Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

Keegscee - community ban proposal

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

Keegscee (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia by the community. Sandstein 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note - uninvolved admins reviewing this for closure should examine the community comments above at WP:AN#General discussion - community ban discussion durations, which have somewhat evolved the community ban best practices. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keegscee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has had a very problematic recent history. User:PCHS-NJROTC recently asked for an Arbcom case to ban them, but was redirected back to the community as a more appropriate venue at this time. I am opening this proposal to seek a community ban of Keegscee at this time.

A previous AN ban proposal was floated, probably somewhat prematurely, on Feb 22nd ( [1] ). This more or less immediately followed his indefinite block by myself ( see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive598#Questionable comment at User:Keegscee.27s userpage ) for his openly self-admitted behavior of using open proxies and sockpuppet accounts to WP:HARASS and WP:HOUND editors he felt were not editing constructively here. Since then he has made threats on his talk page to continue that activity with other accounts, and continued to be abusive using sockpuppets including Cryogenic phil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 68.28.187.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), PhoenixPhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), LHSgolf2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and probably others I have missed.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Obvious_sock_is_obvious, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keegscee/Archive and PCHS-NJROTC's case diffs immediately below.

PCHS-NJROTC's case

(cut and paste of PCHS-NJROTC's arbcom reference links / diffs section - summaries are his description)

Current situation and ban proposal

We have persistent sockpuppetry, ongoing abuse of other editors, an explicitly stated opinion that using abuse to push other editors out of the Wikipedia project is a good thing. He has explicitly and openly adopted an abusive vigilante attitude towards others here and worked actively to pursue it, to the great detriment of the community and many individual users.

I believe that, though it will not put another physical barrier between this person and further abuse here, a community ban is appropriate and desirable at this time. I propose that he be indefinitely banned from editing, subject to the usual appeals process should he reform himself and desire to return. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban, obviously. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia, nor does he demonstrate even a minimum level of maturity required to contribute here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ ~~Support Oppose~~ Neutral I maintain, per my suggestion on reforming AN and ANI currently on the AN talkpage, that Georgewilliamherbert should have attempted to contact Keegscee to allow him to submit a defense concurrently with the accusations so that this starts off on the right foot. My suggestions also include a requirement to disclose prior involvement. PCHS-NJROTC has a long history and was involved in collecting the evidence on both the sockpuppet investigations (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keegscee/Archive). All of the evidence is from PCHS-NJROTC and much of it focuses on sockpuppetry. For the first SPI no CU was done because apparently little initial evidence was presented; the second found connection to the IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.28.187.112; however, the SPI report says Keegscee admitted to editing from his phone prior to the SPI investigation, and I don't think that's really sockpuppetry. That IP does have an odd edit, though. There's a statement at the end of the second CU that a list of editors (LittleTommyC, PhoenixPhan, Cryogenic phil, LHSgolf2009) are confirmed to be the same editor, but the CU Alison says "I'm not seeing any link to the previous accounts above". It's not entirely clear whether all these are, in addition to being connected to each other, also connected to Keegscee since Alison does not say that? Further confusing the issue is that the category Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PhoenixPhan does not include Keegscee, only the 3 confirmed sockpuppets. This should not be changed without a clear clarification from Alison. The ANI thread by Crossmr (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Obvious_sock_is_obvious) references a diff of someone immaturely teasing Crossmr but that's not evidence of sockpuppetry. One of the diffs which was not highlighted, but which I think should have been, is Keegscee's statement that he uses proxies to harass "not good faith editors", although he later implied that he might have been joking and questioned whether he should be banned for making a silly statement. I guess the question is whether he was joking or not, and the main way to answer that is to look for evidence that he has been harassing people under proxies. Which I guess is what the SPI investigations are about? Anyway, I'm leaning towards supporting the ban, but I wish it had been set up in a way that made it easy to understand. Looking back at the contributions, even though the SPI case and userpages don't clearly connect them to Keegscee, it seems clear that they are from Keegscee based on the contributions. I maintain that all ban discussions should attempt to start with both an accusing case and a defense if possible. Second update: Switched to ~~oppose~~ neutral. There is too much odd evidence flying around - the confirmed socks are all extremely obvious and I've yet to see clear confirmation that these are connected to Keegscee's IP. That in combination with a SPI report opened by an indef-blocked user suggests that someone could be trying to set Keegscee up. Keegscee's defense is below as Amusedchap, but has been blocked as a sockpuppet erroneously. I think the indef-block should have been lifted for the community ban discussion. Third update: The previous statement still holds - the evidence here was incredibly confusing and ultimately it comes down to Keegscee probably making a few random edits under open proxies and some bad but at the same time run-of-the-mill bad faith and snarky comments. Can't see why more than a year is necessary really, but I won't hold up the crowd. I also cannot understand why one would block a user from even commenting on their own talk page prior to bringing up a ban discussion unless the user is given to spewing obscenities over and over or something. II | (t - c) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCHS-NJROTC was listed as a source of the Arbcom case and is clearly involved in the various AN / ANI prior discussions; I'm not sure how much more explicitly that should be disclosed?

Keegscee was notified [2] promptly after initiating the discussion. I'm going to add to that notification an email link to the Arbcom ban appeals subcommittee, as I now see on rechecking that his account is currently blocked from posting to its talk page or sending emails; if BASC gets any comments he wants posted to the discussion they can forward them here.

The sockpuppet category was created some weeks after Keegscee was banned; his being credited with being the root account is not terribly controversial but could be incorrect.

Keegscee went back and forth a bit claiming he was joking, but seemed to settle on a stance that he had not been joking but that we could not "prove it" therefore he should be let off without sanctions. We don't have perfect proof tying this all together; IMHO this meets our usual standards for evidence to make a reasonable conclusion and act on it, but that's up for discussion.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion involves not only notification, but also waiting a basic amount of time to see if the accused editor wants to submit a response concurrently. By the time Keegscee notices the notification and submits a defense, there could be 10 supports. It's entirely likely and I don't think it makes sense for that to happen. As far as PCHS-NJROTC's involvement, yes, it is clear that's he's involved but I would prefer not to look at involvement as a binary yes/no, in the same way we don't look at AfD as Keep/Delete. That's a first step, but I would prefer that PCHS-NJROTC offer a brief summary of the issues leading up to the dispute and if possible the length of time they've been interacting. If PCHS-NJROTC thinks this is too much information or invades his privacy, then he should also say that to make it abundantly clear to everyone that he's not giving the full story. There's a narrative here which isn't being told - it appears that PCHS-NJROTC is angry at Keegscee partly because of PCHS-NJROTC has a close relationship to Conservapedia and Keegscee doesn't like it or something. Getting this information out is relevant in the long-term because banning can be used as a wikilawyering tactic to avoid NPOV when a content editor has a position that the initiating editor does not agree with, and it also allows aids in mediating the dispute if there is no consensus for the ban. II | (t - c) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that your assumption that PCHS-NJROTC is angry at Keegscee partly because of PCHS-NJROTC has a close relationship to Conservapedia and Keegscee doesn't like it or something is wrong. I didn't even know what Conservapedia was until seeing Keegscee's comment about it, and when I first raised an AN/I about his attacking of it, it could have been like RationalWiki for all knew; it could have been a liberal site made to debunk conservatism and I'd have still disapproved of Keegscee's attacks on it. It is because of Keegscee that I joined Conservapedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would have explained how all this started upfront I wouldn't have had to make a guess like that. I still don't know the timeline or how it started. But snarky comments like the ones made by Keegscee are very common in the medicine and politics area where I usually edit, and Conservapedia editors can expect a rough go. Although I'm very liberal and rational I have as much disdain for Rationalwiki as anyone - but the fact is that Wikipedia parallels Rationalwiki a lot more than it parallels Conservapedia, and if we banned everyone who expressed their disdain for conservatives beliefs in a snarky or stupid way we'd be casting a pretty wide net (e.g., a below supporter of the Keegscee's ban considers all edits against abortion "vandalism" and reverts them as such). II | (t - c) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban. User has commented that he is only here to disrupt. As per other comments, subject to the usual appeals process should he reform himself and desire to return. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy break

Already de facto banned, why are we doing this? Is it just me, or are there more and more ban discussions lately about people who are already indef blocked for socking, vandalism, harassment, etc.? These discussions seem to me to be a waste of perfectly good electrons; per another discussion somewhere around here, now we have to talk about this for a "bare minimum" of 24 hours. For someone who is already indef blocked. I hope people will consider limiting these discussions only to cases where it will do more than negligible good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some slight difference in how we handle socks of indef blocked sockpuppeteers versus banned ones. Also, the message sent is potentially of useful import - that this was not just some administrator doing it, but a community consensus. Some indefinitely blocked users have weaseled around claiming a particular admin was out to get them and that there was no reasonable review. This goes on record against that. It also reduces the chance that some lone admin without enough history awareness or checks may mistakenly unblock them at some point in the future. I understand not wanting to community ban everyone we have indef blocked; I think we're acknowledging and making use of a shift in community expectations and standards. Figuring out where that settles out is worthwhile. Perhaps this is a step too far, but it's not obviously wrong to consider IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference in how we handle socks is, indeed, fairly slight, and I'm pretty sure when someone gets to this level of disruption, they could not care less whether the're indef blocked or banned. Or, if anything, they might feel freer to hold nothing back now. If some lone admin unblocks in future, then we can have the ban discussion; if not, then we've saved a discussion and all the bureaucracy it entails. I'm not saying ban discussions are always a waste of time; I'm saying a ban discussion of a currently indef blocked abusive sockpuppeteer probably is. The only real benefit I can see is the feeling of camaraderie we create in saying bad things about a "community enemy", like a Two Minutes Hate, but that doesn't seem like a good thing to foster. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Would it be useful to expand on this in the general discussion above about ban discussions? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an ordinary editor dealing with sock puppetry, a community ban is easier. A community ban gives editors a clear mandate to revert on sight. An indef block means we need to worry about being seen as edit-warring. Your 1984-point is well made; they may well care less, we should care more, but editors - we should care about them/us too. TFOWR^propaganda 23:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse He's all but announced the rules don't apply to him. Sorry, they do. Blueboy 96 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the ban. There was a discussion of a ban months ago and it was dismissed. What has changed? Checkuser has not confirmed any socks and it seems like we're just wasting our time here. If Keegscee is watching this, he is probably delighted at the attention he is getting. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangmike (talk • contribs)
- The above is NOT Orangemike. The edit was made from this account and needs to be blocked immediately. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck the impersonation account of Orangemike's comments (who has been blocked) as they shouldn't be allowed. Anyone who disagrees, please feel to revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've discussed this with a Checkuser and he tells me that Orangmike = a PCHS-NJROTC impersonator. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wonder who is next....the plot thickens, kinda like one of them old timey radio shows. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - From what I'm seeing and from what I'm hearing from User:J.delanoy in private, Orangmike and PHCS-NJROTC are both Keegscee socks. Enough is enough. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After dealing with the Orangmike sock and then reading through the proposal, I definitely support banhammering this Keegscee guy. Could someone ask J.delanoy if a range block on Keegscee's range can be done to lessen these socks for awhile? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No-go on the rangeblock. Quoth he, Sprint "doesn't have anything smaller than a /13". —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damn. Cell phones, tricky. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hate to so quickly jump in here abut abuse reporting, but if he makes IP hopping a habit, then an alternative to a range block could be WP:ABUSE. The other volunteers there could handle it if and when it meets the minimum criteria for an abuse report. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, that is a good idea. Can't stop it on our own, go to the source. We shouldn't hold our breathe as some providers just don't care what goes on on their networks, but some do (it is rare). I say put in a WP:ABUSE report and link it here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        They would care if they heard that a rangeblock had been considered. Most don't care on the first complaint; it's when they get at least three that they start caring, so I wouldn't say it's *rare* for them to care, especially since we're talking about Sprint, which is what Embarq used to be part of. PCHS-NJROTC^(Messages) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, this thread has gotten out of control. First of all, User:Jéské Couriano, your super secret discussions with a checkuser have no place here. Until an actual checkuser verifies what you have said, it is pure speculation and should have no bearing in a ban discussion. I happen to know for a fact that there is absolutely NO IP link between Keegscee and the Orangemike impersonator (because I am Keegscee, obviously). Unless someone hacked into my secured network and created an account (which did not happen), then there is no IP link and a checkuser can and should confirm this. And with regards to the Sprint abuse report, go for it. Not even I'm stupid enough to make disruptive edits from my phone. In fact, I've only made about 10 edits total from my phone since it caps me at 300 characters. Plus, my contract is up on June 22 and if I don't decide to get the HTC EVO 4G, I'll be switching to Verizon!
        
        Also, as some people have echoed above, I'm not sure what good a ban would do. How would it stop me from editing? Who enforces it? What are the consequences? I'm not posing these questions to mock a seemingly unenforceable policy; I'm actually interested in knowing the answers.
        
        Finally, I noticed that at AN/I, User:GeorgeWilliamHerbert took unilateral action and indefinitely blocked User:Angie Y. The reason I bring this up is that this is the same "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that he used with me. Instead of politely asking me to explain my user page (which was the reason for my block), he decided to block me indefinitely and then make me appeal my case. Being that I was a user in good standing with over 2000 edits, I believe I should have been offered that consideration. By imposing the harshest penalty from the beginning, he is both making it more difficult for users (because a lot of admins don't have the backbone to overturn another admin's blocks) and, even if the block is removed, it will most likely sour the user to Wikipedia. There is much less collateral damage when you assume good faith and are wrong than when you assume bad faith and are wrong. End vent. Amusedchap (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        DUCK alert. Sock has been reported to AIV. Let's get that rangeblock set. Sprint can deal with the fallout. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Haha. I admitted to being Keegscee! No need to claim DUCK here. I just needed to vent and since I'm not banned yet and I'm not being disruptive, I thought it was okay. Amusedchap (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it wasn't disruptive, just really really stupid. You walked into the hornet's nest again (after doing so time and time before) and for what? To get blocked again? To tell us you might go to Verizon? Thanks for the clues and where to look. You get indef blocked (again), another autoblock and a potential range block....yeah, keep digging that hole for yourself. Wow, trolls are dumb. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's just so easy when you keep feeding me! Om nom nom. But seriously, you can range block the IP I'm editing from. I don't care. It's a proxy. If anything, I'm doing WP a favor so that real troublemakers can't use it. :) Amusedchap (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the IP that I am editing from. So now you know. :) I'm not trying to keep any secrets, NeutralHomer. 209.236.112.224 (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny troll is funny. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Just FYI: this is indeed his IP and I have blocked 209.236.112.0/20 as an Open Proxy as a result. -- Luk ^talk 10:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks kindly, Luk. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've taken a look and came to my own conclusion that this user is repeatedly engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry. (Checkuser is not an exclusive means of picking up socking. I don't think the imperfectly informed concerns about process wonkery, substantive issues or previous statements are helping. That said, J.delanoy seems to have resolved some of those concerns.) When an user exhausts the community's patience with this sort of behavior, it seems logical that the community deal with it per this usual route. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already know that a one-sided story doesn't work in articlespace. That's why we have WP:NPOV. I don't see why it is controversial to insist upon a similar stance in this case, or why we should make it easy for the accusers stand as the judge and jury. And it's not like I don't think we should clean house either. I'm fine with supporting bans if they're presented fairly and I think the fair process doesn't involve much more work but rather just a slightly different approach. If there's a fair process it makes it more difficult to appeal and avoids future drama. In fact, I would probably support a 1-year ban on an above voter, Neutralhomer (talk · contribs), for continued rampant edit-warring, bad faith, marking non-vandalism as vandalism, and a refusal to admit the issues (see User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#Re:_My_.22Unreasonableness.22 for further details). II | (t - c) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

II, this isn't about me, move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this sock is based on me. I've been called "Keegsie" on IRC many times, and it is known that I use Sprint Mobile Broadband. Whoever owns this account, if I know you, email me please. I'm not exactly pissed off, but this is just immature. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone share here -- in summary or detail -- what is this material J.delanoy has furnished to at least two people in this discussion? Two different people have alluded to her/his findings, & those of us who aren't "in the loop" deserve to see this information. (I'd like to add my vote as an uninvolved & hopefully objective party, but knowing that I haven't heard the entire story makes me reluctant to do so.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I did not comment on this earlier. I was not aware that this was being discussed with regard to banning someone.

Basically, here's the info:

Confirmed Orangmike (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

PHCS-NJROTC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Strumminbanjo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Keegscee2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
The thing that likes it up the but (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Those last two were actually created after I talked to Jeremy a few days ago. I went ahead and blocked the IP, and if somepne wants to block the accounts that aren't already, you can, because they are without a doubt being controlled by the same person as the others. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I must have been looking at the wrong whois before, because a rangeblock here would likely be feasible. At this point, though, it's not really necessary. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a checkuser, just filling in a blank. User:Luk, who IS a checkuser has confirmed that User:Amusedchap and the 209.236.112.0/20 range (an open proxy) are Keegscee as well. Also, they are admitted above too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy, could you confirm that, in addition to those socks being from one IP, they are also consistent with Keegscee (talk · contribs)'s IP? Keegscee says above (as Amusedchap) "I happen to know for a fact that there is absolutely NO IP link between Keegscee and the Orangemike impersonator (because I am Keegscee, obviously)". It is incongruous for him to make a stupid, highly incriminating comment as Orangmike (no content contribus) or PHCS-NJROTC (an obvious impersonation) and then to show up later to make a rational and reasonable argument while openly admitting to being Keegscee (as Amusedchap). Further, the latest SPI case was opened by an indef-blocked user. It seems plausible that someone is impersonating Keegscee to get him into trouble. The other confirmed socks have a similar trend of zooming to project space without doing any content work, which is a very stupid way to operate a sockpuppet deceptively. I should point out that Amusedchap (talk · contribs) was not a sockpuppet. The account stated upfront that it was Keegscee under a new account. WP:SOCK clearly notes that a sockpuppet is the use of a "alternate accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus". II | (t - c) 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keegscee indicated that he abuses open proxies, that is the reason for his block. Recently, he used an open proxy, and quite plausibly to avoid being reported for abuse as was being discussed as a possiblity. The contributions of a particular webhost IP[3] seems to support Keegscee's claim that he's abused open proxies (notice the one edit summary This user is just out to get me. He is out to get a lot of people. and his comment User:PCHS-NJROTC has been out to get me ever since I first politely contacted... at [4]), but as Keegscee said, checkuser could probably not prove it. However, the IP is checkuser blocked for something. Although I see your point about his alternate accounts being used to make his voice heard here, making these accounts is not the right way; there are more appropriate channels of contesting a ban (such as ban appeals through ArbCom, which was brought to his attention), and impersonating other users is never acceptable under any circumstances. I am also strongly opposed to any sort of lift on his indefinate block for reasons you will have to get from User:MGodwin or the WP:ArbCom. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't seen that open proxy abuse evidence yet - pardon me for being dense, though, but I don't see any reverting of your edits by that IP? is it related to another IP that did the reverting, and could you show it? Also, do you have any other stalkers? I think you might have missed one of my main points - Keegscee is apparently interested in defending his reputation. The creation of obvious impersonation accounts (PHCS-NJROTC and Orangmike) to do obvious trolling, at his own community ban discussion, is not consistent with his defense. It suggests that these were created by someone else to make Keegscee look bad. Some of the other confirmed sockpuppets have similar editing patterns - just too obvious to be legitimate. That's why confirmation that these accounts have Keegscee's IP would be nice. I can see a ban on the basis of evidence of abusing open proxies (a form of sockpuppetry which Keegscee basically admitted to), but these alleged and suspicious sockpuppets which zoom to Wikipediaspace are too odd without IP confirmation. II | (t - c) 05:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone creates two accounts, on the same IP address as Keegscee, but it isn't Keegscee. Plus they were checkuser confirmed. How do you explain AmusedChap where he is admits he is Keegscee (also checkuser confirmed)? One could say with your strong defense of him that you are Keegscee. Should you draw up an SPI for you as well? Cause my duck-o-meter is going nuts at the moment either than or like you said yourself, you are just dense. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

II, this isn't just about those impersonation accounts; this is about Keegscee's immaturity. For example, this DOES look like it really is Keegscee because it not only claims to be Keegscee, but it also uses Sprint Nextel, which is what checkuser once confirmed to be a service provider used by Keegscee. Furthermore, if people are going to be too stubborn to take my word for it on the email issue, then perhaps I was right in originally taking it to ArbCom, who can see that I am right on that one. One last thing: lets play a little devil's advocate. It's important, NH, that we always WP:AGF and not assume that anyone who merely takes Keegscee's side in this is a sock of Keegscee; WP:ABF can actually work against the movement here, though your input here is greatly appreciated, NH. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Keegscee and Orangmike et al. (the impersonation accounts) are using open proxies, but not the same one. However, in light of other technical evidence, they are

Confirmed, without question, as being the same person. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say technical evidence, do you really mean technical evidence such as location from Checkuser? If so, why not just say so upfront rather than leave it vague? II | (t - c) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I will not, under any circumstances, give information that is likely lead to the positive identification of a user's real-world identity against their will unless I have utterly no choice. If you do not think that my opinion on the matter is correct, you are free to ask another checkuser for their opinion. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban; persistent socking, an outright ban will clarify, hopefully with little DRAMA. As suggested by Carcharoth, I will "Keep things boringly calm and simple", and say no more. Chzz ► 05:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone thinking about opposing should have seen some of the emails he was sending, which is why his access to the email feature was revoked. Those messages were paradigms of blatant harassment. Of course, I won't be providing any copies due to privacy concerns, without an okay from the WP:ArbCom or the foundation. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally offwiki evidence is not considered onwiki; although I think it could make sense to do so, I certainly don't think vague allusions should be given much consideration - you could strike out the private parts and provide the rest. Not that it's necessary at this point. II | (t - c) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's on-wiki in a way, yet off-wiki because it's not publically viewable; he sent it through the Wikipedia email system, and the comments are directly related to Wikipedia. I'm not convinced to post the content on Wikipedia because of policy (it's not about names or anything of the like, it's just something we don't do), but if you're eager to see it, I can send you a copy privately. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The first few links have spoken. Open The Windows, sir! 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This still hasn't been closed? Just thought I'd add that it's pretty much confirmable that the accounts claiming to be Keegscee were indeed him, and Keegscee seems to have acknowledged (at his RationalWiki talkpage) that his behavior since then (his block) has probably been worthy of a ban. [5] PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support.. Clearly harassing many users.. won't be tolerated. —Tommy2010 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and sent a copy of one of those taunting emails sent by Keegscee to Tommy2010, as it contains no personal information (except my own last name and first initial). As to that conversation at RW, it's just a paradigm of Keegscee and his buddies using politics as an excuse. I was not a Conservapedian when I first saw Keegscee's behavior as dismally immature. That came about because of Keegscee. This has nothing to do with politics, but of course they'll use it as an excuse. Furthermore, they basically say it's Grawp that should be banned, and they're right on that one, as he is. But Grawp is not the only one deserving of a ban. Defacto bans could probably be generally okay for people like Grawp, Mmbabies, LBHS Cheerleader, and etc because their abuse is obvious. Keegscee is more of a sneaky character (he apparently models himself after Dexter Morgan), so a ban would be more useful in his case. Bans are not just about those "deserving" of it, but rather those where it can be useful. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my user page. —Tommy2010 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What has not been mentioned here is that the vast majority of Keegscee's edits, along with the associated socks, have been directly related to PCHS-NJROTC, and his long, long, term behavior of relentless going after people through venues such as this and WP:ABUSE. When PCHS feels offended, he has no problems going to great lengths to get back at the offender. Without PCHS, no disruption would of ever occurred. Nearly all of the "vandal" edits have been only disruptive to PCHS, not to the project. Contacting ISP's over behavior which he has instigated is utterly ridiculous. He has mentioned that he has contacted my ISP as well. As a community would should not be supporting him in actions that could have actual ramifications. If he wants to play games and others want to play with him, great, but the community should not support his actions. But I digress, this thread is not about his behavior. Before PCHS started this thread, Keegscee had not edited in quite some time. The fact that this thread was created after ONE edit by him shows that PCHS was seeking punishment for perceived wrongs against himself. Looking at Keegscee's edit history, it is easy to tell that he was a good contributor, and after a frustrating encounter with PCHS, decided to give up on Wikipedia. Beach drifter (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin for closure?

This discussion seems to have reached an end point IMHO, but we need an uninvolved admin to close. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sandstein 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal by TheDarkLordSeth

Appeal unsuccessful.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appealing user: TheDarkLordSeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Tobic ban from the subject of " Armenian Genocide" article. [6]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction: Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Tim Song (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor: [7]

Statement by TheDarkLordSeth

Please bear with me for a while and read it all.

I will start from the beginning and explain everything to be thorough. On 6th of April, I made one edit concerning two sections of the article I'm banned from. Both were mostly based on two BBC links. (1st one: [8], 2nd one: [9]) The first part of my edit was about the the notion that the accuracy and factuality of the article being a dispute due to unequivocal opinion of historians. The second part of the edit was to simply fix a what I thought to be a typo which turned out to be a deliberate act of misuse of sources(On the link it writes "Armenia says" but it's used to indicate that "Western scholars say" just because the link is from a Western source here: [10]). I wanted to show the nature of my edit to show that it's not disruptive. This edit was reverted in matter of hours with no discussion. I reverted the revert asking for involvement in the discussion page before reverting. Nonetheless the edit was reverted multiple times with no involvement in the discussion page or simply calling the edit denialist propaganda. I saw this as violation and did not think it falls under the 1RR rule imposed on the article. I stopped after 9 reverts to wait for the outcome as another member who reverted my edits 3 times appealed for sanctions against me. I got warned by PhilKnight after an hour: [11]. As a result of the appeal I and CheesyBiscuit got blocked for 31 hours due to violation of the revert rule. For some reason 4 days after the block decision I got banned from topic indefinitely: [12]. Apparently the reason was that I am showing disruptive behavior continuously even though I hardly edit.

In the meantime a completely uninvolved member who became involved in the current situation posted a discussion on the talk page concerning the possible differences between the same topic in different languages: [13]. I pointed out that due to nationality of the majority of members editing a certain language version the article may differ and that due to the English version being controlled by Armenian members the content and the POV differs from that of the versions from other languages such as Turkish one. My use of my observation concerning the nationalities of the members who are editing and reverting started from there. I got warned for it and stopped making such remarks after this: [14].

I appealed this before([15]) only to be ignored by the same admins that the discussion was already covered before. The 31 hour block was covered but the indefinite ban was not nor any explanation why I was banned. I'm gonna also ignore the fact that I was harassed by one of the deciding admins just to show AGF.

I'm not asking for a second chance. I'm asking for what's right. I was to abandon Wiki for good but the fact that there are way too factual errors spurring from nationalistic agendas of many members in Wiki and an admin change my mind to follow this issue further. Any of you can check my history and see that I rarely edit and none of them are major or disruptive. You can also see that I almost always try to engage in a discussion in the talk pages before making any edits and try to be as civil as possible. I always assume faith but as you can also read from WP:AGF that there is a limit to that. It tells you to assume good faith as long as there is no evidence contrary and that's what I've been doing from the start. I find the topic ban completely baseless and being punished twice for the same violation as absurd. You may not like my ideas or my findings but as long as I back them with impartial sources you at least have to respect them and act neutrally. I can only expect that.

Now, if you think that it's appropriate to ban me from this topic I need you to explain to me how I fit the banning policy: "If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute." [16]. To some it up, I'm being banned from a topic where I only had very few edits with the accusation of continuous disruptive behavior which was reverting a revert when I was already blocked for 31 hours for the violation of the 1RR rule.

I apologize for the long thread. I was directed here by the page descriptions for ban discussions and I was also advised to use the sanction appeal template. I also want to point out that I'm not fishing for admins but thought that I can get more admin opinions here rather than avoiding the old ones. This will be ultimately my last attempt to see this issue solved and will determine my existence in Wiki as an editor. Thank you for your time.

I would like to warn anyone who reads Marshall's comment below. You can simply check my comments on cases he's referring to and see that he's wrong about his accusations. A simple check would show you that his accusations are unfounded. I don't really need to say more about them. Thank you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marshal Bagramyan I have already warned people to simply check what you say about me as there are many discrepancies in your claims. I already mentioned the use of peoples nationality above, explaining how I stopped after being warned by an admin about it with the exception of the quote Ionidasz posted and apologized for it below. You are an editor who uses references inaccurately deliberately to support your own point of view. Even in your post below it is rather obvious that your agenda is to silence me not to have any edit that goes against your belief on that article which you have some kind of monopoly. You reverted my edit with no discussion. I may have been involved in edit warring and that my 9 reverts were a violation of Wikipedia policies but you clearly started the edit warring. I simply cannot assume any good faith about you as the Wikipedia policy states that I don't need to AGF if there are evidence to the contrary of good faith. You're in constant battle stance in that article calling anything that doesn't suit you denialist propaganda and reverting as fast as possible. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight I am referring to my edits other than the one I'm banned for. There is no contradiction in those two quotes. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear Well, I'm sorry for wanting to edit on a single topic. I haven't seen any other article with the amount of accuracies that the "Armenian Genocide" article has. The evidence is quite clear that I'm not here to battle other editors but that's all I've faced for now. If I am to be just prosecuted just because of my the points I try to bring to those articles then I expect everyone to be honest about it. I can't really take in all the insults and attacks I've faced so far. My behavior can be described as confrontational at most. I was also not aware that I was not allowed to express my opinion on an appeal about an other person. Does that only apply to me? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aregakn It's rather not logical for you to accuse me of treating Wikipedia as a battleground when you've been on a crusade to get me blocked from Wiki for good.

1) First of all your first edit is not the one in the link you just gave. It's this: [17]. You put a banner and pointed out that the talk page is not a forum discussion page to discuss the events but then continued to discuss about the events. So I asked you a genuine question if you couldn't understand what you were saying. 2) You make it rather obvious by this comment showing that you're against me just because of the points I'm bringing. Calling me a denial is an insult; one that you've been using against me at every chance and dismissing any of the points I bring to the article by calling it denialist propaganda. If the article is deliberately following a single POV while ignoring a lot of information and historian to support that POV it is indeed a propaganda tool. I don't really have any other word in a dictionary that I can use. 3) Your 3rd point is already covered in my long statement above. Even though my use of nationalities of involved members was born from my reply to a member being interested about differences in different language versions of the same article, I stopped using it completely once I was warned by PhilKnight. To me the fact that a very controversial article is being heavily edited by mostly members of a certain nationality is important but being warned by an admin was enough to not pursue such an argument. Once again, Aregakn, you're insulting me. You've clearly shown that you're after me just because of the points I'm bringing which are completely backed by impartial and reliable sources. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Aregakn You contradicted yourself in your statement and I simply pointed that out. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sardur Nowhere in Wiki it says that users have to agree with the rules. You only need to comply with and respect them. Nowhere in Wiki it says that a user may be punished for the same violation twice. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wiki"? ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize for my mistake. Wikipedia it is. :) TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you care to comment on my case though? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No apology needed, I cited that page for humour only (though I will admit it is a pet-hate of mine - Ward Cunningham being something of a hero of mine... Back on topic, not really, to be honest - I only know what I've read here. My personal view is that editors who edit in a very narrow range of topics tend to be detrimental to the project, and that it should be no great hardship being topic banned - since there's a huge amount of other stuff in Wikipedia to edit. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I get your point but when as someone researching on the subject I find myself involved in lots of discussions concerning this topic. Most of the times those people show me a passage from Wikipedia or a picture from that topic and try to use it as a proof. Then I check the section they refer to and see how sometimes references are misused or even the people in the pictures are not Turks or the source is really questionable. Moreover I hardly edit. Even on that certain article I don't even have more than roughly 10 edits(To be clear I reverted 9 times a revert as one of my edits was reverted) and all of them have been minor ones. You can simply check those edits and see that all of them were minor ones and had the purpose of making the article more accurate sometimes even just fixing how a reference is used. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sardur 9 out of that 14 edits you mention are reverts from a single case where my 5th edit was reverted. Then I reverted the revert as no reason other "denialist claim" was given. This went on 9 times. So in reality I only edited this article 5 times. The reason for adding the word "claim" to the introduction was to make the article more accurate as most Ottoman historians argue something different than the current article claims and even the BBC page for the issue has the title "Armenian Genocide dispute" as the factuality is still a major subject of dispute. So you can see that my edits were few and minor. Only the last one may be closer to "major" edit but in no way it changes the article majorly. I did not try to delete a full section or try to pull the article towards a certain POV. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sardur I'm not asking for a second chance but thorough examination and judgment of my case that I am punished for twice. I have only one edit since the ban because everything that would be more sensible for me to edit on are covered by the topic. To me If my actions can be unjustly prosecuted with no real grounds then there is no reason I can't face the same thing in other fields. My acts in no way falls under the description of when a user should be banned. My block for 31 hours is but the ban is in no way is. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sardur I and CheesyBiscuit got blocked for 31 hours for violating the 1RR rule. According to your logic, the ban is in itself is unjust. How can a Arbitration Request have two verdicts for the same violation? Who in Wikipedia get punished for the same violation twice? I was given enough explanation for the 31 hour block and it was just as it was under the Wikipedia rules but the ban is in no way under any Wikipedia rule. At first I protested against the block as I thought reverting a revert was not defined as a revert and I was unaware of certain Wikipedia rules. But, the verdict to ban me requires a certain ground. Am I continuously disruptive? This is quite impossible as I hardly edit. I have a single edit that can be labeled as controversial and even that is backed by a neutral Western source that Wikipedia especially relies on and many others. Due to this very simple fact alone there is no ground for a topic ban. If it's a case that an admin is free to issue such a punishment just because he wants to then be honest and say that then I'll be done with Wikipedia for good. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ionidasz Can you please provide the diffs of my POV editings. Every single one of my edits are all to eliminate POV. I would like to ask you to provide these diffs in detail with your arguments showing why they're POV. Unless you do that the accusation simply sticks and guilty or not I am viewed as guilty. For your reference to AGK, there is something you need to understand. On that talk page anything I say but anything is replied as denialist propaganda. My every single act is called as a POV to make the article changed into a Turkish propaganda tool and deleted or my posts on the discussion page was even threatened to be deleted. But everything. Even when I changed what the Turkish government claims happened with respect to a page from Turkish Foreign Minister website and Marshal Bagrayman was the first to respond saying that the number did not matter. He also reverted my second edit that I mentioned in my statement above which was purely an edit to fix a mistake made with the reference. The mistake is still there in the article. It says "per Western sources" when in fact the BBC article that is referenced is saying "The Armenians claim..". Though I do need to apologize for the specific post you quoted. Apparently it's the only time I mentioned peoples nationality after I was warned. I have no reason to deny or cover that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ionidasz One thing I forgot is that this is a topic ban which pretty much means that I can't edit any article about anything from Turkey, Armenia or WWI or any country or individual that is involved in this issue. That's pretty much half of the world. I am an individual who became interested in this subject and have been researching on it and collecting sources who are completely non-Turkish and non-Armenian. The reason I wanted to edit on this article is because I feel most confident about my sources concerning this article. I always use a definitive source to back up the edits if they're introducing new information. For the Turkish state claim edit concerning the issue I used Turkish Foreign Minister website. For the edit that put the claim word I used the BBC summary page concerning the issue which has a title "Armenian Genocide dispute" and the existence of equivocal voice from Ottoman(non-Turkish people who have an expertise on Ottoman history) historians. For the edit where I changed the sentence from "per Western sources" to "per Armenian sources" I looked at the reference already used for this statement which was a BBC article saying "Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ionidasz As you seem to have a strong opinion on this issue concerning me I'd like to request from you an explanation of why the ban and the block is justified and how these falls under the definition of a topic ban. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ionidasz For your statement on the me involving edit warring to be true I need to have a lot more edit on that article. The fact that I have a lot more involvement in the talk page clearly shows that I intent was to avoid edit warring. If I was really involved in edit warring I wouldn't try to discuss anything length. My very first involvement in the talk page have been responded with calls against my alleged Turkish and denialist propaganda. It was quite clear to me that certain members had already established a monopoly on that article and attack anyone who raises issues that undermine their POV. My behavior can be at most defined as sarcastic and confrontational which is a product of the apparent non neutral point of view approach of certain members. You can check my talk page to see that I've never received a warning on such an issue. Even then you can clearly see in my action to open a discussion on the talk page before making substantial edits to ensure an edit is discussed involving reliable sources and ideas. All I faced was personal agendas of certain members to not allow any idea or source that doesn't suit their personal view from the article. Nonetheless, a ban requires the punished user to involve in continuous disruptive behavior. It can be clearly seen that I never continue a type of behavior that I'm warned about with the exception of that single incident that you quoted and which I apologized above. My limited contribution is due to monopoly of certain members on the article and my previous appeal was not reevaluated. You can clearly see that reevaluation was denied to me in my previous appeal. I cannot back up from my stance that the topic ban is issued under no grounds. That stance still holds as no evidence is provided showing a disruptive editing of mine. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ionidasz My responsibility is to comply with the Wikipedia rules and be productive for the articles. If I'm prosecuted under different grounds, ones that fail to be true, accurate or relevant, there is no responsibility to feel. The very fact that I do not continue a behavior that I'm justly prosecuted or warned about is proof enough to show that what you accuse me of doing is wrong. I tried to ignore that article for some time not to be pulled into the edit warring that has been going on for years by certain members. I changed my mind after receiving many messages on how many individual inaccuracies and non-facts exist in the article. Maybe you may really don't like to discuss the issue with me due to my sarcastic and confrontational tone as I already mentioned above. That's all the responsibility I can assume. Even then I try to be completely polite and AGF but as the policy of AGF suggests I can't AGF forever when there is clear evidence to the contrary. When I fail to AGF that is clearly seen from my comments. These are same people that accuse me of insulting them when I don't and when they so freely insult me calling me a "denialist". For me to ask for a second chance I need to accept that the first verdict was true when it's clearly not. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim Song

I don't see anything here that does not duplicate what was already said in the last appeal, which already duplicated what was said in the original AE thread that led to the topic ban. I'm not convinced that the user will be a net positive if the topic ban is lifted, therefore I must decline the appeal insofar it is directed to me, and recommend the community to decline the appeal as well. Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the appeal by TheDarkLordSeth

Comment by Marshal Bagramyan

I feel compelled to voice my opposition to lifting TheDarkLordSeth's ban. It is not just the technicality of the revert war that landed TheDarkLordSeth in hot water but the entire battleground mentality that he brings with him.

For one, what he has conveniently omitted from his narrative are his comments on the Armenian Genocide talk page prior to the beginning of the edit war. A simple look through its talk page will demonstrate how he did not spare a single opportunity to sow doubt regarding the genocide's veracity and actively and aggressively tried to insert information which was not supported by any reliable sources. Judging by his comments, his interests in the Armenian Genocide-related articles stemmed from no genuine desire to improve upon the sources used or the information present, but to drive home a point of view which is not supported by an serious academics. His edits are, unfortunately, symptomatic of the Republic of Turkey's attempts to quash, obfuscate, or distort any mention of the genocide, a cursory glance through the Denial of the Armenian Genocide demonstrates this adequately.

If his ban were to be lifted, I don't think that he would be any more amenable to changing his views to reflect scholarly consensus but would be comparable to privileging a Holocaust denialist the opportunity to present the Holocaust as something which still remains in doubt. Why else did TheDarkLordSeth revert other established users 9 times in a single day? All because of the fact that he wanted the reader to distinguish Armenian scholars from Western ones? No, as demonstrated in his reverts, he went on to insert the words "claim of" in the lead paragraph to present the Armenian Genocide as nothing but an allegation. He did this 9 times over (e.g., [18], [19], [20], etc.) without so much as any even initiating a discussion on the words' insertion, however untenable they may be.

In addition to the above outlined problems, his behavior has shown little to no signs of improvement. While he has been less inclined to accuse the administrators of supporting this or that side, he still is treating Wikipedia is as a nationalistic battleground. This was best seen during a discussion on his talk page with a fellow editor to delete a POV-related article. The advice he imparted was, once again, aggressive and combative, essentially telling him to game the system, for example, "May I also advise renaming of the "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims" to "Prosecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims" ? It would show a lot of good faith by you and would make all the opposition shut up.", despite the fact that that article had a long range of problems, one which the "opposition" had no trouble in enumerating.

An even more egregious example of this combative mood was seen in his comments during an Arbitration Enforcement complaint filed against me (which was subsequently dismissed as being frivolous; see here for the full case). After an administrator named Stifle dismissed the flimsy case against me, TheDarklordSeth placed his own comments, agitating that some sort of retribution be carried out against me. Observe the wording and how he essentially accuses me of vandalism: "Stifle, I beg you to reconsider your verdict...The reason I'm posting here is not just to defend the article but to point out the non-neutral act by Marshall bordering vandalism...Marshall merged it because it was against his POV and that is vandalism..." After I commented on the rudeness of such agitation and told him that the case had already been dismissed, he stated the following and continued on with the agitation to have me banned or blocked. He was repudiated by other editors for so inserting his views in such a manner but his participation was deemed a non-violation of his topic ban.

After digesting all this information (I do not have the time to go through ever problematic remark he has made thus far), how, one thinks, can a responsible editor be asked to put up with such irresponsible editing? The warfare-like atmosphere is certainly not appropriate for the healthy discussion of how to improve an article and this mentality of negationism, opportunism, and deep-seated enmity against other ethnic groups (Armenians, Greeks, etc.) clearly illustrates how TheDarkLordSeth's promises to improve himself ring hollow. The history of his contributions on the Armenian Genocide article has been one endless crusade rant against the perfidious nature of the Armenians, Greeks and other perceived enemies of Turkey. Would Wikipedia ever indulge a Holocaust denier and accord him the right to vent his views and present them as legitimate positions in the scholarly world? I don't see any benefits in lifting his ban and I fear that were he to be allowed to edit the same articles, the troubles will once more be resurrected. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To AGK's: we have amply demonstrated the reasons for our opposition to lifting the ban and all of us have expressed misgivings to lifting it on reasons other than the nine-reverts-in-one-day debacle. My long comment above and Aregakn's below have demonstrated quite well the type of vitriolic attitude that TheDarkLordSeth brings with him: hurling out insults against editors or accusing them of being this or that nationality, just for taking a position which does not conform to his.

"I understand your attempt to smudge truth as you're an Armenian..." [21]

"... the Armenians will continue to use propaganda tools of WWI..." [22],

"I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do..." etc.

I mean, really, this is the kind of editor we want to be working with, especially on such hot button issues as the Armenian Genocide? His rabid agitation to have an administrator impose some sort of punishment against me was perhaps one of the ugliest incidents I have encountered on Wikipedia ever since I began editing here. He was multiple chances to modify his behavior and the revert war that he initiated was simply its culmination. No one here is convinced that his return will bring forth any positive contribution. To the contrary, it seems that he will revert back to his same ways and we will most probably see more disruption and more attempts by him to vilify others, obfuscate the facts and treat the genocide as any other allegation. Wikipedia needs more responsible editors, not individuals who come here with a battlefield mentality, looking for a fight to take on the perceived enemies of his country.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PhilKnight

From the appeal, I'd like to compare a couple quotes:

"I stopped after 9 reverts"
"Any of you can check my history and see that I rarely edit and none of them are major or disruptive"

Consequently, I think he should remain banned. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kansas Bear

Since his ban(Apr 10), TDLS has edited only two articles;Nuclear power in France(once) and Category talk:Christian monasteries in Turkey(once), in nearly two months. This along with his alleged accidental edit on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide(Apr 11) and his involvement in the WP:Arbitration concerning Marshall Bagramyan,[23], leads me to see this editor as a WP:SPA that suffers from battlefield mentality. This editor has shown no inclination to edit other articles or work with other editors through talk pages. Since the evidence is quite obvious, the ban should remain. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aregakn

1) For the participants not to be deluded, I'd like to note, that the pattern of behavior of TheDarkLordSeth (TDLS) in the subject frame of Articles can in no way be described civil or appropriate:

My very first edit on the talk-page of the Armenian Genocide was on March 25 2010. The very reply to this 1st edit by TDLS was already an attack [24]: "Are you incapable of understanding your own arguments?" and irrelevant comment "You talk so much for someone claiming that this place is not a forum."
Many of such personal attack-comments can be noted from the discussions (too many to be noted by diffs) "Your logic is simply flawed" [25], "You're trying to portray Turks as worst as possible by twisting reality" [26]

2) Soon it was also obvious, that he engaged in the subject articles with a strong tendency of denial:

he permanently dismissed tens of international associations of scholars specialising on History and Genocide (i.e. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, Genocide Watch etc.) with mere claims, leave alone other scholarly WP:RSs.
the article with thousands of editors involved in many years was labeled as propaganda-only from the beginning, the editors involved - pathetic, and this tendency never declined [27].

3) Attacks and comments and accusations on national, ethnic, racial, religious and other belongin were always in place:

"I understand your attempt to smudge truth as you're an Armenian..." [28],
"... the Armenians will continue to use propaganda tools of WWI..." [29],
"I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do..." etc.

To be true, I am very much surprised, that such attacks based on racial and ethnic belonging are indorsed in A way and at all. I remember clearly from Wikipedia:Personal_attacks#Blocking_for_personal_attacks that these type of attacks should lead to immediate, indefinite block. They were repeated and the requests to stop were never taken into consideration by TDLS. A topic ban, in this case, doesn't prevent the editor remaining a racist. And it has encouraged and induced others editors of such type to engage in the same topic in the same manner ~~Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Armenians_are_abusing_Wiki~~ [30].

Considering all the above and his permanent engagement in discussions of issues in his broad topic ban (I have noticed 5 and can bring diffs if requested), I'd suggest not only rejecting the appeal, but also blocking the editor indefinitely. Aregakn (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more to add but just that I said my first comment was on 25 of March and the answer was an attack.Aregakn (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sardur

The situation has been fairly explained in the preceding comments, and I won't repeat them.

I would just underlined that a comment such as "To me the fact that a very controversial article is being heavily edited by mostly members of a certain nationality is important but being warned by an admin was enough to not pursue such an argument" (my emphasis) plainly shows that, even if the argument was to be true (quod non), TheDarkLordSeth still shows no comprehension of the way WP works. Sardur (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't react on Wikilawyering. I nevertheless have to react on "You can simply check those edits and see that all of them were minor ones": that's a mischaracterization at least, as among the 14 edits on Armenian Genocide, 11 replaced "The Armenian Genocide [...] refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction [...]" by "The Armenian Genocide [...] refers to the claim of deliberate and systematic destruction [...]"; this is at minimum WP:UNDUE, and definitely not minor. Sardur (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to AGK (or any other admin reviewing this case): TheDarkLordSeth just made one contribution in main since his topic ban (for whatever reason, that's not the issue); wouldn't it be wiser to see how he can contribute before giving him a second chance and lifting his topic ban? I mean, I'm absolutely not against giving a second chance to any user, but shouldn't such a user first demonstrate by concrete collaborative contributions that he deserves it? Sardur (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to TheDarkLordSeth: "To me If my actions can be unjustly prosecuted with no real grounds": there were real grounds, see Tim Song's statement here and the comments by admins during the first request and its review.

And to AGK (or any other admin reviewing this case): according to his own words, TheDarkLordSeth is "not asking for a second chance" but "thorough examination and judgment of [his] case". His case (i.e. the 9 reverts) has been decided once and already reviewed once; do you see any new element allowing for a reversal of this reviewed topic ban? I see none, and quite the contrary. Sardur (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ionidasz

Checking his contributions, I see one major problem. First of, he is extremly POV in his edits, he came and jumped right into edit warring and incivility, rhetorics along the lines of battleground mentality. He got a topic ban restricted to subjects regarding the Armenian Genocide if I understand correctly. What he does? Right on, he request it to be lifted, there are several subjects about Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan etc. he is free to edit. So in short, is a SPA account. Nothing that wrong here, a SPA account with a battleground rhetoric..., who jumped right into edit warring, and who still wants to remain a SPA account.

The arguments he is using does not address the issues of the initial topic restriction at all, in fact, he did no significant contributions outside of the Armenian Genocide, no basis to justify the lifting of a topic ban. This means that waving the restriction means that the restriction was an administrative mistake. I have hard time believing that, when a SPA account jumps right into edit war with very controversial edits, has a battleground mentality and refuse to participate in any other things than simply adding materials which goes against the thesis of the Armenian Genocide. Wave his restriction at your own risk when you will basically saying that the administrator who imposed it did a mistake. Ionidasz (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To AGK: One example of his battle ground rhetorics: need to congratulate you as you and some other members who are clearly Armenian are trying to rewrite history here in success. [31] He made full of such statments. A SPA account, who jumps right in edit warrings and continiously makes such statments, and first thing he does is wanting to have this restriction lifted. He's lucky of nothing having been blocked as a probable sock. I was asked to be checkusered in at least 3 cirumstances for less, much much less. Ionidasz (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darklordseth, that's beside the point, check what POV means, that's not reason for topic ban alone, it's not the place to debate about content. But you have caused neadless revert wars for things such minor as this, and your edit summary here was also intriging, when no information was removed. What's more intriging is that you had by then already acquired enough of wikipedia policy about neutrality to use it to justify your edits, something which we would not readily expect from a new editor but at the same time you were engaged in disruptive editing. Also, you're asking for a reevaluating of your topic ban, not a second chance. A second chance request is done under the basis of documented change of behavior. You had no other article mainspace edit to rely on to ask for a second chance. And your topic ban was already reevaluated and declined so AGK proposal for an appeal is not really by the book. Ionidasz (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To AGK 2: Two administrators have declined a ban lift, and several users have also opposed it, what legimity a lifting can have here, I wonder. Should such a controversial topic ban lifting be decided by the Arbitration committee, the endorser does not want to lift it, and another administrator reject it. So we would obviously have a problem if you lift it by yourself. Particularly when the lifting can not be justified by the second chance, as there is no significant contribution after the endorsment on which we can rely on. The review was already rejected. Ionidasz (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To TheDarkLordSeth regarding why a ban was justified : Your topic ban can not much be justified by the 9 reverts than the language you have used in the talkpage when you have a very limited number of contributions. I have shown you one and it was found only by checking two of your contributions in the talkpage. We're not talking about one battleground statment but many... in your reply you even have gone so far as justifying it by providing a source. This is unacceptable, you would have had a long block had someone reported you for that language insteed of those 9 reverts. You also seem to be very acquainted with Wikipedia way of functionning and this already when you have very limited number of edits. You acted as a SPA account who has jumped right into massive edit warring, given your limited contribution and have use unacceptable battleground language. Besides, you are even not asking for a second chance, you are asking for a reevaluation of your case. But it was already reevaluated and rejected. In principle, you should file an arbitration request to lift your topic ban. But once they read the language you have used, they will reject it. You should contribute in uninvolved subjects then use the argument that you want a second chance. Ionidasz (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your replay to this above can be resumed in one line. I take it that you accuse the other editors, and they're to blame. Apparently then, you don't even feal your responsability. One more reason why your request should be dismissed. Ionidasz (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by TheDarkLordSeth

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Other than the single case of nine reverts, I see no other disruptive edits. If there are any, I ask that diffs of them be provided. Otherwise, I will move to extend a second chance. AGK 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After about three days of discussion, consensus among commentators (many of whom, however, appear to be involved in disputes in the topic area) is that that the ban should remain in force. At any rate, there is clearly not the "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" that would be required to lift the sanction. The appeal is thereby closed as unsuccessful. TheDarkLordSeth may still appeal the sanction to the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog of unpatrolled pages

There is a really long list of unpatrolled New Pages [32] going back to 6th May. I've been chipping away at it but it's far more than 1 person can deal with. CosmicJake (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check with Ironholds. He may be able to help - a lot. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those I checked had already been edited by an established editor besides the article creator but not marked as patrolled - possibly because the default patrol interface is so tedious to work with. decltype (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only possible to mark as patrolled within the NPP interface, however it's possible to see new pages in recent changes. Hence a lot of new pages get patrolled by RC patrollers prior to being seen by NP patrollers. If it could be marked as patrolled if someone takes the tag off, that would seem to be a good idea. Also, as you say, that interface sucks chunky goat vomit, and it is easy to accidentally not mark the page as patrolled even after patrolling it, tagging it etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tim Song/Kissle is a recently-developed tool designed for NewPage patrolling and a decent one. Consider using that if anyone is going to consider patrolling. –MuZemike 18:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm just doing it manually, primarily because tools take time to learn how to use and I'm more concerned with familiarising myself with all the guidance; cleanup tags, deletion and notability criteria etc. If I try to automate the task before I'm really confident with these I'll just end up making more mistakes than I am already. The default interface is indeed tedious to work with - I'm particularly irritated by the fact it 'forgets' that I'm New Page Patrolling (even though I went to the page from the New Pages list) if I make an edit. More often than not there's something for me to do on the page (even if it's just adding a 'stub' marker to it) CosmicJake (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're up to the 9th May now. :-) Perhaps there's a page where those who lurk around the back of the unpatrolled backlog can get together, compare notes and co-ordinate efforts? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies_affecting_deletion_outcome

I would like to request the input of the community regarding this matter. Feel free to remove this thread if it's in the wrong place. Thanks. Rohedin (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we need an RfC at this stage. Surely the starting point for discussion should be here? And I find the title of the RfC somewhat overbroad and confusing, not necessarily guaranteed to attract editors with an interest in this particular topic. Rodhull andemu 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Hello, first up I'd like to say that I enjoy using Wiki. I just find that when I want to go a news article in the 'in the news' section, i can never tell which link is the link to the article and which is a link to related stuff. Perhaps there could be a link next to every article, (e.g the bullet point that appears next to each one) that will always take you to the article itself.

For example:

"Horst Köhler (pictured) resigns as President of Germany." contains three links, one to his name, one to 'president' and one to 'germany'. It's not always clear which one will take me to the article about the president of germany resigning.

I know wiki is free to use and as I said it's a great source of info for me, this is just an idea that might make it a little easier for some people

Thanks for your time, Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.251.90 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice, I hope, that the actual display is this:

Horst Köhler resigns as President of Germany.

The bold text for each story at In The News links you to the article that has been most recently updated (or created) to deal with the issues. No story at "In The News" ever appears without at least one bold link. Is this clearer now? Bencherlite ^Talk 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC

Since Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (WP:GSCC) was created from a discussion starting on this page, it seems appropriate to mention to editors here that everyone is invited to comment on an RfC on its continuation. Two requests for arbitration are now on the WP:RFAR page related to GSCC and some arbitrators have said they are interested in seeing how the RfC goes before deciding whether to take up a case.

User 2over0 began the RfC with this "Statement of concern":

"Articles related to climate change have been one of Wikipedia's problem areas for a number of years now. Most of the disruption boils down to often heated or uncivil disagreement over the proper application of WP:WEIGHT and WP:SCIRS, though sockpuppetry and single-purpose accounts out of touch with wider Wikipedia norms play their roles. Near the end of last year, the Copenhagen Summit on climate change and the Climatic Research Unit email controversy contributed to a surge in interest in this family of articles; that furor has largely died down now. Whether the long term or the short term patterns have been more problematic is an open question, but a few days into the new year the community established Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, giving uninvolved administrators wide leeway when acting to quell disruption in this topic area, and establishing a Requests for enforcement board for discussing the same.

"Several editors in the discussion establishing this extraordinary probation opined that the community should review it after a few months had passed. It has now been about five months, and I would like to open this question for review."

Please comment there. (This seems to be the first invitation on this page to comment there, but if I'm wrong about that, please just archive this.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Centralized discussion box at the top of this page (thanks to NuclearWarfare for adding that), but more outside editors with creative solutions are very welcome. I pretty much never hang out at the Village pump, but a note to VPP or somewhere might not go amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "What links here" tool, there's a link to "Village Pump (policy)", but apparently that's just another link from the "Centralized discussion" box there. I'll now add roughly the same notice there (done [33]). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC) -- Actually, that appears to have been the wrong spot for it (it's for policy and guideline proposals only), so I moved it to "Village Pump (proposals)" [34] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed for RfM closure

Resolved

Admin needed for RfM closure. [35]

I count the votes in this RfM, the section above about "Greater Lebanon" and previous RfM from 2009 to 8 for the move with only 2 opposing. It needs to be noted that there is already an article called the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed ban or block of BenJack07

Resolved

– and there was great rejoicing. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: BenJack07 has been active on Wikipedia for almost a year now and his edits seem to be almost always disruptive in nature. He has been repeatedly warned about his behavior, but the warnings have had no effect, as he keeps making the same disruptive edits over and over, even after being warned. For example,

Has attempted to create the article Jack Summerell, a vanity page, three times, ignoring the first two warnings.

Also created Ben Summerell, which is presumably about a close relative.

Twice created the inappropriate page Hurricane Jonas, even after being warned the first time; this is presumably a reference to the Jonas Brothers.

Created an article Deadly Fart; has also vandalized the Wikipedia articles for flatulence and fart (see [36])

Created an article Belguimtown which was widely considered to also be vandalism; see the afd.

Keeps trying to add information about himself to the article on Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia and also to July 24; see [37], [38], [39], [40]; the most recent of these incidents occurred under a week ago, on May 27, 2010.

Anyway, this user has been warned many times to stop with his disruptive behavior, and he hasn't even responded to any of the warnings. I think some sort of action ought to be taken; either a ban or a block; I'll let the admins decide what the duration should be. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the duration is indefinite. A review of edit shows no inclination to contribute positively here. Rodhull andemu 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drunkest1

Resolved

This individual keeps making annoying changes to the de Havilland Mosquito article, and is refusing to reply to requests to stop. A warning tellin him this kind of thing is disruptive would be good. He's made four [41] disruptive reverts. Dapi89 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on the editor's talk page asking them to discuss their changes. I don't see how this behavior is disruptive though. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD patrol: Admin heads up

Resolved

Somebody has been creating tons of User and User Talk pages with G11 spam for the last couple of days (early June 2010). The names seem genuine enough and the text is advertising copied from the web. The rash of newly created spam content and the amount it is coming in at, suggest a concerted attack. I have been deleting as G11 and the patrollers have been busy tagging. Don't know what can be done besides deleting the pages and hoping the vandal(s) get bored and stop. Admin look at CAT:CSD#Pages_in_category is requested to try to stem the flow. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, only the tagging by User:Mean as custard seems to be recent by someone sifting through pages that date back even to 2009, so thankless (and therefore thanks to both of you) but not an emergency.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I had not payed due attention to dates. I see now. Phew! Thanks for the heads up! -- Alexf^(talk) 12:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive template replacements

Discussion moved from WP:ANI, as this is the more proper place for a community ban discussion, which this has now become. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

174.3.121.27 (talk) has nominated Template:Blockquote for deletion but has not awaited a consensus for deletion before embarking on a campaign to replace it everywhere.

The most obvious consequence of the replacement is that footnote markers (the figures marking and linking citations) following the blockquote are being displaced a line, indented and preceded by an empty underscore (example). (I have checked this on both Firefox and IE.) The user is claiming that "the reference is supposed to placed in that area", and apparently thinks that the footnote has to be on a line of its own, rather than immediately after the quote, to "cite the whole quote, not just a word or sentence". I would think that the indentation of a blockquote as a whole pretty much makes it obvious that it all comes from the same source. Quotation marks play the same role for shorter quotes. These are generally accepted conventions understood by all educated (and probably most uneducated) readers, and there is no need to reinvent a new and inferior wheel.

174.3.121.27 seems to be following his/her own rather idiosyncratic views of how citations should look and seems determined to create a de facto situation before anyone else has had the chance to interfer. --Hegvald (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a final warning; he carried on, at high speed, so he needs a block now. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by User:Ale jrb for 24h. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but its more than past time. Said IP is highly likely to be yet another IP sock of 100110100 (talk · contribs), who was given free reign to continue socking despite his real account being indef blocked. He's pulled this with multiple other templates, including {{Otheruses4}} which he stripped from hundreds of articles then tried to have deleted. In those cases, he mostly got support and encouragement, despite it being well known he was a banned user violating his ban, so it is not unsurprising that he keeps right on doing it. He's already been here multiple times, with adminis generally deciding "eh, he isn't doing anything too bad". I gave another editor wondering about him a good summary in my talk[42]. Perhaps now folks might consider actually dealing with this on a more long term basis. He's gotten 24 hour blocks before on some of his previous IPs. They didn't do anymore than this one will, and 10 to 2-, he'll be back within days, if not hours, on yet another IP because its been made clear that, in his case, banned does not mean banned.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, yes. This one is a piece of work. This is not the first campaign of dubious cleanup he's embarked on - the Talk page of his prior IP, here, is instructive on that score. This problem has been begging for a solution. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this user - esp. the 174.3.123.220 variety - should be blocked for a long time. He's had AGF+many chances, even after prior blocks. He's taken up far too much time from all of us, admins. included.

Incivility, taciturn - yet time to discuss shopping, jumping around WP reference sites - to troll, does just enough replies & ESs to deflect accusations of not compromising, very chequered history (so is tech-savvy), anon. IP despite > 4,000 edits in 6 weeks, made 18 edits of templates, trivial edits - to irritate rather than improve, just out to push the boundaries, for devilment?

No sense of Consensus or what Collaboration means. Loose cannon? No user page. Asked many times to provide ESs. He just has an axe to grind.

Surely we've all had enough? This user's block (& range?) needs extending - he's not for turning. Trafford09 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Ok. We have an indef blocked user that is continuing to disruptively sock/edit via IPs. Sounds like the next step is to upgrade the indefinite block to an official site-ban. That'll make it much easier to do the official steps needed for dealing with the shifting IPs, revert on sight, etc.. So, are we ready to turn this into an actual ban discussion? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official site-ban? Absolutely. Trafford09 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly support, of course. He was indef banned initially for a wide range of issues, including wikhounding and what seems to have been the final straw (death threats), and he has basically skirted the ban ever since and continued with the same sorts of issues, including continued wikihounding myself, and I believe several others, through his various IPs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of history here and it might be helpful to understand it at least in its broad strokes so that the discussion here is at less risk of being sidetracked by old issues that could be thrown in like chum. Anma's Talk page discussion, to which she previously linked (here it is again), is a good place to get started. JohnInDC (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:100110100 - Community ban proposal

Looking through the various links provided above, we have a long term indef-blocked user, who appears to have, at no point, shown any intention of respecting the block. They have continued to edit, often disruptively, despite the blocks. Even a well meant mentoring attempt earlier this year failed to turn this user into an asset to the project. So I would like to propose that User:100110100, whatever account or IP he may decide to edit under, be officially declared community-banned. This will make it much easier administratively to block his varied IPs, and to revert on sight his edits. It will also send a clear message, once and for all, that he is no longer welcome on the project.

Support - as the one proposing this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - editor is disruptive and doesn't seem to understand this. Can we do an IP range block? Yworo (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that a community ban is an administrative measure, not a technical one. The feasibility of a rangeblock is really an independent issue, depending on the size of the range he uses and the likelihood of collateral damage. A ban would make it easier administratively to apply such blocks, but the technical feasibility of a range block is really a totally separate issue. We have banned users who have such wide ranges of IPs available to them that range blocks are totally out of the question. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Given the IPs I've seen, it might be doable, but I understand it's a technical issue separate from the administrative issue. Yworo (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as one he has wikihounded with his various IPs - also suggest a check user to find and tag all IPs he's hit under (if possible) and if a range block is also possible -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda pointless. Checkuser is the ability to see the IPs behind an account. In this case, there's no real indication that he is using accounts to sock, just IPs. So we can already see all the information that a checkuser is able to return. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to change IPs every few weeks, and I suspect many have been missed between the ones noted here. If what we have here is enough to evaluate a possible range block, as part of the ban (as he has made it clear he will not obey any block/ban on him from the current history), that's fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This user has made some sound edits, but he leaves a path of confusion and hard feelings in his wake through his inexplicable and idiosyncratic personal editoral campaigns combined with a determined refusal to engage in useful dialogue. He is persistent and unrepentant and it is asking too much of other editors to follow him around to make sure he doesn't break things. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The user is disruptive, time-consuming for all concerned, unresponsive - ploughing a lone furrow wearing earmuffs. I think that one of his user pages (the only one I've found that shows any views he has or standards he holds dear) sums up the character best here, along with the cryptic user no. (not name) that he used. I'm at a loss to tell the percentage mix of his behavioural causes. They seem to be some combination of cleverness, technical & Wikipedia know-how, obstinacy, insensitivity, boredom, vindictiveness & mischief. He either can't, or - I'm afraid - won't, control his behaviour, let alone discuss it. He has too much time on his hands & a personality disorder, for which Wikipedia somehow serves as an outlet - his problem & sadly ours too. Enough's enough. My other concern would be wp:Deny recognition. Trafford09 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. his repeated crusades against completely harmless things only really have two rational explanations: (1) he has no concept of what's important, or (2) he's trolling. In either case he's persistently demonstrated that he's unwilling to change despite the fact that his behaviour is unambiguously disruptive and causes widespread bad feeling. Hence, Wikipedia is better off without his contributions. ~ mazca ^talk 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's apparently a timesink; I'd say: 'good riddance'. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards