely blocked if he ever edits disruptively) were apparently ignored by the blocking administrator. This block should be undone and the user should remain under the sanction of the arbitration committee to edit under only that username and to refrain indefinitely from editing articles related to the dispute. This is ample remedy for the case. A stronger remedy especially as here in the absence of sufficient consensus for a community ban, would be perverse and would tend to divide the community. I say this as a person completely and wholly uninvolved in the dispute. I had, in fact, no knowledge of mantanmoreland until two weeks ago. I should add that, other than being under almost continual attack by Wordbomb for nearly two years, there is no evidence that the user imported any dispute into Wikipedia. The charges on that line seem to be especially thin. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, undoing the block would create even more drama. One of the possibilities now is that the user in question appeals to the arbitration committee, is told that an unblock would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia (ie. would create a firestorm of protest), but to be told that he can edit under a new account known only to ArbCom, and being watched by ArbCom (this is well within the remit of the Arbitration Committee). This is not an ideal outcome, as it would have been better for the community to openly scrutinise the edits of the person behind the Mantanmoreland account, but it seems that the community does not want to do this. This, of course, is another of the subtle distinctions between a block and a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A stronger remedy especially as here in the absence of sufficient consensus for a community ban, would be perverse and would tend to divide the community. Perceptive. No, wait, its divided already. Getting rid of these accounts, however, is our best chance to put it behind us. I say this as a person completely and wholly uninvolved in the dispute.... as are a lot of people. Most of the others spent some time reading the case pages, though. Relata refero (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on improving the process

Looking at points 1 and 2 that Coren raises: (1) "Most any other editor would have been blocked on much less disruption, and with much weaker evidence" - I agree, but from what I've seen (and I won't repeat the arguments from above) there were reasons not to do that. (2) "the very magnitude of the drama above is the perfect illustration on how immensely and irremediably disruptive this editor has been, and how much strife he has caused" - I strongly disagree with this. The day that we start to block merely because the community is having one of its periodic dramafests is the day that the community is finished as a coherent entity that can be respected and its decisions seen to have any worth outside that of mob rule. In any large community, there will always be disagreement and differences of opinion. That should not result in a general principle that 'drama in the community' = 'disruption by the editor being discussed'. That veers dangerously close to the often unprovable accusation of trolling. Stick to the facts and discuss those and come up with a process to reduce the drama and allow the community to express itself in a calm manner. Which brings me on to my main point. Community ban discussions at AN are, at present, chaotic and poorly structured affairs. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Community sanction for discussion on how such community ban discussions could be better handled. For now, I'll repeat what I've said before:

"I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points and no closing early; (2) People declaring their interest and article and/or editor involvement (or uninvolvement) up front (ie. have they been involved with the editor before and how - anyone failing to declare this gets their comment discounted); (3) Clear presentation of the latest evidence and links to previous evidence; (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves; (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment"."

Things like "saying what alternatives are available and why they wouldn't work" are other possibilities. RfC is very structured. RfArb is very structured. Is there any reason why community ban discussions need to be so dramatic and ad-hoc? Carcharoth (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Carcharoth's idea to document the process. Perhaps we can agree to conduct these discussions on a subpage, with a notice on the main page. That subpage could be structured a bit, perhaps something like the way we organize WP:RFCs. Jehochman ^Talk 11:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur - and I suggested something along these lines above in the context of the Whig topic ban. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the paperwork

I've made the following edits to the user pages concerned: [67] and [68]. This moved the pages from the "temporary wikipedian pages" category to Category:Blocked historical users. This should have been done anyway, because of the sockpuppetry concerns, but is also needed to prevent the user and talk pages being deleted a few months down the line. There is history here that needs to be preserved. These were not throwaway accounts with only a few edits. Please, when people place indefinite blocks and use the {{indefblockeduser}} template, can they remember this. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't forget. At the time of the block, I felt it better to not throw further oil on the fire by dumping a stock template on the MM page, especially one that would cause the page to be eventually deleted. I've left a succinct note on MM's talk page this morning, inviting him to make a case for is continued contribution, if he so chooses. — Coren ^(talk) 12:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you forgot. I was speaking in general. Thanks for clearing up what you were thinking at the time - something it is difficult for others to know. If you want to still use the indefblocked template, but not have the page deleted, please use the "historical" parameter. It is all in the template documentation if you read it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Coren, in IRC, stated that he was leaving placing templates to someone else. So I placed them. I hadn't thought about the temporary page aspect, which is a good point! So thanks for the changes, Carcharoth. ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Timescale and process

Two points here:

• (1) Compare the timescale of the three processes people have cited so far. The RfC opened at 16:52, 12 February 2008 and the last edit to date (which was also still part of the discussion there) has been 03:43, 16 February 2008. That is over four days of discussion. The RfArb opened at 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) and will effectively close at 11:49, 13 March 2008. That is nearly a full month of discussion. This thread was opened by Lar at 17:13, 12 March 2008, and Coren blocked at 03:05, 13 March 2008 (I know, a block not a ban, but still). That is just under 10 hours of discussion before the block was placed (though discussion appears to be ongoing).
• (2) How process-heavy should community ban discussions be? Have a look at the process set up by Lar at User:Lar/Accountability and compare this with the initial post in this thread. Is process something that we only allow in some cases, and we ignore it in cases like this?

I'm deliberately not giving my views here, so please just give opinions on what you think the right timescales and degree of process should be, rather than opposing what others think. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have telegraphed your views anyway. :) I think that if I had been proposing a community ban out of the blue, with no prior history, I would have provided a fair bit more in my opening statement. But given the 1M bytes of prior history here, just referencing things seemed adequate to me. I suppose I could have done better. But I'm also not seeing any lack of knowledge of the priors, really. Mostly what I see in the subsequent discussion is that a very small minority thinks there wasn't consensus that these two were socking, and a slightly larger small minority thinks there isn't community consensus for a ban. I'd also note that Coren blocked these userids ahead of when I would have done so (I would have waited till the case was over) but also didn't position the blocks as community bans per se. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, there shouldn't have been an ArbCom case and the RfC should have continued and expanded to cover the community ban. Given there was an ArbCom case - which certainly massively increased the quality of the evidence - this discussion should have been moot because ArbCom should have blocked. A lengthier and more calm community ban discussion then could have been allowed to run several days. Ideally such discussions should be structured with pre-determined parameters as you suggest. Having said all of that, the unblocking means this discussion is about to be swamped as a deluge of protest begins. In short, water still moving too fast (sorry). Jay*Jay (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland unblocked by Doc glasgow

Apparently, against the displayed consensus here (note, consensus need not be unanimous ever), User:Doc glasgow has unblocked User:Mantanmoreland. Lawrence § t/e 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can we all please be calm here. Go straight back to Arbcom if need be, but no further blocks or unblocks please (of anyone). Please. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any such consensus, even accepting that it doesn't need to be unanimous. A dozen admins in reasoned opposition should give you pause, at least. Dmcdevit·t 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to think very hard about what "uninvolved" means now. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And examine where given admins have stood on the previously now proven false attacks on both sides. Wordbomb may have acted scummy, but he was right in the end. Mantanmoreland=Samiharris. Lawrence § t/e 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland unblocked

I have unblocked this user. whilst I'm openminded about this case, there is significant admin disquiet here. There is simply not the unanimity required for a community ban, especially when the evidence (however strong) did not compel arbcom to feel the need to act - and the blocking admin was also aware of significant admin dissent. Where there is doubt as to a block, and no evidence of immediate disruption, we don't rush to block. I don't like reversing another admin, but the status-quo is for the user to be unblocked, until the matter is resolved. If anyone disagrees, they may take the matter to arbcom. Please remember that re-doing the block, knowing that another admin contests it, is wheel warring.--Doc^g 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this unblock, and would plead for the community to take a calmer approach to this. To repeat myself from above, one of the possibilities if the indefinite block remains in place without a community ban is that the user appeals privately to ArbCom and is told that he can edit under a new account known only to ArbCom, and being watched by ArbCom (this is well within the remit of the Arbitration Committee). This is not an ideal outcome, as it would have been better for the community to openly scrutinise the edits of the person behind the Mantanmoreland account, but it seems that the community does not want to do this. This, of course, is another of the subtle distinctions between a block and a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is an entirely sensible approach. We have an arbitration committee, let them deal with it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Even when they've said they want us to deal with it? This epidemic of buck-passing is ridiculous. Relata refero (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The case isn't even closed yet! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read through the discussion on the proposed decision talkpage, where several arbitrators have commented on what the ArbCom intends, before commenting further. Perhaps you might want to strike out your previous statements till you have done so. Relata refero (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's true I have been unable to find anywhere on the proposed decision page that states that the community should ignore everything the AC says and simply ban people before the case is even closed. Perhaps you can point me to it? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Effectively it has closed. There is a 24-hour clause from the point at which 4-0 is obtained, as Newyorkbrad noted in his vote on the motion to close, and that point has passed. It's just no-one has got around to tidying up the paperwork yet. See here, where it is currently 7-0 to close. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the unblock template. For sock puppetry the puppetmaster normally gets a block anywhere from one week to indefinite. There is a middle ground that leaves the account blocked, but not banned. I think this is the consensus, and it should be restored to that position. Maybe a 6 month or 1 year block would be more appropriate in this case, rather than indefinite. We need to discourage sock puppetry. Letting puppetmasters off the hook with a slap on the wrist (Oh noes. A stern warning!) is a poor idea. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A year of stalking, a month of concerted drama, a topic ban and article probation from ArbCom and eternal scrutiny from the community is not "a slap on the wrist." In fact, it (or the ArbCom part of it) is a preventative measure against the actual problem. Just because some people were out for blood and didn't get it from ArbCom doesn't make this case decision a "warning." The least the community could do is see if it works. Mantanmoreland hasn't even resumed editing yet, and yet this is being treated as if it's somehow urgent. Dmcdevit·t 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I get it now. Are we giving Mantanmoreland so much extra rope here because Wordbomb was out to get him? Wordbomb was RIGHT. Mantanmoreland=Samiharris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Cohen (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 Mar 2008

Its urgent that we try and put it behind us.

A slap on the wrist and a restriction to one account has "been tried before". A suggestion from an admin (SV) that this account not edit certain articles has been tried before. I think the community can see it didn't work. So I think trying it again is considerably less than an acceptable "least". Relata refero (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not withstanding Theresa's comments (and the obvious question that follows...) I should note that the policy specifically states that a community ban is deprecated if an uninvolved admin proposes an unblock. I am aware that Doc has participated in the ArbCom, and thus wonder how "uninvolved" he may be considered, but would primarily suggest that the policy only condones the proposing of an unblock - and not the actioning of same. I think we will need to enquire of ArbCom whether actioning the unblock was wheelwarring or an acceptable BOLD action, as well as how "uninvolved" an admin has to be to be able to perform the task. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is much that is wrong with DocG's rationale.

• the evidence (however strong) did not compel arbcom to feel the need to act: ArbCom made clear that they expected this to go back to the community. I don't think that that is the same as them not feeling the need to act. I further submit that ArbCom has not felt the need to act in many problematic cases recently, so this is now a statement with significantly depreciated value.
• the status-quo is for the user to be unblocked, until the matter is resolved - would sound better if the blocking admin indicated what he thought "resolution" would look like.
• the blocking admin was also aware of significant admin dissent - How significant is significant? Numbers, please, or - preferably - strength of argument. Are you' a dissenter? Or are you "neutral", and merely acting on process because you feel others dissent?
• and no evidence of immediate disruption, we don't rush to block - you have presumably been unaware of the fact that this has taken up a month of some people's time? That MM has been obstructive and difficult on the ArbCom page, as Durova points out above? That no credible defence has been offered? That off-wiki disputes continue to be imported and living persons attacked on those pages? That is disruption the way it is generally understood. One month is not a rush to block. Relata refero (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So, for that matter, is reversing admin action without taking even a moment to confer with said admin— had you done so, I would have clarified the point I made above (which you obviously did not notice) that this was neither a ban nor an infinite block. — Coren ^(talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just word play. The block was indefinate was it not? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you can select an option for infinite, as opposed to indefinite, or say this in the block log. So there is a subtle difference between infinite and indefinite. Most people don't bother with the difference though. Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again though that's word play. Look at the bigger picture if a person is blocked without a time limit then they have to be unblocked by someone or remain blocked forever. If a person is blocked while a ban is being discussed and then anyone who unblocks is accused of wheelwarring that simply isn't right! We are not a mob. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's all go and read ochlocracy and then vote on whether we are a mob or not... Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"...blocked while a ban is being discussed.." I really am puzzled now. He has had weeks in which to come up with a credible defence. Instead he has been obstructionist and disruptive on the arbcom pages. Are you claiming the only valid reason for the unblock was so he could participate in this discussion? Because that is totally not worth it; we are aware what he would say, that we're buying into a coroporate smear campaign and propagating Bagley memes. Relata refero (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You have completely missunderstood me. My point is this:Was there concensus for a community ban? No! Therefore he was blocked indefinately until concensus was somehow reached. That is simply wrong. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I did so. If that's your point, though, I don't understand the 'mob' reference. Relata refero (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• This might be relevant. I begin to think DocG did not put very much work into this. In particular Proposed Finding of Fact 2.1 directly contradicts his stated rationale about ArbCom. Bad show, particularly given that when going against consensus you should at least get the facts you're supposedly basing your rationale on correct.. Relata refero (talk)

Chill

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview and notices

66.30.77.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been placing notices for an interview between User:ScienceApologist and User:Martinphi on a variety of article talk pages and user talk pages. I haven't been reverting these, as they are marginally relevant, but I'm concerned that this might not be appropriate. As far as I can tell, this IP hasn't been used for any purpose other than discussing this interview and telling people about it, which raises a bit of a red flag in my mind (which I'll admit might be a bit too much on edge from combating linkspam). What's the general view on this sort of activity? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to get more diverse participation, as per Zvika's request [69]. Figured an anon IP might be a bit less polarizing. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so I take it you're a registered user editing anonymously for this purpose? Kind of what I was suspecting. Eh, it might be technically a violation of WP:SOCK, but I'm not that sure it's really a problem. Personally, I think there's zero problem with mentioning this on user talk pages, but I think it might be stretching the rules a bit to place these notices on the article talk pages, as it technically doesn't have anything to do with that particular article. --Infophile ^{(Talk)(Contribs)} 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Any form of healthy interaction between the two experienced and knowledgeable if strong-minded users, as opposed to a continuation of the never-ending requests to get one or the other of them blocked on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, would be quite welcome to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image help

Copyright isn't my strong point, so I could use a second opinion. Image:Johnmunch.jpg (a copyrighted screenshot of a television program) is being used in the article for the fictional character John Munch as well as in the article for the actor who portrays him, Richard Belzer. While there is a fair-use rationale for both, I don't believe that such an image can be used in the Richard Belzer article. Is this the case? Cheers, faithless (^speak) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct- in the article on the actor, its use in the infobox meant it was being used to identify the actor, not the character. A free image of the actor could be located or created, and so I have removed the invalid rationale, and removed the image from the actor's article. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) faithless (^speak) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite block on Ehud Lesar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby reversed as it has not been demonstrated that he is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Necessary actions will be performed by an arbitrator. The sockpuppetry accusations are found to have been made in good faith. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide note

Resolved

 – Move along, people, nothing to see here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Threats reported to the appropriate local authorities. Bstone (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

diff. So who wants to call the cops? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, WP:RBI I think. Black Kite 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The note mentions me; it is possibly related to threats that myself and other users (Jack Merridew, Gavin.collins) have been recieving from members of another website regarding our work to clear out a lot of crufty D&D articles. There is at least one archived thread in WP:ANI regarding this matter. I am taking no stance about what is to be done about this particular threat. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SUICIDE CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked. We'll let the usual people know, just in case it wasn't a sick hoax though. Nick (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I semi'd Wikipedia:AN as well. Black Kite 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

agian :/ CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that this is almost certainly a troll, we have one edit from an IP which is dynamic ComCast, and no identifying information. Black Kite 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen more than one person threaten suicide and then continue coming back to pick fights--both on and off wiki--but I left the editor some information on crisis hotlines anyway. If they're serious, that's certainly a better resource than we are. --Masamage ♫ 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that :). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This method of posting the same message in the same place from unrelated IPs which are not open proxies is consistent with the way 4channers have vandalised talk pages and articles I have worked on before. I'm not going to say how its done for deny purposes, but I can confirm that this matches their style. Whether the threat should be considered serious is a different matter. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOV I am taking this seriously. As a licensed EMT, I opine we get this fellow help to wherever he is ASAP. Let's start tracking him down so we can contact his local ambulance service and police. According to NetSol, he's located in Houston and on a Comcast network[70]. Bstone (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find them, please tell them to stop trolling. (Seriously though, the second "suicide threat" came from Special:Contributions/70.169.18.67 which previously issued a threat against J Milburn). I think we can safely call this resolved. Black Kite 00:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RBI, oversight the edits (they have been using permalinks to old revisions to harass Milburn and two other users on their talk pages). Nothing more needs to be done here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Comcast. It was not possible to determine the physical jurisdiction of this subscriber or to reach a Comcast representative by telephone. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems 85.226.112.161 just reposted the threat here[71] tho it was quickly reverted. One might be curious to know that this is the same city and country as our Plano HS threat. Bstone (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the nature of the threat here makes this one in particular not credible, the fact that multiple IPs across a wide area are posting the same content makes it clear that it's trolling not a legit threat. However, if it's near the Plano HS harrassment/threat site, then it might be tied in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd still WHOIS them and call the cops in their respective areas; these IPs have been harassing Milburn and two other users for the past month. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not our business to estimate which suicide threats are real and which are hoaxes. Every suicide response protocol I know is to treat all threats as serious until trained personnel determine otherwise. And if this were a hoax, a knock on the door by some personnel in uniform might not be such a bad thing anyway. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you also contact the ISPs behind the IP replacement edits here? Maybe cops at where those IPs are will get them to stop thinking this is a joke and that they can lose their liberty because of it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. We're in no position here to interview the person who made the threat. Given it's odd to see it coming from such wide geographical areas, but there could have been an original legit threat which is now being copycatted by the stalker. Bstone (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the only info we have is from whois saying it's Comcast and Durova has dispatched an email to Comcast informing them they may have an issue, the only next thing to do is call the local police and inform them of the IP making the threat and that it belongs to Comcast. I shall volunteer to do this is no one else does. Bstone (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's coming from a wide array of geographical areas is that this is all coming in from an external forum (I'm not going to say which one per WP:DENY). It's the same for all the death threats on J Milburn's talk page. Revert, Block, Ignore, Contact Cops (for harassment, as that's what this really is), and Oversight the edits. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Jeske. The IP that re-posted the suicide threat on this page resolves to Leeds (UK), whilst the two that are re-trolling J Milburn's user page with the same threat as the one from the "suicidal" editor above resolve to California and Sweden. This is standard off-wiki trolling, folks - I know the procedures for suicide threats, but seriously, don't waste your time on this one (although a knock on the door from the local law enforcement might be useful for some of these people). Black Kite 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So are these all unique threats or from a proxy server? Bstone (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Different people, co-ordinated off-wiki. As above, no further details on here though. Black Kite 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, per WP:TOV I am taking them seriously. I cannot risk not doing so. Bstone (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this I have informed the Houston, TX ambulance folks of the IP and it belonging to Comcast with a threat of suicide. They have said they will take it from there. Bstone (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This has also been reported to the Atlanta, GA police. I gave them the IP and the number for Cox Communications. Bstone (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Proxy?

Resolved

A recent edit by 64.210.144.214 replaced his userpage with [72]. Suggesting that this may be an open proxy. Could someone investigate this. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been blocked, suggesting that the blocking administrator tested it before blocking it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy I went to the URL, and the IP that the proxy gives is the IP above. It's blocked, so this is resolved... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries Redux

original note on this here...

The article has become a battle ground between church supporters and detractors with allegations and denials of direct church involvement, general incivility, misleading edit summaries (with a valid point raised), allegations of vandalism and edit warring. At this point it's no longer about the Afd, which was apparently vandalism but the establishment of anything resembling a stable argument. I have no vested interest in which "version" of the article exists but I'd prefer it to be something stable. It appears that the at least several of the editors have some connection to the church, including the IP, although some are handling it far better than others. I think the edit warring and article in general needs an eye by someone not headed to bed this minute. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained rename of "Lists of companies" pages

About a day ago User:Russavia renamed just about all the article (around 100) in Category:Lists of companies by country from names like List of Australian companies to List of companies of Australia . I posted to the user's talk page asking why this was done or where it was discussed but they have not answered and I couldn't find any discuss looking around. I feel that the new naming is sounds a lot worse than the previous wording and should be reversed. IF there was in fact little or no consultation about this could someone with better tools than me please reverse it? I was starting to reverse a few manually but though posting here might be a better idea. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush in setting things straight -- massively reverting is probably just as bad as massively changing, unless there's some reason doing so is urgent and obviously correct. I can't speak for another user, but I believe the "Foo of Bar" construction is more widely used, at least in this area (see Category:Companies by country, Category:Companies by country and industry. It's a bit wordier, but may make things easier for some purposes -- many people know Australia->Australian, but fewer might know Yemen->Yemeni (for example), and using only one form may make searching easier. Obviously this convention is not universally used or preferred, if we look at examples like Category:People by nationality, but it does seem to be common in the particular area we're looking at. Feel free to discuss, of course, and we should await Russavia's response. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a response on SimonLyall's talk page, and will post here verbatim.

You may or may not have noticed that List of companies in the United Arab Emirates is up for Afd. Just one of many of these lists which have been put up for Afd. I made the changes firstly by following WP:BOLD, because of the following reasons:

• The country specific category which these lists belong to is Category:Companies of country, not Category:Countryian companies (e.g. Category:New Zealand companies or Category:Barbudian companies)
• Using titles such as Barbudian companies and the like present problems, as if someone is searching for the list of companies from Barbados, they are more likely to search for the country name rather than the descriptive. It also presents the problem of companies from Dominica and the Dominican Republic, both could be titled List of Dominican' companies. If people are not familiar with the descriptor for a country, it is going to make it harder to find and to categorise (wasting time looking), whereas what I have changed it to makes it so much easier.
• Using the word "of" denotes that these lists are for companies OF the country concerned. --Russavia (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, of sounds really bad. Shouldn't that be from? — Edokter • Talk • 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB favor

Resolved

Could a nice admin go and clear me for AWB at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? Thanks. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rudget. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content, gettin' paid to spam

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Associated_Content_links.2C_get_paid_to_spam

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Sep#http:.2F.2Fwww.associatedcontent.com

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#Associated_Content:_another.2C_bigger_Suite101.com.3F

See also - Associated Content, Performance Bonus Program and Payment

Past actions and for comparison, here are two links to the many Suite101.com removal discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Suite101 dot com
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#suite101.com

Associated Content links

• Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
• Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
• Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

Major concerns. Associated Content articles are no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. Articles are not professionally written, don't have sources, and are not suitable as reliable sources. We have been spammed with over 730 of these low-quality links. I'm not convinced how these could ever be used as as a citation or source, (in any appropriate context). This type of material is not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. This 'is another, bigger Suite101.com and should be delt with in the same manner. --Hu12 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should blacklist them. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps someone should take a sharp pencil to Associated Content as well. Ronnotel (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

These are just downright unencyclopedic and we're an encyclopedia.

These links have been cleaned out before only to come back in even greater volume. I strongly recommend blacklisting. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB consensus poll - reminder

The Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar will end March 15. If you haven't already, please consider participating. Kingturtle (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)